http://www.ktemkin.com/faq-fusee-gelee/

Kate has collected and answered the most common questions she's gotten regarding Fusée Gelée. Most notably she explains the three "types" of FG hacks, software, hardware (temporary) and hardware (permanent).

Enjoy!

Kate herself responded to this thread on page 26, thanks Kate!

There's a lot more here than I can easily respond to, so apologies if I miss posts or gloss over points.



This is correct-- while there likely will be software chains around for these things in the future, I don't see them as coming along as quickly as f-g. We don't have a non-coldboot exploit chain at all for 5.0.0-- and we haven't looked yet, as we've had other things to focus on and coldboot works. We do have one for 4.1.0, but it's centered around a couple of exploits that we don't want to burn-- we're hoping to use them to get an opportunity to poke around inside T214/Mariko.



I don't view you as particularly hostile, no. I don't know if challenge is generally a good thing-- sometimes you do have to accept that other people have different ethics or viewpoints from yourself and let that pass, especially if they're just doing stuff for fun-- but I don't view your post as hostile.



Jamais Vu (1.0.0 TrustZone hack) isn't my bug, but has been written up, and is just awaiting someone with the skills to have time to do a public interpretation. Déjà Vu is currently centered around the exploit I mentioned above, and we definitely want to hold onto that for as long as it's applicable. It's entirely a Switch bug, too, so I don't see it as being something that needs responsible disclosure.



For Déjà Vu, absolutely. (explained in last quote)



I don't agree that things like tweeting are ego. This is something I work on because I find it a lot of fun to hack on things, and there's definitely an aspect in which it makes me happy when seeing the results of things makes other people happy. There's also an aspect in which I hope that showing these things are possible inspires people to want to learn e.g. reverse engineering. This stuff is cool; and I want to share the excitement with others and lift them up as much as I can.

You don't have to believe me on that or like that that's my goal. I won't hold it against you if you don't.



I honestly support people updating when it makes sense; and I recognize that there's a conflict between holding back information and enabling others to make reasonable decisions about that. I don't like or feel good about secrecy, and I know it has implications. I've tried to be as clear as I can about the costs regarding updating without crossing the line into giving things away.



I think we've been pretty clear that 4.1.0 will eventually see a non-coldboot, software-only exploit with the same level of power. That's actually been posted on the ReSwitched Discord's FAQ for months, but I know the message gets skewed as its gets communicated over to other places. That's part of why I'm here, now-- I want to help clear things up.

The interactions between the operating system and the bootloader-- say on reboot-- are actually fairly limited; and knowing what any of them are is enough to point people at the particular section of bootrom that's vulnerable. That's why I'm not commenting on Fusée Gelée and how it relates to software-only solutions right now. I have said e.g. above that since there's no public way of getting the privileges necessary to run things, 4.1.0 isn't going to see a pure software solution that the public can use at the time that f-g is released. Software exploits will likely come in time; and it's possible we'll come up with things that are even easier than f-g.



I'm not sure if they'll take it seriously enough. I don't know how they are internally-- but I can't just assume they'll fail to do anything and skip disclosure. Honestly, I don't think a "security advisory" is really a bad thing, either-- there are definitely applications of Tegra chips that I and/or the public don't know about. If giving NVIDIA notice gives them time to explain exactly what's dangerous and allow their customers to remove and replace units from places where the vulnerability can cause harm, I consider that a win, and well worth delaying some public switch hacks by a few months.

I'll also say that my fear that vendors won't take the vulnerability seriously is a huge reason I'm so keen to get things out there-- and why I provided a date after which I'll tell the public what's going on that I've said was non-negotiable. I want to make sure this doesn't get hidden, and that people understand exactly what f-g can and can't accomplish, to minimize FUD while also letting people understand the actual risks are associated with using a vulnerable device.



It changes this from an exploit that's going to be usable before the affected people know it's a thing to something that people may have a chance to react to. Making the vulnerability public without disclosure really increases the odds someone is capable of using it to do bad.

I didn't really give NVIDIA a chance to sell-off stock; though. I've said publicly multiple times that there are bugs in Tegra processors well before NVIDIA reached out to me seeking disclosure. If anything, I think telling the public that these vulnerabilities exist while pursuing disclosure helps developers interested in using Tegra chips in the future ask the right question.



I've already said that while pure-software stuff is doable on 4.1.0; it'll be a wait. As far as I'm remembering, the only part of the chain that could require multiple tries to work is PegaSwitch, which is our browser-based entry point, and I haven't even tried the browser entry point that'll eventually be public to see how reliable it is. SciresM did the work to get our non-coldboot exploit working on 4.1.0; not me.



Yeah, that's hard-- especially as everyone has a different view as to how inconvenient things are. I don't know of a way to communicate this better without more details.

Incidentally, the 'inconvenience' verbiage came from SciresM and I discussing our respective views on updating. I think SciresM is more towards the opinion that people should hold back more often, where I'm more of the opinion that updating can be a good and reasonable option sometimes. The way we wound up phrasing things is a compromise between views.



(I'm going to assume this meant "on the hacking side". If not I'm not sure what hacking site you're referring to.)

Updating to latest just closes the possibility of using software exploits launched from Horizon, which can make setup more difficult. I know you'd like to know how much, but I unfortunately don't have a good way of qualifying that. As I've mentioned, if you're suffering from not being able to use your 3.0.1+ Switch, you probably do want to upgrade and just risk things being more inconvenient in the future. Worst comes to worst, if you decide you can't tolerate the inconvenience, you upgrade and then wind up having to figure out a modchip.

The downgrade protection fuses literally mean nothing to a system with f-g, which can entirely skip the downgrade check. Incidentally, SciresM actually accidentally bricked one of his systems in a way such that it was always failing the downgrade checks, and he's been able to use f-g to get that system up and running again.



I don't think that's clear at all, nor do I want to confirm or deny this. Sorry.



I think you're making a bunch of assumptions here, and that's maybe not a great idea. I'm not saying you're necessarily right or wrong; just that I don't think your assumptions are founded.



I don't think this contradicts. This is talking about vulnerabilities that aren't f-g; not because f-g doesn't work on 4.1.0, but because it's possible we may come up with vulnerabilities that are even nicer on 4.1.0 in the future.



I'm being as clear as I feel I can, and adding clarifications e.g. here where I think it helps. There will be different names for the the ways you can use f-g eventually; and I'll be fully open about everything once the summer rolls around and I'm not putting the disclosure timeline in jeopardy.



I know and have said about that this "bring your own exploit" business makes development exclusive, and that's exclusionary and I really don't like it-- I just don't see a way around it. I would love to get more developers and more perspective, and that's why my release date for f-g is tied to my disclosure timeline and not in particular to Atmosphère's release.




I've tried to point out approximately what the difficulty would be for some of the options to kind of provide this, but this is a hard thing to accomplish. In this case, providing details that are more specific really points a finger at vulnerability details, so there's not much I'm comfortable sharing. I've shared what I could-- as a data point, some of the other teams have outright stated that they think I've shared too much already and made things obvious. I don't agree or necessarily care about their opinons, but c'est la vie.



Well, this isn't the case. This has been disclosed to Nintendo, too-- as NVIDIA shares their vulnerability findings with downstream customers. It's more general malicious actors that I'd be worried about.



See above-- but I don't think I'd advise specifically updating to 4.1.0 unless that gives you enough access to the games you want.



I'm also super glad that we can do a lot of our work in the open. I hope there's a lot more of it in the future-- and I'd love to stream some of it.



I find the requirement disheartening as well, but I think this is the right way to do things, for now. I've explained my rationale above; feel free to ask questions.



I'm not sure why people are against communication, here. There were definite benefits to talking about f-g in the first place; including that it demonstrates that Tegra chips are vulnerable-- which hopefully influences buying decisions in the future and puts pressure on NVIDIA to seek as much of a fix as they can. After that there seemed to be definitely benefits to talking about more details, even in the limited sense that I'm able to. I've tried to give people more information than the nothing they would have had so they could have more of an idea whether it's be a good idea to e.g. pre-order a modchip or update their system. I know it can be frustrating to not get full disclosure, and that more information would help people to make a better or more conclusive decision, but full disclosure isn't an option until this summer. I don't think that's a reason to hold back information.



I don't have specific answers to your questions, unfortunately-- but I think it sounds like the main purpose of this Switch is as a gaming device and maybe you should upgrade and enjoy playing games with your son.



I don't think that asking for clarification is criticism. It might be rude to push me to answer something I said I wouldn't, but I don't think there's harm in answer.



I don't think I've said anything about opening the console or not. See above for my views on updating?



I'm not sure where you got this impression, or why you're confident about things enough to claim you know about the internal values or working of ReSwitched. This is also easily disprovable just from public information--Hedgeberg has tested out f-g on stream. I don't see it as great opsec to enumerate how many people have access to the vulnerability, but we've long had a policy of only giving exploit details to those who actually want to know them and are in a position where they can use them to help. This is a basic security precaution and not about trust.

I'm actually not sure how this is relevant to the broader discussion. Based on your post history, I can tell that you strongly support TX and the option they're providing, and you're welcome to that, but I think throwing around generic unfounded criticism of RS doesn't do much good and distracts from me answering community questions.



I don't think they're obviously more convenient, as they exist right now. They're both inherently however-tethered-you-consider-PegaSwitch, take a bunch of time to run, and rely on a pegaswitch entry point.



That's not correct-- everyone on a current hardware revision will be able to install and use CFW the day it's released, if they're willing to put in the effort and potentially take on some minor risk.



I'm actually not sure what you mean by this entire post? Sorry about that-- I'd love to address your ideas, but unfortunately I can't figure out your meaning.



That was about me having fun by trying to see if a DIY, cheap modchip option is reasonable. It turns out it is. As you've noted, it's not necessary on any firmware. I just really like the idea that the open exchange of knowledge -- especially when profit's not a motive -- can result in creation of neat options for the community. ^-^



Yep; that's exactly what it means.



I don't think this has been at all implied-- and you'd be hard pressed to find a way to make a solder-less Arduino option that even remotely fits in the Switch case.

I should also clarify that the DIY option isn't solderless.

If you have or are going to get the game anyway, you can. Those versions are pretty much interchangeable in the long-term.



Yep-- and it's possible at some point that we'll allow you to install Fake News without Puyo using f-g/Atmosphère. The original plan was to release Atmosphère for 1.0.0 first while we tried to figure out how to deal with Fusée Gelée, but we actually wound up with a disclosure schedule that was faster than we'd thought.

 

[DarthDub]

Good FAQ. The solderless solution reminds me of when I used kafluke's software to host the Wii U exploit.

Now to get a 64gb SD and tri-wing screwdriver just in case.

Already have a 128GB one here, but tri-wing I need.

 

[notimp]

The purpose of the delay is to ensure that NVIDIA and other related companies have decent amount of time to pose a remedy for the exploit discovered for the said chips. Switch isn't the only device affected.

Not the case. If you want to give them a headstart on further products they have to develop, be a champ, and do their company research for them, for free. Hurting all potential users that don't own a Switch yet.

Responsible disclosure does't serve a purpose, if it doesnt benefit the (roughly) 22 Million users already out there, in any discernable way.

The flaw has to be "software fixable" for the company to even think about rolling out a "free fix for most of the population". (Stated as a general notion - there might be exceptions, but generally, not.)

 

[DinohScene]

@brickmii82 the Internet has changed.
And I mean really really changed ;/

I mostly blame social media for this.
One fool tells his moron friends he can pirate games, they want to pirate games and flood homebrew communities.

 

[notimp]

The insanity goes so far, that now part of the "ethical hacking" group would argue, to do security envelope fixes for hardware, thats sold under the premise, that the buyer should never be able to own it... Because - human lives, or something ("Made me think of Tesla....!" Or "security" is such a charming word - yes, and "hardware assisted services" is not.).

Lets think about the John Deere example for a second (large aggrecultural machines, with DRM on exchangeable parts). No intelligent being IN THE WORLD would argue, for independent, unpaid security research, thats then responsibly disclosed to the company, so they have less of an effort, designing their machine in a way - so all consumers are subject to buy replacement parts just from them again.

In fact we are BANKING on them not to do any recalls (because they economically cant), so as long as their security flaws arent publicly disclosed - more people can benefit from the hack.

To turn this logic around, it takes some pretty hefty argument swaps - as in "yes - but not disclosing this would cost human lives, because that attack surface would also allow people to hack self-driving cars.." (deus ex machina argument, btw). To which you respond - maybe, but if you are not helping any of the current customers of those products, because they are not fixing them, doing unpaid work on the companies behalf - against the immediate public good, has to have some pretty severe "altruistic urgency" on the other front attached to it, to even think about it.

(As in "Yes, I volunteer to work for a Fortune 500 company unpaid, so peoples lives will be spared...")

Basically if you can break it down to "some peoples joy" vs "human lives at stake" you do it - but with most constructed arguments, to even end up at that intersection, you have to draw some pretty outragious assumptions. Or see something, others arent seing (have information that others don't have).

So if you are arguing that - the scenes reaction should not be "great, so responsible", but more like "so why excactly are you trying to ruin this actively?".

Less of an issue here with 22 Mio devices out there that won't be patched, but nevertheless true in general.

I.e. "public disclosure" in our case (Switch owners) only works against the common good - if it concerns a fundamentally unpatchable (via software rollout) flaw. It works for the "security" of the general user, if software patches can be provided. Thats why it is a good thing, conceptually. But to pull it out just at any time, because it has the word "responsible" attached to it - and people seem to like that, is foul play (/PR).

 

[notimp]

@brickmii82 the Internet has changed.
And I mean really really changed ;/

I mostly blame social media for this.
One fool tells his moron friends he can pirate games, they want to pirate games and flood homebrew communities.

The question is with what. If they are statements like "I already haz 128GB scard", or "I still need screwdriver!", then yes. Otherwise, no.

Putting a code of ethics in front of every situation you don't wan't to actually argue, is just lousy power politics to begin with (the "we do this for a higher purpose, we don't have to tell you about" gambit).

Also - for the people excitingly sharing, when they bought their sdcards (its always: too early - because they drop in price), or how their toolbox is stacked, you already have youtubers out there - making this FAQ into a "what you should buy now - knowing nothing" piece, which is questionable as well. (You don't know anything about the hack (featureset), yet you are out there buying stuff, because people told you to - out of excitement, or the need to be "first".)

Also having to own a 64 GB card to do anything, because the nand dump is 32GB on its own, now for some reason has become a "feature" as well. In the eyes of people promoting this information.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Completely out of line, dumb as a rock, slant.

Something made me think of Tesla, not sure why, but other people probably do better thinking....

I see you don't agree with my point of view, but that's no justification to be an ass, there's no reason for the disguised name-calling. I am quite sure why it made me think of Tesla, the parallel computing they use for the AI on the self-driving algorithms runs on Tegra chips, that is a well-known fact, and I don't think the details of why "it made me think of Tesla" matter enough to write it down, I am not here to hold anybody's hand, why would you expect me to?

(They don't successfuly argue for responsible disclosure on non software patchable silicon though -- here is some logic for you. Responsible disclosure was dreamt up as a method so companies would be incentiviced to fix things. If they cant - without "ruining the company" (recalls are very expensive, they are never put into action for moral considerations) responsible disclosure isn't good for anything. In practice its seldomly more than a whitehats pipedream to begin with. Still its the only method we got to make companies fix software flaws, at all...

Right, but leave that decision to the companies. How do you automatically know the recall will ruin the companies? Why don't you let the companies run the numbers? It sounds fair to me. And AFAIK Tesla's self-driving computer is an "easily-swappable" module, so if they decide to change it completely that probably won't "ruin the company".

Its basically an extortion racket that claims "we gave you time to do something - so if you didn't do anything, and something happens - the public rage will be upon you" - which in practice never works, because the public never seems to notice...).

That's exactly what it is, and I find that the right thing to do. This is the point of view you don't share with me.

"Can be done without soldering", doesnt mean "can be done without opening the device, and sticking something in it though, so be exact with your language.

And what do you mean by that?
I said exactly "you can still pull it off without even soldering anything", and that's what I meant. I never said you don't have to open it. I choose those words precisely.
Are you implying I said "you don't need to open the device"? That's stupid, you're putting your words in my mouth. What else will you imply I am saying that is not written in my post?

Also - I enjoy reading, and this FAQ reads like a "yeah - we probably should go for modchips - everyone, but wait for ours (open sourced, so no profit incentive), they will be cheaper and more "responsible"" announcement to steal thunder from underneath the ongoing TX preordering window. (edit: Dont preorder. As a general rule. In life.)

It doesn't "sound" like it, they made their animosity towards TX clear in the whole post... So?
I don't need to share their animosity to enjoy the read, though.

 

[notimp]

So lets summarize:

The ethical switch hacker scene is now --

- well into hardware mods as well, because they need feature parity with whatever TX produces / or not

- after telling everyone that HBL will be entirely enough for everyone - that wants to live with a 1in3 chance of it actually working, after each startup.

- is now promoting "any current switch is ok" as well - after telling everyone for months, that "lower will be better" - except, eh - we cant get anything to work with a reasonably usability without a hardware mod, and thats going to be the same for every firmware version.

- Doesnt tell people the featuresets that they should expect, because of responsible disclosure...

- But tells them to buy cables and screwdrivers and sdcards "early" without knowing anything (especially featuresets)

- Insists, that responsibly disclosing non patchable flaws serves a higher purpose, without naming that purpose - making sure, less people will profit rom the flaw - all the while being aware, that none of the current Switch owners will likely get any benefits from the disclosure at all. This one is a hard sell. Its not that it can't be argued, I would just rather listen to the argument. Especially when in the same sentence they slander the "bad guys" for not doing it.


Hey, if I see all that - as an end consumer only interested in piracy (which I am not), I happily go with the commercial chinese product at this point. Leaves me the hassle in keeping up with flaky ethics, and buying screwdrivers I might never use again...

At least they don't actively play into the hands of Nvidia fixing the flaws, that allow me to do what I actually want - without any publicly given arguments ("Made me think about Tesla, ..."). At least they offer a clear and easy to understand messaging, that doesnt has me going against every ethical fiber of my being of what hackers should not do ("work for big companies for free" stating morals as the reason).

 

[DinohScene]

The question is with what. If they are statements like "I already haz 128GB scard", or "I still need screwdriver!", then yes. Otherwise, no.

Putting a code of ethics in front of every situation you don't wan't to actually argue, is just lousy power politics to begin with (the "we do this for a higher purpose, we don't have to tell you about" gambit).

Also - for the people excitingly sharing, when they bought their sdcards (its always: too early - because they drop in price), or how their toolbox is stacked, you already have youtubers out there - making this FAQ into a "what you should buy now - knowing nothing" piece, which is questionable as well. (You don't know anything about the hack (featureset), yet you are out there buying stuff, because people told you to - out of excitement, or the need to be "first".)

Also having to own a 64 GB card to do anything, because the nand dump is 32GB on its own, now for some reason has become a "feature" as well. In the eyes of people promoting this information.

Piracy is immoral and illegal.
That's the entire point.

Pirate kiddies invading homebrew communities, feeling self entitled and ruining the place.

 

[LuigiGold]

Hm, I believe you guys have a bad idea of how harmful piracy can be... (I mostly blame the press and companies).

1. Piracy is not bad if you don't abuse of it. For example, a child always depends of his parents, so he can't decide himself whether buying a game or not, since that's parents decision. Then he have to lump it, unless one of his friends want to borrow him the game or whatever, but the company won't earn money at all. Then, which disadvantages piracy has? None, since the child can play the game even though the company doesn't receive the money from his parents (but they weren't going to buy the game anyways, so the company would receive no benefit). In this case, piracy isn't harmful.

2. Another example: I'm a user of Photoshop, but I don't pay those 12€ per month (or whatever it costs now), but why don't I pay them? I could use another alternative program like Gimp, but why I don't use Gimp? Because I'm used to use Photoshop and its interface, but I have clear that I would rather use Gimp than paying for something I use barely sometimes. Is this type of piracy harmful for Adobe? No, 'cause even if I am not able to get it for free, I wouldn't pay for it under any concept, and I would use Gimp instead.

3. It's OK using piracy to test the game before buying it (thrillers are misleading), that isn't bad if you finally buy the game after proving it's not garbage (if can afford it, don't doubt and buy the fucking game). Problem comes when people start getting used of not paying the game -in that case, it is TRULY harmful, since companies could make more money if it weren't because of the piracy.

And you may ask: will people really pay for something they've for free? The answer is yes in most cases. You can see Youtubers receiving donations from people who actually want to support their work (videos, streamings), even though watching videos is free. The same we can think about Free To Play games, where we can see how people is investing an huge quantity of money to play those games, and that sometimes even exceed a retail game price (which is also high).

In conclusion: is piracy really harmful for companies/enterprises? Only if the person can afford to buy the game but he's getting it for free, so the company won't get any benefit from him/her.

Don't forget that we all have pirated in some/several ocasions, such as downloading movies or installing Windows because we don't wanna adapt to Linux.

Though, I think enterprises and companies should explore new ways to attract people and not fall into piracy, such as Free2Play, special offers when product release or sales when the product has already been on the market for a while.

PD: If what I'm saying is against rules, please moderate this message, but I had to clarify things: I'm not promoting piracy and that's not my intention, but people have to understand that everything related to piracy's neither white nor black, but "grey". I know this forum (and many others) don't allow you to do things such as giving out download links or telling people where to get those games.

I've accepted the rules and thus I won't break them, sounds kinda obvious (even though there're people who conciously do it, so...)

Greetings.

PD: Also, why saying "I'll get 128GB microSD Card" or even more? Sounds kinda suspicious (and hipocritical). ;P Homebrew doesn't require so much, not even emulators, though ROMs are still considered piracy here...

 

[linuxares]

Anyone happen to know why the go with the french namings? It's nothing wrong or so but I'm just curious.

 

[Dan-the-Rebirth]

I am a noob and know nothing.
But I assume the slight inconvenience is because of the randomization feature implemented at 5.0
Lets call it Russian roulette with the exploit.
And I assume the exploit needs to be executed on every full boot(the switch mostly just sleeps)

 

[LuigiGold]

Anyone happen to know why the go with the french namings? It's nothing wrong or so but I'm just curious.

Because they have a French person in the team and he was asked to put CFW name.

 

[smf]

She meant to say that all the Switch versions up to this date has this bug. but since she has already disclosed the bug to NVIDIA, from this day forward the new batches will be patched and you could possibly get a patched version of the switch when you buy a switch in the coming months.

It depends on when "earlier" means

"Fusée Gelée was responsibly disclosed to NVIDIA earlier, and forwarded to several vendors (including Nintendo) as a courtesy."

Was that earlier on the day she posted, or earlier in the year or sometime last year. Disclosure could even predate the public tease in february https://twitter.com/ktemkin/status/964780654142484481?lang=en

 

[linuxares]

Because they have a French person in the team and he was asked to put CFW name.

Well then! That was a simple and complete explanation! Well done sir, thanks!

 

[chirogan]

Not the case. If you want to give them a headstart on further products they have to develop, be a champ, and do their company research for them, for free. Hurting all potential users that don't own a Switch yet.

Responsible disclosure does't serve a purpose, if it doesnt benefit the (roughly) 22 Million users already out there, in any discernable way.

The flaw has to be "software fixable" for the company to even think about rolling out a "free fix for most of the population". (Stated as a general notion - there might be exceptions, but generally, not.)

How does that exactly hurt future owners? Because they dont have an exploitable switch? Seriously? The author of the hack does not need to disclose the hack. It was her choice. Being paid or not was her own decision and if she did it for free, clearly this does not have anything to do with us nor we have nothing to do with it.

The exploit is not software fixable. The bug resides in the boot rom and it is not writable at all.. it is either you didn't read the faq or you did not comprehend the faq well.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It depends on when "earlier" means

"Fusée Gelée was responsibly disclosed to NVIDIA earlier, and forwarded to several vendors (including Nintendo) as a courtesy."

Was that earlier on the day she posted, or earlier in the year or sometime last year. Disclosure could even predate the public tease in february https://twitter.com/ktemkin/status/964780654142484481?lang=en

Well. That has a point. And only she (author) can answer this query.
We have no information yet when will we see a patched switch. But we have to expect that later switch versions will be fixed.

 

[notimp]

Piracy is immoral and illegal.
That's the entire point.

Pirate kiddies invading homebrew communities, feeling self entitled and ruining the place.

Lets put that in contrast to, whats stated in the FAQ which is:

Not just do they publicly endorse piracy, and seek to profit from keeping information to a few people, but they're also willing to drop a 0-day that affects a broad swathe of devices on the public without any responsible disclosure.

This indicates moral superiority apart from the "being commercial pirates" stuff. And this is questionable.

I get the "everyone with a wish to pirate is flooding these communities" part, believe me - I get it. But then, trying to stop this with "higher moral" ("We are the hackers Nintendo would like to have on their platform, because we like Nintendo...") will also never work.

And to be honest - right now, it feels (by the metric of feelsdom..) like every announcement after the first TX one I could have just missed - and that we are back to "buy a hardware assisted mod - if you want the best compatibility". And to be very honest, I frankly don't see people opting for the "ethical" mod, when they already have to open their hardware and order a clamp or a chip from overseas.

But not all is lost - if a hardware mod is necessary to get good usability out of the switch, fewer people will tend to it in general. This will also potentially lower piracy on the system.

Having to open devices up is that sort of hurdle for many people.

 

[DinohScene]

Lets put that in contrast to, whats stated in the FAQ which is:


This indicates moral superiority apart from the "being commercial pirates" stuff. And this is questionable.

I get the "everyone with a wish to pirate is flooding these communities" part, believe me - I get it. But then, trying to stop this with "higher moral" ("We are the hackers Nintendo would like to have on their platform, because we like Nintendo...") will also never work.

And to be honest - right now, it feels (by the metric of feelsdom..) like every announcement after the first TX one I could have just missed - and that we are back to "buy a hardware assisted mod - if you want the best compatibility". And to be very honest, I frankly don't see people opting for the "ethical" mod, when they already have to open their hardware and order a clamp or a chip from overseas.

But not all is lost - if a hardware mod is necessary to get good usability out of the switch, fewer people will tend to it in general. This will also potentially lower piracy on the system.

Having to open devices up is that sort of hurdle for many people.

You really misinterpret me point do you?

 

[Nincompoopdo]

Lets put that in contrast to, whats stated in the FAQ which is:


This indicates moral superiority apart from the "being commercial pirates" stuff. And this is questionable.

I get the "everyone with a wish to pirate is flooding these communities" part, believe me - I get it. But then, trying to stop this with "higher moral" ("We are the hackers Nintendo would like to have on their platform, because we like Nintendo...") will also never work.

And to be honest - right now, it feels (by the metric of feelsdom..) like every announcement after the first TX one I could have just missed - and that we are back to "buy a hardware assisted mod - if you want the best compatibility". And to be very honest, I frankly don't see people opting for the "ethical" mod, when they already have to open their hardware and order a clamp or a chip from overseas.

But not all is lost - if a hardware mod is necessary to get good usability out of the switch, fewer people will tend to it in general. This will also potentially lower piracy on the system.

Having to open devices up is that sort of hurdle for many people.

Let's see how they pirate LABO, the softwares are pointless without the cardboard. Nintendo may emphasized the use of LABO with all their games in the future to defeat piracy.

 

[RichKK]

Let's see how they pirate LABO, the softwares are pointless without the cardboard. Nintendo may emphasized the use of LABO with all their games in the future to defeat piracy.

Photocopier ftw

 

[notimp]

One more thing regarding ethics in this field, and this is just my personal opinion, so not a universal truth -- (because I somehow feel the need to defend myself.. )

two days ago I saw this comment on an old games forum I infrequently frequent:

(Att.: sob-story incoming)

[I've updated..] Two times a century

. My current PC I've still payed for in Deutschmark. In the last years, I've invested 50€ in a new powersupply and 130€ in a new graphics card.

So what do we tell those guys? Invest more, if you want to be entertained by more current products? Pay top dollar on the collectors market that sells nostalgia? I can remember, when me and a few classmates had a discussion about, when this notion, that everything digital of a certain age will be free and ubiquitous would become commonplace, and how this would change society, because we saw how people attended to that stuff and used it just with the same pleasure new stuff would give them from time to time - and we talked about, when our generation would be old enough to be able to "define the rules", not only in a subsection of the web - but in society in general.

All those notions have vanished over time. Entertainment has become ubiquitous, but in a different way imagined (Twitch, youtube, ...), people are still being told, that emulation is "stealing from the official owner" - and Nintendo is still on he forefront of the anti-emulation "movement", because they have the most valuable IP from the past stacked up for commercial use.

Buying stuff over and over, and over again is still a thing ("to get easier access"), so not even repeated purchases of the same good have changed as a thing according to the industry.

People have more and more difficulty to pick and choose from the abundance of content thats produced, so they have delegated that job to content providers, which are very happy to do that for them.

If there was a thing my generation could agree on, it was - that getting "old stuff" (f.e.: emulation of old games) for free should not be considered an actionable crime, but even that notion has vanished and people just go with whatever they have heard last.

So when I talk about homebrew, and not being able to get on the companies best side - which tries to provide a walled garden around a closed system for price stability reasons - at all time, it comes from that perspective. The notion that you want to be an "ethical hacker" that Nintendo could be proud of, is entirely alien to me - because all a I see there are unsuperable differences.

Our fear back a few years ago was, that if everybody saw the entire wealth of "free" information out there, there was no way - they could be made to play in restricted economies of "manufactured choice" anymore - and that companies would have a hard time providing for that kind of customer. The opposite came true. Limited choice is still the best thing you can offer the majority of people. And if you do mashups (Ready Player One..) make them commercial nostalgia fiests for people who couldn't be bothered to look up the original.

And don't get me started on "open world, follow the marker" gamedesign, btw..

For all we know, the guy I quoted at the top, could use the saved money to pay his lease on a "Lambo", but still - usually this is not how things work..