Hardware Mig Switch on Switch 2

[ISO-Man]

I just read the thread getting an alert about a system I will not own

Question I did not see asked: Did anyone try an Official 1 cart on 2 before update without owning a Mig? If yes, did game work? If no, are you banned?

This would confirm if the error of an unknown cart was the issue.

After reading about the MIG cart, I'll think I will get 1 for my sons s1. Tired of him taking my carts and my cases are empty.

 

[anhminh]

Imagine if a future exploit is because of an eshop exclusive game, but you can't download it because you're banned.. you'd care then

If that happen Nintendo will take down the game before the day end.

 

[Finray]

Did anyone confirm if they were using their legit games and still got banned. I’m guessing the cart has to be in the switch2 to maybe cause the ban, if that’s the case, can a person play their games with Nintendo servers blocked, if 90dns works on switch2. Legit games should register on switch2 that way. Other question if anyone that got banned could answer this here, was your mig the one with the button or without it, I’m guessing for that split second or so maybe it’s the button version and the button gets detected as a flash cart.

There was a YT guy that claimed they were clean dumps and he got banned, i think he goes by 'Scatterbrains' or something. He seemed credible.
As for the MiG v1 and v2 button question?... I am wondering the same thing.

Edit: Just a heads up to anyone reading this, but update 20.1.5 is due anytime now.

 

[drowzeehypno]

Can you do sd card update without updating to 20.1.5 on 20.1.1

 

[23333]

hi,I'm a Chinese ,in these days,i saw 3 people banned in the group,they all used the old mig firmware 1.1.9 and get a error, then they all use the new firmware 1.2.0 ,successfully launched the game which can't launch on old firmware, and I also have a example, another person used the 1.1.9 and get error, then he throw away his mig, his switch2 doesn't have been banned.so I guess that Nintendo check mig by two features:
1.you used the old firmware and get error.
2.after the new firmware came,you successfully run the game which cann't run before.

I guess a broken real card can also get same error, but it can't turn to good, especially after the new mig firmware come.
So Nintendo can use this way to check if you have used mig,

all above is just my guess,I'm glad to know new from you

 

[23333]

hi,I'm a Chinese ,in these days,i saw 3 people banned in the group,they all used the old mig firmware 1.1.9 and get a error, then they all use the new firmware 1.2.0 ,successfully launched the game which can't launch on old firmware, and I also have a example, another person used the 1.1.9 and get error, then he throw away his mig, his switch2 doesn't have been banned.so I guess that Nintendo check mig by two features:
1.you used the old firmware and get error.
2.after the new firmware came,you successfully run the game which cann't run before.

I guess a broken real card can also get same error, but it can't turn to good, especially after the new mig firmware come.
So Nintendo can use this way to check if you have used mig,

all above is just my guess,I'm glad to know new from you

 

[drowzeehypno]

hi,I'm a Chinese ,in these days,i saw 3 people banned in the group,they all used the old mig firmware 1.1.9 and get a error, then they all use the new firmware 1.2.0 ,successfully launched the game which can't launch on old firmware, and I also have a example, another person used the 1.1.9 and get error, then he throw away his mig, his switch2 doesn't have been banned.so I guess that Nintendo check mig by two features:
1.you used the old firmware and get error.
2.after the new firmware came,you successfully run the game which cann't run before.

I guess a broken real card can also get same error, but it can't turn to good, especially after the new mig firmware come.
So Nintendo can use this way to check if you have used mig,

all above is just my guess,I'm glad to know new from you

has your chinese friends tested to use mig on 20.1.5

 

[AshWeststar]

No, you must be able to access any game, and since there's games that are only in keycard form, that is, they are digital, if the service to access the digital game is forbidden, that is considered crippling functionality, which, being the case that such a limitation actually doesn't help nintendo maintain its functionality for other users, yes, we are in a consumer goods law/norm abuse case and no, it wouldn't stand a chance in court.

I hope this is a good-faith discussion, as it requires a significant amount of effort to write out this information.

The Digital Content Directive (2019/770) regulates contracts for digital content and services, such as games downloaded via game key cards. It mandates that traders provide digital content in conformity with the contract, including necessary updates, throughout the supply period. If the trader fails to supply content, consumers can terminate the contract after a reminder (Article 13). Upon termination, consumers must cease using the content, and traders must provide access to user-generated content, except personal data (Article 16). However, the DCD does not explicitly address the trader's right to terminate for consumer breaches. If a contract is terminated due to a significant breach, such as piracy, the trader's obligation to provide digital content, including license verification, typically ends upon the conclusion of the supply period.

The Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC) permits unilateral termination by the trader without objective justification, which can be considered potentially unfair. A previously linked study on digital service contracts notes that termination clauses for significant breaches, such as violations of intellectual property rights (combating piracy), are generally permissible.

The Sale of Goods Directive (2019/771) applies to physical goods, including those with digital elements, such as game key cards, which are tangible items containing digital licenses. It requires goods to conform to the contract, including being fit for their intended purpose. If a good is defective, consumers can seek remedies like repair, replacement, or refund from the seller (Article 13). For goods with digital elements, traders must ensure that the digital content remains accessible as agreed upon. Still, this obligation is subject to the contract terms, which may include service restrictions for breaches of the contract.

The claim that bans "unnecessarily cripple" functionality assumes that preventing key card use on a banned console violates consumer rights. However, bans are typically a response to significant breaches of the rules. The previously linked study on digital services supports that such terminations are fair. Since the key card works on non-banned consoles, the consumer's right to access digital content is not entirely revoked; it is only restricted on the banned device due to the user's actions.

Under the DCD, Nintendo's obligation to provide digital content terminates if the contract is terminated due to a breach of the contract. The UCTD allows termination clauses if they are transparent and proportionate. Nintendo's EULA likely specifies that breaches, such as piracy, lead to bans, and courts would assess these terms for fairness. The European Parliament's resolution on online video games emphasises the importance of consumer protection. Still, it does not prohibit service bans for breaches, suggesting that such practices are standard in the industry. Thus, preventing a game key card from working on a banned console is likely legal, as it's a direct consequence of the breach.

Suppose a game key card is purchased from a retailer and fails to work on a banned console. In that case, the consumer might seek a refund, arguing the product is defective. However, under the SGD, a good is faulty if it does not conform to the contract, such as being unfit for its intended purpose. Since the key card is functional on non-banned consoles, it is not defective; the issue arises from the console's banned status, a result of the user's breach. The DCD similarly requires digital content to conform. Still, if access is restricted due to a violation, the trader is not liable for any subsequent losses. Thus, consumers are unlikely to be entitled to a refund from the seller unless the card itself is faulty, not because of the console's status. If purchased directly from Nintendo, the same logic applies, as the ban is a contractual consequence, not a product defect.

The claim that preventing key card use on a banned console is "crippling functionality" and wouldn't stand in court is incorrect. The ban does not render the console or key card entirely unusable; offline functionality and use on other consoles remain intact. The study on digital services supports the notion that termination for breaches, such as piracy, is proportionate, as it protects the service's integrity, contrary to the claim that it "doesn't help Nintendo maintain functionality for other users". EU courts are likely to uphold such terms, as seen in cases like the Valve litigation in Germany, where terms restricting digital access were upheld when justified.

If we were to interpret that you were referring to banning the specific game key card, if the user clones it, they would be engaging in piracy, violating the InfoSoc Directive and Nintendo's EULA. The study on digital services supports that termination for such breaches is fair. Banning the cloned license is a proportionate response, as cloning undermines Nintendo's business. The DCD allows for the termination of digital content supply for breaches, and the UCTD permits such terms.

Under the SGD, a game key card is a product with digital elements, and remedies are available if it's defective (fails to verify a license due to a manufacturing fault). However, if banned due to cloning, the card is not faulty; the issue stems from a contractual breach or third-party action. The DCD similarly requires digital content to conform but permits bans for breaches. Thus, consumers are unlikely to be entitled to a refund from the seller or Nintendo unless the card itself is faulty. Thus, banning the license is also likely a legal action.

Edit: Minor text fixes and added context for game key returns/remedies if it was specifically banned.

 

[ertaboy356b]

What honestly surprises me about these bans is that people genuinely believed they wouldn’t be impacted. Almost in line with the check fraud incident a while back. Not sure why people thought they were untouchable. FAFO

I’ll be honest though, a full on hardware ban seems excessive. At the very least they should allow the software to be updated and even the store accessed in the event of a legitimate purchase inquiry. Not that anyone who was banned for a shady device would want to do so.

AHHH, I remember when my 3DS got banned. Sun/Moon cia files got leaked online, installed it. Went online and saw tons of people online playing the game in the Plaza. Got banned a few days after release lmao.

 

[Inaki]

hi,I'm a Chinese ,in these days,i saw 3 people banned in the group,they all used the old mig firmware 1.1.9 and get a error, then they all use the new firmware 1.2.0 ,successfully launched the game which can't launch on old firmware, and I also have a example, another person used the 1.1.9 and get error, then he throw away his mig, his switch2 doesn't have been banned.so I guess that Nintendo check mig by two features:
1.you used the old firmware and get error.
2.after the new firmware came,you successfully run the game which cann't run before.

I guess a broken real card can also get same error, but it can't turn to good, especially after the new mig firmware come.
So Nintendo can use this way to check if you have used mig,

all above is just my guess,I'm glad to know new from you

So, I have been hesitant on whether to tell my case here or not:

I had bought a MiG Flash back in the v1 days and it had arrived veeery late, in a v2 form. I had ordered this in order to test how low-level it was. When it arrived and after some tests ( nothing that thorough as what @TotalJustice has done ) I thought it was a very low level thing and it may work with the then future Switch 2. I actually didn't need MiG since most of my Switch consoles are modchipped ( long story, I don't do this professionally but I like modding things, microsoldering, and so on, and I was quite sick during some months in the pandemic and modding consoles for friends/relatives and myself was a good evasion/escape/entertainment ).

Then, I wasn't going to get a Switch 2 in this launch window, I didn't and I don't think the catalogue justifies it by now and it seems for a good while... but then I found a place in Spain which had stock and it was even lower price than MSRP and some FOMO ( hack/jailbreak/mod type of FOMO ) kicked in so I bought it.

Having seen all the discussions on MiG Flash and having myself speculated about it ( the real cart speed vs Switch 1 cart reader slot speed vs MiG Flash speed, using a faster microSD... ) I ordered a MKW bundled one and also ordered the fastest regular microSD I found ( Lexar Silver Plus 256GB, read speeds up to 205MB/s, sustained 180-190MB/s reportedly ) in order to try that in the MiG Flash. For the Switch 2 itself I got the SanDisk microSD Express card, also 256GB.

The Switch 2 and the both microSDs arrived June 10th and I tried everything was working fine. Then I updated to 20.1.1 and activated the microSD thing. I entered an account I had since the Wii U days ( very very old, never used in Switch 1 and almost unused in Wii U too, I had some virtual console purchases there but those are no longer usable on Switch ), registered my PayPal there and purchased a few things and downloaded them.

I then decided I would try the MiG Flash with a dumped copy of Zelda TotK. For that I updated the MiG Flash to the then latest 1.19 and used the MiG Dumper ( the red box ) to make a copy of my original Zelda TotK.

Now, before trying the MiG Flash with the Zelda TotK files, I inserted the original Zelda TotK cart in the Switch 2 and I paid the upgrade for 10€ ( I would later purchase a year of Nintendo Switch Online suscription to get the GameCube classic goodies and that would have given me both Zelda BotW and TotK upgrades for free, but anyway ) and downloaded it. I started Zelda TotK with the original cart and played for a few minutes.

Then, I removed the original Zelda TotK cart and inserted the MiG Flash with Zelda TotK files. I saw it did read but then I reproduced what all fellow MiG Flash users were having, read error when trying to run the game.

Speculation here in GBATemp was going on and I just spent some days playing the wonderful MKW and a bit of TotK, GameCube and some few others ( just minutes in total, not even an hour, so mostly MKW ).

On Sunday 15th I saw MiG team had delivered the 1.20 update and I updated my MiG Flash cart ( powering it in the MiG dumper, in the red box, not in the Switch 2 nor any Switch; the update went just fine ). And then tried it:



Again, notice that before using the MiG Flash I inserted the original Zelda TotK cart, extracted it and inserted the MiG Flash cart with Zelda TotK files. I ran the game again and I saw it was working fine for the first time, I took a small video, extracted the MiG Flash cart and I stored it for never using it again until now. I have used several original carts and downloaded their updates and so on, just regular Switch 2 use, still mostly MKW.

I have been using WiFi and airplane mode, both, downloading some more small games and using airplane mode otherwise, but I even had WiFi connectivity for good periods of time.

So far so good, no ban.

My take on all this, added to the few recommendations of using your own original cart dumps and now staying away from all things MiG altogether ( mostly so after the latest @TotalJustice findings, which clearly show MiG Flash firmware has big flaws still, hopefully to be addressed in the - near ? - future ) is that having used the actual original carts of the games later tested with MiG Flash has saved our asses. My pseudo-educated guess here is the heuristics applied by nintendo ( in both, failing 1.19 and later, "working" 1.20 MiG Flash firmware stages ) may have accounted for something like "if there is a proper loading of game ID X and then/also a failing loading of the same game ID X, don't treat that as a counterfeit cart use", something like "it may be a dirty/failing cart but still original".

Anyway, what do you guys think ?

 

[hollowtip]

Has anyone confirmed that a Key Card cart game can be played that was downloaded PRIOR to a Switch 2 ban?

 

[bth]

Has anyone confirmed that a Key Card cart game can be played that was downloaded PRIOR to a Switch 2 ban?

Depending on if they use the e-license method or not, 50/50. If they didn't it should work fine as long as the cartridge is inserted, if they used the digital e-license method (temporary licenses granted about every 14 days), then it would work until the next period, and then never again.

for the switch 1 they mostly only used the e-licensing method for DLC granted by the "Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion pack" (such as the animal crossing DLC)

 

[Inaki]

I hope this is a good-faith discussion, as it requires a significant amount of effort to write out this information.

The Digital Content Directive (2019/770) regulates contracts for digital content and services, such as games downloaded via game key cards. It mandates that traders provide digital content in conformity with the contract, including necessary updates, throughout the supply period. If the trader fails to supply content, consumers can terminate the contract after a reminder (Article 13). Upon termination, consumers must cease using the content, and traders must provide access to user-generated content, except personal data (Article 16). However, the DCD does not explicitly address the trader's right to terminate for consumer breaches. If a contract is terminated due to a significant breach, such as piracy, the trader's obligation to provide digital content, including license verification, typically ends upon the conclusion of the supply period.

The Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC) permits unilateral termination by the trader without objective justification, which can be considered potentially unfair. A previously linked study on digital service contracts notes that termination clauses for significant breaches, such as violations of intellectual property rights (combating piracy), are generally permissible.

The Sale of Goods Directive (2019/771) applies to physical goods, including those with digital elements, such as game key cards, which are tangible items containing digital licenses. It requires goods to conform to the contract, including being fit for their intended purpose. If a good is defective, consumers can seek remedies like repair, replacement, or refund from the seller (Article 13). For goods with digital elements, traders must ensure that the digital content remains accessible as agreed upon. Still, this obligation is subject to the contract terms, which may include service restrictions for breaches of the contract.

The claim that bans "unnecessarily cripple" functionality assumes that preventing key card use on a banned console violates consumer rights. However, bans are typically a response to significant breaches of the rules. The previously linked study on digital services supports that such terminations are fair. Since the key card works on non-banned consoles, the consumer's right to access digital content is not entirely revoked; it is only restricted on the banned device due to the user's actions.

Under the DCD, Nintendo's obligation to provide digital content terminates if the contract is terminated due to a breach of the contract. The UCTD allows termination clauses if they are transparent and proportionate. Nintendo's EULA likely specifies that breaches, such as piracy, lead to bans, and courts would assess these terms for fairness. The European Parliament's resolution on online video games emphasises the importance of consumer protection. Still, it does not prohibit service bans for breaches, suggesting that such practices are standard in the industry. Thus, preventing a game key card from working on a banned console is likely legal, as it's a direct consequence of the breach.

Suppose a game key card is purchased from a retailer and fails to work on a banned console. In that case, the consumer might seek a refund, arguing the product is defective. However, under the SGD, a good is faulty if it does not conform to the contract, such as being unfit for its intended purpose. Since the key card is functional on non-banned consoles, it is not defective; the issue arises from the console's banned status, a result of the user's breach. The DCD similarly requires digital content to conform. Still, if access is restricted due to a violation, the trader is not liable for any subsequent losses. Thus, consumers are unlikely to be entitled to a refund from the seller unless the card itself is faulty, not because of the console's status. If purchased directly from Nintendo, the same logic applies, as the ban is a contractual consequence, not a product defect.

The claim that preventing key card use on a banned console is "crippling functionality" and wouldn't stand in court is incorrect. The ban does not render the console or key card entirely unusable; offline functionality and use on other consoles remain intact. The study on digital services supports the notion that termination for breaches, such as piracy, is proportionate, as it protects the service's integrity, contrary to the claim that it "doesn't help Nintendo maintain functionality for other users". EU courts are likely to uphold such terms, as seen in cases like the Valve litigation in Germany, where terms restricting digital access were upheld when justified.

If we were to interpret that you were referring to banning the specific game key card, if the user clones it, they would be engaging in piracy, violating the InfoSoc Directive and Nintendo's EULA. The study on digital services supports that termination for such breaches is fair. Banning the cloned license is a proportionate response, as cloning undermines Nintendo's business. The DCD allows for the termination of digital content supply for breaches, and the UCTD permits such terms.

Under the SGD, a game key card is a product with digital elements, and remedies are available if it's defective (fails to verify a license due to a manufacturing fault). However, if banned due to cloning, the card is not faulty; the issue stems from a contractual breach or third-party action. The DCD similarly requires digital content to conform but permits bans for breaches. Thus, consumers are unlikely to be entitled to a refund from the seller or Nintendo unless the card itself is faulty. Thus, banning the license is also likely a legal action.

Edit: Minor text fixes and added context for game key returns/remedies if it was specifically banned.

Man, of course this is all in good faith, come on, we are all fellow tempers here, trying to make sense of both the technical aspects and the legal aspects of the bans, etc.

I understand what you mean but the problem for me, specially in this generation and moreso with the Switch 2 is that most of the games are now digital goods. Now, I am still not sure ( conflicting reports from different fellow tempers here, although @bth seems to be the one that knows best so I will take his report as the correct one here ) about the key card based games, whether a banned console will be able to download the corresponding game or not, but the thing is you would end up having maybe 90% of the games inaccessible. So, in this scenario, this:

<<The Sale of Goods Directive (2019/771) applies to physical goods, including those with digital elements, such as game key cards, which are tangible items containing digital licenses. It requires goods to conform to the contract, including being fit for their intended purpose. If a good is defective, consumers can seek remedies like repair, replacement, or refund from the seller (Article 13). For goods with digital elements, traders must ensure that the digital content remains accessible as agreed upon. Still, this obligation is subject to the contract terms, which may include service restrictions for breaches of the contract.>>

and

<<Under the SGD, a game key card is a product with digital element...>>

Is a bit or better say quite tricky, is not the digital elements, it is essentially ALL digital. So this, I think, wouldn't apply. Morally/practically/... this SHOULDN'T apply.

So, in the essence of what is actually happening here, I agree to disagree. Also, then there is the fact that nintendo should, in a case by case basis, give evidence that each case has been an actual ilegal use. The EU permits backup use.

 

[Locutus73]

I guess a broken real card can also get same error, but it can't turn to good, especially after the new mig firmware come.

I guess a flaky card can be unreadable and then readable because a failing component with irregular behaviour or because of dirty contacts.

 

[AshWeststar]

I understand what you mean but the problem for me, specially in this generation and moreso with the Switch 2 is that most of the games are now digital goods. Now, I am still not sure ( conflicting reports from different fellow tempers here, although @bth seems to be the one that knows best so I will take his report as the correct one here ) about the key card based games, whether a banned console will be able to download the corresponding game or not, but the thing is you would end up having maybe 90% of the games inaccessible.

Protecting against piracy outweighs individual backup use, and EU courts, as seen in Sony v. Datel, clarify that not all modifications infringe copyright. In that case, the court ruled that Datel's unauthorised cheat devices did not infringe Sony's copyright since they did not copy the source code. However, this doesn't prevent Nintendo from banning users from online services for breaching their EULA. Such bans from services are likely lawful under EU contract law, even for legitimate backups under the UCTD.

Is a bit or better say quite tricky, is not the digital elements, it is essentially ALL digital. So this, I think, wouldn't apply.

We know, based on the Valve litigation in Germany, where terms restricting digital access were upheld when justified, that the argument for protections on a fully digital product becomes significantly weaker in this scenario, particularly when a breach is determined.

So, in the essence of what is actually happening here, I agree to disagree. Also, then there is the fact that nintendo should, in a case by case basis, give evidence that each case has been an actual ilegal use. The EU permits backup use.

In service agreements, when Nintendo bans access to online services for suspected breaches, such as piracy, it acts by its EULA. The burden shifts to consumers to appeal, as they must demonstrate the ban was unjustified, aligning with contract law principles where the challenging party provides evidence. This is standard, as seen in the European Union Digital Services Act Resolution Options, where users contest decisions. Under EU law, the DSA mandates appeal processes; however, the initial step is for the user to initiate and provide evidence, such as logs or data, to counter Nintendo's detection. This is supported by out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under the DSA, where users must engage first. The study on digital services reinforces that termination for breaches is fair, placing the onus on users to challenge.

However, as you correctly identified, it is still not illegal for you to make those backups. But the misunderstanding is that it is equally not unlawful for Nintendo to ban the account/game key card/console from their online services for making or using those backups. The norm in this scenario is that, under EU law, the burden of proof of innocence is placed on you to prove that someone did not use or make those backups, both knowingly and unknowingly, on that card/console/account, etc.

Edit: Clarified the complete scope of banning that Nintendo could perform, which is likely lawful currently. Burden of proof clarification.

 

[OrGoN3]

Depending on if they use the e-license method or not, 50/50. If they didn't it should work fine as long as the cartridge is inserted, if they used the digital e-license method (temporary licenses granted about every 14 days), then it would work until the next period, and then never again.

for the switch 1 they mostly only used the e-licensing method for DLC granted by the "Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion pack" (such as the animal crossing DLC)

It's very obviously not an e-license.

"An internet connection is only required when you launch the game for the first time. After this, the game can be started even without an internet connection. However, like regular physical software, the game-key card must be inserted into the system in order to play the game."

https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/68415/~/nintendo-switch&nbsp;2-game-key-card-overview

 

[mrsha]

So, I have been hesitant on whether to tell my case here or not:

I had bought a MiG Flash back in the v1 days and it had arrived veeery late, in a v2 form. I had ordered this in order to test how low-level it was. When it arrived and after some tests ( nothing that thorough as what @TotalJustice has done ) I thought it was a very low level thing and it may work with the then future Switch 2. I actually didn't need MiG since most of my Switch consoles are modchipped ( long story, I don't do this professionally but I like modding things, microsoldering, and so on, and I was quite sick during some months in the pandemic and modding consoles for friends/relatives and myself was a good evasion/escape/entertainment ).

Then, I wasn't going to get a Switch 2 in this launch window, I didn't and I don't think the catalogue justifies it by now and it seems for a good while... but then I found a place in Spain which had stock and it was even lower price than MSRP and some FOMO ( hack/jailbreak/mod type of FOMO ) kicked in so I bought it.

Having seen all the discussions on MiG Flash and having myself speculated about it ( the real cart speed vs Switch 1 cart reader slot speed vs MiG Flash speed, using a faster microSD... ) I ordered a MKW bundled one and also ordered the fastest regular microSD I found ( Lexar Silver Plus 256GB, read speeds up to 205MB/s, sustained 180-190MB/s reportedly ) in order to try that in the MiG Flash. For the Switch 2 itself I got the SanDisk microSD Express card, also 256GB.

The Switch 2 and the both microSDs arrived June 10th and I tried everything was working fine. Then I updated to 20.1.1 and activated the microSD thing. I entered an account I had since the Wii U days ( very very old, never used in Switch 1 and almost unused in Wii U too, I had some virtual console purchases there but those are no longer usable on Switch ), registered my PayPal there and purchased a few things and downloaded them.

I then decided I would try the MiG Flash with a dumped copy of Zelda TotK. For that I updated the MiG Flash to the then latest 1.19 and used the MiG Dumper ( the red box ) to make a copy of my original Zelda TotK.

Now, before trying the MiG Flash with the Zelda TotK files, I inserted the original Zelda TotK cart in the Switch 2 and I paid the upgrade for 10€ ( I would later purchase a year of Nintendo Switch Online suscription to get the GameCube classic goodies and that would have given me both Zelda BotW and TotK upgrades for free, but anyway ) and downloaded it. I started Zelda TotK with the original cart and played for a few minutes.

Then, I removed the original Zelda TotK cart and inserted the MiG Flash with Zelda TotK files. I saw it did read but then I reproduced what all fellow MiG Flash users were having, read error when trying to run the game.

Speculation here in GBATemp was going on and I just spent some days playing the wonderful MKW and a bit of TotK, GameCube and some few others ( just minutes in total, not even an hour, so mostly MKW ).

On Sunday 15th I saw MiG team had delivered the 1.20 update and I updated my MiG Flash cart ( powering it in the MiG dumper, in the red box, not in the Switch 2 nor any Switch; the update went just fine ). And then tried it:



Again, notice that before using the MiG Flash I inserted the original Zelda TotK cart, extracted it and inserted the MiG Flash cart with Zelda TotK files. I ran the game again and I saw it was working fine for the first time, I took a small video, extracted the MiG Flash cart and I stored it for never using it again until now. I have used several original carts and downloaded their updates and so on, just regular Switch 2 use, still mostly MKW.

I have been using WiFi and airplane mode, both, downloading some more small games and using airplane mode otherwise, but I even had WiFi connectivity for good periods of time.

So far so good, no ban.

My take on all this, added to the few recommendations of using your own original cart dumps and now staying away from all things MiG altogether ( mostly so after the latest @TotalJustice findings, which clearly show MiG Flash firmware has big flaws still, hopefully to be addressed in the - near ? - future ) is that having used the actual original carts of the games later tested with MiG Flash has saved our asses. My pseudo-educated guess here is the heuristics applied by nintendo ( in both, failing 1.19 and later, "working" 1.20 MiG Flash firmware stages ) may have accounted for something like "if there is a proper loading of game ID X and then/also a failing loading of the same game ID X, don't treat that as a counterfeit cart use", something like "it may be a dirty/failing cart but still original".

Anyway, what do you guys think ?

If a ban happen in the future make sure to update us. Good luck!

 

[mrsha]

Also why not create a thread for the EU discussion, seriously it's been going for a dozen pages now and has nothing to do with the Mig.

 

[AshWeststar]

Also why not create a thread for the EU discussion, seriously it's been going for a dozen pages now and has nothing to do with the Mig.

This thread has reiterated the legal aspects of using Mig a number of times and its legality, so it does seem to be associated with the Mig.

Perhaps a moderator can move all the comments mentioning legality into a separate thread, as you suggest?

 

[Inaki]

If a ban happen in the future make sure to update us. Good luck!

I will, you can trust me I will ( and at least in the near future, no plans of using anything MiG, even if they update and so on; now, in the longer run, if things change and we are confident enough and so on, I may start using it again for the sake of using a single cart for all the games, but in that case I'd also tell you and the in between period before that would be quite long so conclusions may still be applicable ).