How can anyone be okay with Gateway's behavior?

Discussion in '3DS - Flashcards & Custom Firmwares' started by spinner09, Jan 15, 2014.

  1. Nismax

    Nismax GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    I just think what they've done is pathetic. Not mad at anyone here, no reason to bitch and argue back and forth.

    Peace! Gateway can suck a fat one.
     
    Huntereb likes this.
  2. gamesquest1

    gamesquest1 Nabnut

    Moderator
    21
    GBAtemp Patron
    gamesquest1 is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    Sep 23, 2013
    :) happy happy happy thread, spreading joy and love to all x x x
     
    Rob Blou likes this.
  3. tomiga

    tomiga GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    1
    Dec 4, 2013
    United States
    Nismax pretty much summed up all my feelings about this.
     
    tofast4u, NEP and Huntereb like this.
  4. Huntereb

    Huntereb GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Sep 1, 2013
    United States

    Yeah, that was perfect... To a degree. :P
     
  5. wintermute808

    wintermute808 Member

    Newcomer
    4
    Dec 2, 2013
    United States
    Their code, their device. Cloned devices wouldn't have this problem if they wrote their own or even did any work to prevent this type of problem for their end users.

    I remember when running unsigned code on a PSP or even a PS3 would brick your unit, yet most people considered this just normal protection to try to get around. People getting salty about bricking their PS3 with unsigned code knew the risks when they started. It's funny now that the meta is to defeat the hack within the hack. Oh well.
     
  6. kyogre123

    kyogre123 Mexican Pride

    Member
    8
    Sep 23, 2013
    Mexico
    In this thread no one cares about the part of responsibility R4i has in this.
     
  7. Vengenceonu

    Vengenceonu Revenge is beneath me but accidents do happen.

    Member
    10
    Jun 20, 2013
    United States
    The C Standard Library
    Oh please. Even before this happened, he hated gateway with a passion. He's just acting as if he predicted the apocalypse and wants to feel superior. Last week he was this close to getting banned along with JohnnyBlaze1986 for flamming. Why do you think gamefan5 was begging him not to start the flame war.
     
    Heien and gamefan5 like this.
  8. Zaide

    Zaide GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    6
    Apr 2, 2009
    United States
    Gateway was not "going after end-users". They were trying to tarnish the competition's name. And they've done just that. You may hate Gateway, but they are now the only working 3DS flash cart.

    If you want to be pissed at someone then be pissed at the people that stole Gateway's code and claimed it was their own. They're the ones that triggered this. They stole code, didn't test it, and now it has destroyed consoles. Who cares if Gateway did it on purpose? It was their competition's responsibility to check for this kind of thing before they go throwing out an update to all of their customers that destroyed their consoles.
     
  9. Wisenheimer

    Wisenheimer GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    2
    Sep 23, 2013
    United States


    Nobody is forced to buy any product. That does not absolve the manufacturer of tort or criminal liability resulting from their maliciousness or negligence. If I try to save a few dollars by selling tires I know are likely to be defective, that I know have a higher than normal probability of exploding, then I cannot say, "nobody is forced to buy my tires," when I get dragged into court for wrongful death.

    Gateway should have a chance to prove they are not responsible for any civil or criminal liabilities in a court of law. Unfortunately, they are an anonymous hacker group that operates out of a third world country and cannot be held responsible by a just legal system. I can almost guarantee that if they operated out of the United States, not only would they have their assets seized by Nintendo, as their entire business model is almost exclusively based around piracy and not any semi-legitimate use, but they would also almost certainly be held partially or fully responsible for any damage to consumers' devices caused by their malicious code.

    And, they could possibly be facing felony criminal charges for creating and distributing malicious code as well as vandalism.

    This is basically equivalent to street fight between two criminal gangs, with naive consumers getting injured in the crossfire.
     
  10. fischermasamune

    fischermasamune GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Aug 6, 2013
    United States
    It's funny how the clones "stole" the code, but people "pirate" games.
    One weight two measures.
     
  11. osirisjem

    osirisjem Wii U: Y U No Sell ?

    Member
    5
    Jun 19, 2011
    Canada
    This analogy does not apply.
    No one is dying and the 3DS cart business is not all that legit to start.

    People shouldn't buy Flashcarts from people who are unable to support them.
    It *SHOULD* have been obvious that r4i never ever intended to support their product, because they are incapable of doing so.
    r4i is the negligent party ... THEY DISTRIBUTED the bad firmware.
    People downloaded *FROM R4i's site*.
    This is a r4i problem.
     
  12. tomiga

    tomiga GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    1
    Dec 4, 2013
    United States
    Still doesn't mean he didn't sum up my feelings on this though.
     
  13. dajavax

    dajavax GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    2
    Oct 29, 2008
    Mexico
    Monterrey
    i agree with the OP... they even had the nerve to say they don't care about other people... I was actually thinking they were a respectable company but I guess I spoke too soon... note that i am not a 3ds flashcart user so i'm not biased at all
     
    Huntereb likes this.
  14. thecourier

    thecourier Member

    Newcomer
    1
    Dec 10, 2013
    United States
    R4 didn't write code that would brick your 3DS.
     
  15. osirisjem

    osirisjem Wii U: Y U No Sell ?

    Member
    5
    Jun 19, 2011
    Canada
    They distributed it to every bricked console.
    By distributing it ... they gave their seal of approval.

    r4i is the source of the firmware that bricked their user's consoles.
     
  16. kyogre123

    kyogre123 Mexican Pride

    Member
    8
    Sep 23, 2013
    Mexico
    However, they compiled it and released it to the public. As it has been said like 100 times, the launcher was built with a code that would never trigger a brick if the launcher gets modified soemhow, for example, corruption of the SD. Since the modified code won't work, R4i disabled this protection leaving the brick code free to activate in any moment, so yes, they are to blame since they didn't remove this other part of the code as well.
     
    osirisjem likes this.
  17. Zaide

    Zaide GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    6
    Apr 2, 2009
    United States
    But they did distribute it as though they had written it. No where on R4i's site does it say "We didn't write or test this code so if it breaks your shit tough luck"
     
    Xzi likes this.
  18. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    pip Contributor
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Gotta agree with this. It's "their" firmware bricking consoles. Not Gateway's.

    I'd prefer if we had at least one other team doing original work. Then nobody would have to worry about this type of stuff at all. Oh well.
     
  19. Wisenheimer

    Wisenheimer GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    2
    Sep 23, 2013
    United States

    It is not an analogy. It is an example.

    Companies can be held responsible (at least legally) for damages arising from the use of their product and cannot simply claim, "no one is forced to buy [their product]," as you wrote. There are thousands of other possible examples that do not involve tort from injury. Simple proof of minor negligence is often enough to prove the manufacturer liable for damages (such as Apple selling iPhones with antennas that did not work when held in a certain manner). If Gateway is not just negligent, but actually purposefully included malicious code, that is a slam-dunk case.
     
    NEP likes this.
  20. thecourier

    thecourier Member

    Newcomer
    1
    Dec 10, 2013
    United States
    They didn't know it would happen, it wasn't done intentionally. That doesn't give them an excuse for not developing their own product. Gateway was the one that created it for its intention of BRICKING USER DEVICES. THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

    If I had HIV and I knowingly gave them to you, and then you proceeded to spread it to someone else (unknowingly), who is more at fault?
     
    NEP likes this.
Quick Reply
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...