Throughout the Nintendo Switch's life, we've seen modchips and softmods aplenty. What has been missing in the Switch hacking scene, though, is a flashcart; and if rumors are to be believed, one might be coming soon. A user by the name of After Time X shared on Twitter that they have exclusive information regarding testing of a flashcart that will work on all models and revisions of the Nintendo Switch. A video of "proof" was shown, of someone cycling through rom backups, and loading the games to play on their Switch OLED unit. According to the rumor, these flashcarts will begin shipping as early as next month.

Source
Discussion thread

 

[SylverReZ]

Thank you so much @SylverReZ

You're welcome, just ran into that when searching.

 

[fst312]

You're welcome, just ran into that when searching.

The price there is too high and I can’t believe the amount that supposedly sold. Whoever bought this basically paid the price to the flash cart and possibly switch dumper but without the switch dumper. But as you said it’s not a trusted seller, hopefully they get the cart I guess and not just a mig box.

 

[Draxzelex]

What you are doing is claiming that there is no impact because you don't know how to measure it. The variable exists and has interaction with functional parts of the market. The "validity" is a risk issue that would be assessed by Nintendo to determine how to act.

I do know how to measure it. Its called statistical analysis and its very simple to do. You take the data from before your variable was introduced and compare it to after the variable was introduce then measure the difference. In this case, you would look at secondhand market sales before SX OS was released then you take the same data sometime after SX OX was released. This isn't rocket science. All I'm saying is the onus of proof lies on you to backup the claim that it had an impact.

I didn't say legal actions need complaints to be kickstarted. I asked if you thought the joy-con switch lawsuit would have happened without the existence of complaints. Do you think it was just a "random chance" that the lawsuit happened to coincide?

That wasn't my point. Claiming "complaints" alone is a dangerous statement to make because they simply do not. The lawsuit is what ultimately led to a change, not the complaints by themselves.

Lol. The quotes came directly from this thread about Mig switch, in our interactions, in the contextual discussion on how Nintendo can/might/should handle Mig switch. It is the entire pretense of this conversation.

That is a false assumption to make. Banning certificates will not hinder usage of the Mig Switch. It will only reduce the incidence of people dumping games and reselling them on the secondhand market. Furthermore, banning certificates or even consoles do not address the inherent problem which is Mig Switch itself. Outside of Nintendo ceasing the distribution or production of Mig Switch, Nintendo cannot stop it.

to try foolish or dangerous experiments (with).

Fine, it is a foolish experiment. What if you get caught? What if the copy isn't perfect? What if you're successful and set a new precedent for copying?

Please answer this, so I understand you very clearly:

Do you believe that copying a game without causing any modification to the source is tampering? Yes or no.

I do not have to answer that because as you've failed to understand numerous times, I do not state my opinions. But considering that you cannot comprehend this due to your illiteracy, I don't even think you'll understand the difference between a yes or no. Instead I point you to my original post where I said Nintendo deems this as tampering, not me.

If Nintendo sees evidence that the games have been tampered, then its within their authority to step in just like they would a console no matter whose hands its in.

I can, and I do.

You cannot because you haven't. By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Clown-face.

Keep winning discussions, lol.

I will, lol especially when you have to backtrack on your false pretense of being bored because I exposed it to having fun. You make this too easy.

 

[tabzer]

I do know how to measure it. Its called statistical analysis and its very simple to do. You take the data from before your variable was introduced and compare it to after the variable was introduce then measure the difference. In this case, you would look at secondhand market sales before SX OS was released then you take the same data sometime after SX OX was released. This isn't rocket science. All I'm saying is the onus of proof lies on you to backup the claim that it had an impact.

You are now suggesting that correlation implies causation, which is the opposite of what you were arguing before.

The fact that we are talking about it is enough proof that it is impacting. I can tell you, for a fact, that I will not buy super smash bros. used, because of this. It might not be "significant" but it's enough proof of impact, even if it's $30 that is not in Nintendo's pocket. That might translate to a %0.00000001 decline in the second-hand hardware valuation, impacting Nintendo's stock at %0.000000001 as a result. Whether they gain %50 from the other side of things doesn't change the fact.

That wasn't my point. Claiming "complaints" alone is a dangerous statement to make because they simply do not. The lawsuit is what ultimately led to a change, not the complaints by themselves.

Maybe not your point, but it was mine.

I'm interested in both cause and effect. Complaints don't exist in vacuum, and their effects on the market (or in this situation, instigating a lawsuit that forces a change) are not direct. The fact that they aren't direct makes it hard for statistical analysis to account for everything. As a result, risk analysis is what companies do in response.

That is a false assumption to make. Banning certificates will not hinder usage of the Mig Switch. It will only reduce the incidence of people dumping games and reselling them on the secondhand market. Furthermore, banning certificates or even consoles do not address the inherent problem which is Mig Switch itself. Outside of Nintendo ceasing the distribution or production of Mig Switch, Nintendo cannot stop it.

It will hinder the usage of Mig switch to facilitate playing pirated games online, which directly translates to hindrance on the usage of Mig switch. Nintendo will probably try to invest in legal remedy, but I assume it will fail as the Chinese clones take over.

Fine, it is a foolish experiment. What if you get caught? What if the copy isn't perfect? What if you're successful and set a new precedent for copying?

If the copy is tampered, Nintendo should ban the copy and not the original, imo.

I do not have to answer that because as you've failed to understand numerous times, I do not state my opinions. But considering that you cannot comprehend this due to your illiteracy, I don't even think you'll understand the difference between a yes or no. Instead I point you to my original post where I said Nintendo deems this as tampering, not me.

Obviously you do not have to answer. I am asking you to because I want to understand, not because I want to "win a discussion". I am aiming for consensus, and you have been on guard ever since I challenged your authority. I don't think Nintendo has been successful in deeming it as tampering. Copyright infringement, maybe? They don't need a reason for their banning behavior if they aren't legally challenged on it.

You cannot because you haven't. By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Clown-face.

Yeah, you think you are more important than me, but you are still seeking my submission. I don't need your permission to deny your claims.

I will, lol especially when you have to backtrack on your false pretense of being bored because I exposed it to having fun. You make this too easy.

Have fun and stay safe.

 

[Draxzelex]

You are now suggesting that correlation implies causation, which is the opposite of what you were arguing before.

No, you claimed that banning certificates had an "impact" on the secondhand market and I didn't agree to that because you did not provide objective proof of such "impact". If it truly had a measurable impact, that was merely not due to random chance, then a statistical analysis of secondhand market sales data before and after SX OS would show that. If you want to minimize the influence of other variables, you can limit the scope to say maybe one month after SX OS came out since that's when bans started being encountered.

Maybe not your point, but it was mine.

I'm interested in both cause and effect. Complaints don't exist in vacuum, and their effects on the market (or in this situation, instigating a lawsuit that forces a change) are not direct. The fact that they aren't direct makes it hard for statistical analysis to account for everything. As a result, risk analysis is what companies do in response.

Guess Nintendo isn't a company because they didn't listen to the complaints until a lawsuit landed on their legs.

It will hinder the usage of Mig switch to facilitate playing pirated games online, which directly translates to hindrance on the usage of Mig switch. Nintendo will probably try to invest in legal remedy, but I assume it will fail as the Chinese clones take over.

That is assuming you're a naughty pirate. If you're a moral pirate, you probably won't face any repercussions assuming Nintendo cannot detect Mig Switch.

If the copy is tampered, Nintendo should ban the copy and not the original, imo.

Unfortunately for you, that is impossible when the copy and original have the same certificate.

Obviously you do not have to answer. I am asking you to because I want to understand, not because I want to "win a discussion". I am aiming for consensus, and you have been on guard ever since I challenged your authority. I don't think Nintendo has been successful in deeming it as tampering. Copyright infringement, maybe? They don't need a reason for their banning behavior if they aren't legally challenged on it.

Then allow to me to be crystal clear here: I personally believe that my opinion is irrelevant. Whatever I think or say has no bearing what Nintendo has done. The "authority" you so speak of is information that is readily available on the Internet established through real life occurrences and objective data. If you personally believe that Nintendo is not successful in deeming it as tampering, then go ahead and legally challenge them. It would appear that some people share the same sentiment, especially when it comes to games that need additional data to be downloaded prior to playing. However that is not my prerogative because I truly could not care less.

Yeah, you think you are more important than me, but you are still seeking my submission. I don't need your permission to deny your claims.

And as an extension of my lack of care for my personal opinion, I don't care about your opinion either. What I actually care about is other people reading this and believing they can get away scot-free for playing online games that they resell because Nintendo should show more concern for the secondhand market. That is what I truly care about, not what you say because as I said earlier, my brain checked out when you turned this into a hypothetical discussion.

 

[tabzer]

No, you claimed that banning certificates had an "impact" on the secondhand market and I didn't agree to that because you did not provide objective proof of such "impact". If it truly had a measurable impact, that was merely not due to random chance, then a statistical analysis of secondhand market sales data before and after SX OS would show that. If you want to minimize the influence of other variables, you can limit the scope to say maybe one month after SX OS came out since that's when bans started being encountered.

I don't need to measure the impact to prove that it exists and influences discussion, and by extension, behavior regarding the market. I already know that it influenced me, and that's proof enough.

You aren't a computer. You are capable of understanding what I am talking about.

Guess Nintendo isn't a company because they didn't listen to the complaints until a lawsuit landed on their legs.

They listened. They just understood that enduring the lawsuit was better for the bottom line.

That is assuming you're a naughty pirate. If you're a moral pirate, you probably won't face any repercussions assuming Nintendo cannot detect Mig Switch.

Whatever. You are obviously upset.

Unfortunately for you, that is impossible when the copy and original have the same certificate.

Impossible you say. Lol. Fact?

Then allow to me to be crystal clear here: I personally believe that my opinion is irrelevant. Whatever I think or say has no bearing what Nintendo has done. The "authority" you so speak of is information that is readily available on the Internet established through real life occurrences and objective data. If you personally believe that Nintendo is not successful in deeming it as tampering, then go ahead and legally challenge them. It would appear that some people share the same sentiment, especially when it comes to games that need additional data to be downloaded prior to playing. However that is not my prerogative because I truly could not care less.

There is no legal establishment in copying games as form of tampering. It is copyright infringement. The law is clear about that.

And as an extension of my lack of care for my personal opinion, I don't care about your opinion either. What I actually care about is other people reading this and believing they can get away scot-free for playing online games that they resell because Nintendo should show more concern for the secondhand market. That is what I truly care about, not what you say because as I said earlier, my brain checked out when you turned this into a hypothetical discussion.

So. You care about my opinion because you are worried how it might influence others. The discussion about the future was always hypothetical. Don't have an aneurysm.

I am, however, glad that you are now sharing my interest that Nintendo should show more concern for the secondhand market.

 

[Draxzelex]

I don't need to measure the impact to prove that it exists and influences discussion, and by extension, behavior regarding the market. I already know that it influenced me, and that's proof enough.

You aren't a computer. You are capable of understanding what I am talking about.

That just translates into you lacking proof that it had an "impact" meaning none of what is say is actually meaningful therefore my statement that banning game certificates doesn't impact the secondhand market. Thank you for finally agreeing with that point.

They listened. They just understood that enduring the lawsuit was better for the bottom line.

That weren't listening to the complaints, they were listening to a lawsuit. They conducted no action while the complaints were ongoing. They only conducted an action once the lawsuit was introduced.

Whatever. You are obviously upset.

Me? I personally couldn't care less if you're a moral or naughty pirate. Being banned doesn't reduce usage of a device that can function without online services; you just can't have your cake and eat it too is all. So I once again thank you for conceding that banning game certificates doesn't impact Mig Switch usage.

Impossible you say. Lol. Fact?

Yes, it is a fact. You either dump the game with the certificate intact which will get you banned if you go online at the same time another person using the same certificate does. Or you dump it without the certificate which would get you banned if you go online because you don't have a certificate. In either scenario, the cartridge was tampered with via methods not authorized by Nintendo which leads to a ban.

So. You care about my opinion because you are worried how it might influence others. The discussion about the future was always hypothetical. Don't have an aneurysm.

No I care that you bother to reply at all because this is a thread that I've been following before you butted in and I do not wish for others to get the wrong idea when reading your fantasies.

I am, however, glad that you are now sharing my interest that Nintendo should show more concern for the secondhand market.

What? You definitely did not read that right. If you dump a game, resell it, then go online with said dump, you should not be shocked if you get banned. Nintendo has done this before so any concern they have for the secondhand market is not on their radar. All I'm saying is this should be the extent of the damage. I wouldn't, and I'm sure neither would Nintendo, advocate for banning both consoles for this.

By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Clown-face.

 

[SylverReZ]

That just translates into you lacking proof that it had an "impact" meaning none of what is say is actually meaningful therefore my statement that banning game certificates doesn't impact the secondhand market. Thank you for finally agreeing with that point.

A ban on game certificates can impact not just the consumer who bought your game after you sold it, but also you who had previously owned it. When you go online, Nintendo can easily identify which said persons owned the copy and could just outright ban both consoles. Which in terms is very dangerous if you don't know on what exactly you're doing.

Me? I personally couldn't care less if you're a moral or naughty pirate. Being banned doesn't reduce usage of a device that can function without online services; you just can't have your cake and eat it too is all. So I once again thank you for conceding that banning game certificates doesn't impact Mig Switch usage.

I don't care if you pirate your games or enjoy owning physical copies. It doesn't matter, as long as you don't go online with a pirated ROM file then you're good. Do whatever you heck you want with your Switch.

What? You definitely did not read that right. If you dump a game, resell it, then go online with said dump, you should not be shocked if you get banned. Nintendo has done this before so any concern they have for the secondhand market is not on their radar. All I'm saying is this should be the extent of the damage. I wouldn't, and I'm sure neither would Nintendo, advocate for banning both consoles for this.

(read first above)

By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Clown-face.

How about maybe you both apologize in advance? A well put together one for the most part. Most of this thread merely consists of you two arguing and just straight up scattering the thread with your nonsense, not letting anybody else talk or speak. The 'Ignore' button also exists for a reason too, haven't you forgotten about its existence?

 

[tabzer]

banning game certificates doesn't impact the secondhand market

False. It'd be correct to say that banning certs hasn't had an obvious impact.

That weren't listening to the complaints, they were listening to a lawsuit.

They listened to both. Before the lawsuit, people called and interacted with their support departments, revisions were being made in the hardware, and joy-cons were replaced. The lawsuit forced them to take more a lot more responsibility, but it didn't mean Nintendo did nothing before.

In either scenario, the cartridge was tampered with via methods not authorized by Nintendo which leads to a ban.

Do you believe that copying a game without causing any modification to the source is tampering the cartridge? Yes or no. The correct answer is no, but you seem to believe "yes". Unauthorized duplication is a copyright infringement matter. Tampering is unauthorized alteration. CFW could be argued to be tampering, and that tampering allows for copy-protection to be circumvented.

What I actually care about is other people reading this and believing they can get away scot-free for playing online games that they resell because Nintendo should show more concern for the secondhand market.

Sorry, you are right that I didn't read your intended meaning. You should understand that I never said that people should take risks and pirate games. It doesn't make sense to me that you think I am suggesting people can get away with it "scot-free". In the very first hypothetical scenario, which prompted this conversation, I was very clear about console bans and arrests. Mentally checking out isn't doing us any favors. I see a bipolar control freak who has no interest in understanding what is being said.

 

[impeeza]

 

[tabzer]

View attachment 415559

View attachment 415560

Shut up and eat your damn ice cream!

 

[Draxzelex]

A ban on game certificates can impact not just the consumer who bought your game after you sold it, but also you who had previously owned it. When you go online, Nintendo can easily identify which said persons owned the copy and could just outright ban both consoles. Which in terms is very dangerous if you don't know on what exactly you're doing.

I never advocated, nor would I ever advocate, for banning a person's console just because they bought a tampered secondhand game. Personally, I feel that is unfair because their console was not involved in that transaction nor was it directly compromised. And as far as I'm aware, this never happened with SX OS when game certificates were being banned so I have no reason to believe this will change with SX OS.

The 'Ignore' button also exists for a reason too, haven't you forgotten about its existence?

Of course I haven't. But if I ignore him, I risk him spreading more misinformation that I can miss which I dislike.

False. It'd be correct to say that banning certs hasn't had an obvious impact.

False. It'd be incorrect to say that banning certs has had an obvious impact because you have failed to show one.

Do you believe that copying a game without causing any modification to the source is tampering the cartridge? Yes or no. The correct answer is no, but you seem to believe "yes". Unauthorized duplication is a copyright infringement matter. Tampering is unauthorized alteration. CFW could be argued to be tampering, and that tampering allows for copy-protection to be circumvented.

Believe whatever helps you sleep better at night. My answer doesn't change or dictate what Nintendo does or its morality so I there is no need for me to share it. If you think otherwise, then challenge Nintendo legally.

Sorry, you are right that I didn't read your intended meaning. You should understand that I never said that people should take risks and pirate games. It doesn't make sense to me that you think I am suggesting people can get away with it "scot-free". In the very first hypothetical scenario, which prompted this conversation, I was very clear about console bans and arrests. Mentally checking out isn't doing us any favors. I see a bipolar control freak who has no interest in understanding what is being said.

You know, I was this close to accepting your apology and offering mine but as the real bipolar control freak who has been shown to lack any literacy in what is being said, you had to tack on that last sentence. You should understand that I was never interested in a hypothetical discussion. I simply reminded the class of the fact that Nintendo has already issued bans back when SX OS, a product that practically does the same thing as the Mig Switch. You brought this upon yourself so you are responsible for ending it.

By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Bipolar Clown-face.

 

[tabzer]

False. It'd be incorrect to say that banning certs has had an obvious impact because you have failed to show one.

Reread what you responded to. I never suggested that.

Believe whatever helps you sleep better at night. My answer doesn't change or dictate what Nintendo does or its morality so I there is no need for me to share it. If you think otherwise, then challenge Nintendo legally.

What? You are the only one calling it "tampering". Nintendo isn't calling it tampering. I suppose it could be argued that using an unauthorized device is a form of tampering the intended operation of the switch, but the original cartridge is not tampered with. I don't see a problem agreeing with the legal and social understanding of the word. Suggesting that Nintendo is is changing the definition of the word is misinformation.

You should understand that I was never interested in a hypothetical discussion.

What do you think we were discussing? This is a thread about the anticipated and elusive Mig. It's literally the topic. Applying what has happened in the past to the future is predictive and speculative by definition; you demonstrate interest in hypothetical discussion with your participation.

 

[Draxzelex]

What? You are the only one calling it "tampering". Nintendo isn't calling it tampering. I suppose it could be argued that using an unauthorized device is a form of tampering the intended operation of the switch, but the original cartridge is not tampered with. I don't see a problem agreeing with the legal and social understanding of the word. Suggesting that Nintendo is is changing the definition of the word is misinformation.

I have not seen Nintendo call it anything. Nintendo typically doesn't explain in specific detail why a ban occurs unless you really push customer service. If you have evidence of Nintendo calling it otherwise, I'm all ears.

What do you think we were discussing? This is a thread about the anticipated and elusive Mig. It's literally the topic. Applying what has happened in the past to the future is predictive and speculative by definition; you demonstrate interest in hypothetical discussion with your participation.

Have you heard the phrase "History repeats itself"? That's because if people don't learn from their past actions, then the same consequences are doomed to happen. When a tool that can launch .XCI files rears its ugly head again, you would be a fool not to draw comparisons. The only speculation is whether or not Nintendo can detect Mig Switch which has not been made apparent yet and can determine whether consoles can get banned or not. This I'm not interested in speculating because we do not have enough information to draw any conclusions. So as I stated earlier, I don't care for the hypothetical situation, which is why I moved away from it. I only care that you keep replying.

No I care that you bother to reply at all because this is a thread that I've been following before you butted in

By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Bipolar Clown-face.

 

[tabzer]

I have not seen Nintendo call it anything. Nintendo typically doesn't explain in specific detail why a ban occurs unless you really push customer service. If you have evidence of Nintendo calling it otherwise, I'm all ears.

So the question is why you are rationalizing their bans being legitimate on the claim of "tampering".

Have you heard the phrase "History repeats itself"? That's because if people don't learn from their past actions, then the same consequences are doomed to happen. When a tool that can launch .XCI files rears its ugly head again, you would be a fool not to draw comparisons. The only speculation is whether or not Nintendo can detect Mig Switch which has not been made apparent yet and can determine whether consoles can get banned or not. This I'm not interested in speculating because we do not have enough information to draw any conclusions. So as I stated earlier, I don't care for the hypothetical situation, which is why I moved away from it. I only care that you keep replying.

You aren't going to shut me up by replying to me. It is also a speculation to suggest that Nintendo will deal with Mig by banning certs. Mig, not being a CFW, makes it more difficult, more indefensible, for Nintendo to see duplicate certs as evidence of tampering, where with the SXOS era, it was. I largely agree with your observations, but I also disagree with your application.

By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Bipolar Clown-face.

I don't owe you anything. I can shit all over you if I'd like. Nobody is forcing you to be here to submit yourself to it. The conversation stopped being civil the moment you "checked out" in effort to shut me up.

Why did you ignore this:

Reread what you responded to. I never suggested that.

Do you care not to admit that you do not only speak facts? Are you afraid of "losing the discussion"?

There is nothing to win, here.

 

[Draxzelex]

So the question is why you are rationalizing their bans being legitimate on the claim of "tampering".

Because Nintendo are the ones who determine what gets banned or not based on their criteria since they crafted their own Terms of Service that we all agree to. You can dislike Nintendo's actions but you cannot disagree with the consequences of an agreement you signed up for.

You aren't going to shut me up by replying to me. It is also a speculation to suggest that Nintendo will deal with Mig by banning certs. Mig, not being a CFW, makes it more difficult, more indefensible, for Nintendo to see duplicate certs as evidence of tampering, where with the SXOS era, it was. I largely agree with your observations, but I also disagree with your application.

As I've previously explained, apart from getting rid of Mig Switch, banning certificates is the only feasible scenario. There is no way for there to be instances of duplicate certificates without the use of Mig Switch. Therefore any game caught like that will be seen as tampered by Nintendo and banned. If Nintendo bans the game consoles associated with that game, you will harm owners who only bought secondhand without addressing the real issue which is the duplicated game. If Nintendo bans the account, you can just make a new one at no cost. If Nintendo does nothing, this creates the pretense that people can simply get away with using Mig Switch however they please which Nintendo definitely would not appreciate.

Oh and I know you will stop replying eventually. Unlike you, I can keep this up for days, weeks, months, years, even decades, heck long after Mig Switch is irrelevant. Time is on my side since I am younger.

I don't owe you anything. I can shit all over you if I'd like. Nobody is forcing you to be here to submit yourself to it. The conversation stopped being civil the moment you "checked out" in effort to shut me up.

Yes you do because you agreed to write me an apology letter for your false claims. By the way, you still owe me that formally written apology letter, Mr. Clown-face. Also its cute you think the conversation stopped being civil when I "checked out". No, it wasn't civil anymore when you devolved to name calling and insults.

Why did you ignore this:



Do you care not to admit that you do not only speak facts?

No because I would be lying if I admit that I do not only speak facts. Facts are only deemed as such because they are proven to be true or rather have yet to be proven to be false. Therefore factual discussions involve the exchange of information to codify which facts are legitimate. But it seems like a certain someone else just wants my validation instead.

Are you afraid of "losing the discussion"?

There is nothing to win, here.

As I've previously explained, I care about the audience reading this. I do not wish for any of them to get the wrong idea about anything you suggested. Its not about "winning" or "losing".

 

[tabzer]

Because Nintendo are the ones who determine what gets banned or not based on their criteria since they crafted their own Terms of Service that we all agree to. You can dislike Nintendo's actions but you cannot disagree with the consequences of an agreement you signed up for.

That's not the argument.

The question is why you use the word "tampering" to a describe a cartridge that hasn't been altered when there is no evidence that they do.

As I've previously explained, apart from getting rid of Mig Switch, banning certificates is the only feasible scenario. There is no way for there to be instances of duplicate certificates without the use of Mig Switch. Therefore any game caught like that will be seen as tampered by Nintendo and banned. If Nintendo bans the game consoles associated with that game, you will harm owners who only bought secondhand without addressing the real issue which is the duplicated game. If Nintendo bans the account, you can just make a new one at no cost. If Nintendo does nothing, this creates the pretense that people can simply get away with using Mig Switch however they please which Nintendo definitely would not appreciate.

Oh and I know you will stop replying eventually. Unlike you, I can keep this up for days, weeks, months, years, even decades, heck long after Mig Switch is irrelevant. Time is on my side since I am younger.

I offered a feasible scenario where people ripping certs can get caught and legally penalized, discouraging the act. It is an assumption that "any game caught like that will be seen as tampered by Nintendo and banned" and not backed by anything other than your own opinion/interpretation.

As we see what actually happens with Mig vs your hypothetical, this conversation will become irrelevant.

Yes you do because you agreed to write me an apology letter for your false claims.

Interesting claim. Maybe you are just being illiterate.

No because I would be lying if I admit that I do not only speak facts. Facts are only deemed as such because they are proven to be true or rather have yet to be proven to be false. Therefore factual discussions involve the exchange of information to codify which facts are legitimate. But it seems like a certain someone else just wants my validation instead.

You are not capable of following a conversation and are talking out of your ass.

You: banning game certificates doesn't impact the secondhand market
Me: False. It'd be correct to say that banning certs hasn't had an obvious impact.
You: False. It'd be incorrect to say that banning certs has had an obvious impact because you have failed to show one.

 

[impeeza]

I will love to have a TempCast (GBA Temp Podcast) with @Draxzelex & @tabzer about this topic

 

[SylverReZ]

I will love to have a TempCast (GBA Temp Podcast) with @Draxzelex & @tabzer about this topic

Waiting for the SylverReZ TempCast.

 

[chrisrlink]

fact is 100% banning a cert and not the the console also is the safer method for N doing both could expose them to a lawsuit (Renting games is still legal elsewhere but Japan and some people dump rented games as a way to minimize the risk of getting nailed by a DMCA infraction via downloading a rom (as some ISP's are rumored to detect illegal downloads by any means not just torrents anymore)