Yes. It is proof of existence. Your feelings about it wasn't the point. Regardless of your feelings, it is something that has an impact. "Influencers" are not called that for no reason.
Complaints
are feelings though. And feelings aren't always rooted in rational thought processes therefore creating contradictory complaints. What one person sees as a negative another person can easily see as a benefit.
Even if we hypothetically assume there was an impact, statistical significance is what actually matters here. Every action has an impact on something but to conclude that one specific action leads to another, and not due to other actions, must be established with data. Otherwise, the "impact" that you so claim can easily be attributed to random chance which I have previously mentioned. After all, if there was an impact, the secondhand market still exists and functions the same as it always has before and after SX OS.
Do you know why? It's because it has an impact.
That doesn't automatically make every complaint worthwhile or have an "impact". People complain about Nintendo's underpowered hardware all the time but does Nintendo do anything to change that?
If something is "valid" or not doesn't change the fact that it exists and creates influence.
Refer to the first point.
We cannot say that they do not exist, and that is impact. We both can agree to not like it, but it doesn't change the fact.
There is merit in whether its worth taking into account or not or if its even something that people can control. People can complain about whoever the president is or the price of eggs but those cannot being altered with complaints.
This is a struggle that you are having with the fact that something can have an impact, even though you do not know how to reliably measure it. I was pretty clear about that before. It feels like you are only proving my point.
You have the audacity to accuse me of being illiterate yet you don't realize that nothing of what I just said supports any of your claims? Building off of my previous example, Tears of the Kingdom was created as a sequel to Breath of the Wild despite many Zelda fans complaining it wasn't a Zelda game. Clearly, if those complaints had any "impact", they had the opposite effect.
Your complaint was that I was misquoting you, but now we are back to assuming that what I said about you was true. This is a waffle. Do you believe that Nintendo wants to create bad press about themselves or not?
So what you're saying is you lack evidence that has taken actions to generate good press or avoid bad press when it comes to the topics I mentioned and are trying to change topics.
So banning users would be a better way for Nintendo to deal with MIG users than to "just ban certs". I agree. Glad we could get closer to an understanding.
This doesn't change the fact that duplicate copies would still exist in the market. A console ban can easily be overcome by simply buying another console the same way that a game ban can be overridden by buying another game. This is most likely why Nintendo banned games on top of those who were using SX OS. I would not advocate for banning of both simultaneously either because its overkill when the real offender is neither the user, the console, nor the game but Mig Switch itself.
The desperation is deafening. I don't think anyone would defend this childish charade.
I cannot recall any better case of the pot calling the kettle black than this right here. Oh but please but show me everyone defending your childish charade. And I'm still waiting on that formally written apology.
But it's not, by your own admission.
When it comes to the topic of banning certs, it is because it supports .XCI files and plays them online just like SX OS. The differences I mentioned refer to how widespread its usage will be in comparison to SX OS which will affect the number of banned certificates.
We don't even agree what "the same thing" is. You suggested that the solution was to ban certs, but I argue that cert bans were never a primary solution, as a lot more effort was made in other ways. Banning certs is lazy and reckless. We can assume that Nintendo knows that as they prioritized system/user bans and financed legal remedies.
Still doesn't change the fact that they banned certificates which is my point. Whatever else Nintendo did is irrelevant because console bans can be attributed to other causes such as homebrew or using .NSP files. However cartridge bans can only occur due to misuse of cartridge certificates which Nintendo either felt was necessary with or without a console ban. Though I'm curious on what these "financed legal remedies" because this is the first I've heard of Nintendo implementing such a thing when it comes to banning games.
As I have already demonstrated, dumped cartridges do not mean that source cartridges have been tampered with. You need to learn the definition of "tamper".
Using your favorite source, Merriam Webster lists tamper as something to try foolish and dangerous experiments with. I know this is my opinion but it seems pretty
foolish to go online with a dump of a cartridge when that cartridge is in the hands of someone else. If you don't believe me, here is the
link to said definition.
It is Nintendo putting the onus on the new owner, not the law. Also, as per the prior point, a switch that has been hacked is not the same as a cartridge that has been copied.
Not in Nintendo's eyes. Nintendo has banned Switch consoles and cartridges independent of each other.
I get that you want to pretend that you have proven me wrong "multiple times" using this as evidence. But if this the best you have, I would recommend you trying to find out where i said I was "bored". You are incapable of recognizing nuance, and if this is your "high point" where you think you finally proved me wrong, then it just shows that you aren't as literate as I wish you were.
I don't need to pretend because you cannot dismiss the fact that I have disproved you therefore logically I am right. Instead, you shifted topics from defending your primary argument about cert bans to a semantics debate because you lack any and all proof. You put yourself in a losing battle because you pitted a hypothetical scenario against proven facts. All of the onus of proof falls on you yet you failed to provide even a modicum of evidence besides your "opinions" whereas I've drawn from multiple sources such as SciresM or Merriam Webster. You are incapable of recognizing when you are wrong, and if this is your "high point" where you think you finally proved how illiterate I really am, then it just shows that you aren't literate in the slightest.
Source
