Hardware Mig Switch on Switch 2

[wartutor]

No, I'm pretty sure I covered that under point 1.


edit:

perhaps the confusin here is, i am not referring to the firmware update which adds compatibility with switch 1 titles.

Each game from switch 1, has a day 1 update required to function on the switch 2.

This is not true. Get the day one update and all games work. Each game does not need an update to run on switch 2. Idk where u heard this.

 

[whitesword7]

No, I'm pretty sure I covered that under point 1.


edit:

perhaps the confusin here is, i am not referring to the firmware update which adds compatibility with switch 1 titles.

Each game from switch 1, has a day 1 update required to function on the switch 2.

I don’t know how that day one update from your point 1 works… Is it unique to each catridge? so the update is like a unique decryption key for each physical catridge?

if so then yeah rip playing physical copy on the switch 2 CFW when its released

 

[Moe87]

Honest with you, I'm super frustrated with Nintendo over game keycard.

If I was Nintendo CEO, I will make a requirement for third party companies to put full game on cartridge and Nintendo will be responsible for all of cartridge cost, also must offer several different cartridge sizes based on game data. Invest in better compression technology. Nintendo can offset the loss by use money from 30% on digital sales to pay for cartridges.

Live games like Fortnite would be exception.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Honest with you, I'm super frustrated with Nintendo over game keycard.

If I was Nintendo CEO, I will make a requirement for third party companies to put full game on cartridge and Nintendo will be responsible for all of cartridge cost, also must offer several different cartridge sizes based on game data. Invest in better compression technology. Nintendo can offset the loss by use money from 30% on digital sales to pay for cartridges.

Live games like Fortnite would be exception.

We don't know the situation in full detail, but given the tech behind the carts for Switch 2 is likely similar to 3D NAND, I'd suggest that it's less about cost and more about supply. 3D NAND takes a LOT longer to manufacture than 2D NAND, but it is also has faster speeds and is technically cheaper at the same capacity due to its design. The choice to go with 64GB carts is likely because they (Nintendo and Macronix) don't have the time to go making multiple sizes. Plus, going with the bigger size can help in reducing costs over time.

The thing is, there are games that most definitely can't fit into a 32GB cart or less, where using the 64GB size made sense, but they chose not to go with that anyways and opted for Game Key Cards. If those GKC were not available, then those games would be digital-only. This is on the devs and publishers. Compression with Switch 2 games use the FDE block designed for the task, but it only works on specific formats. To go using a different compression format means alienating the use of that block, and going back to having the CPU do it at a slow pace.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

Honest with you, I'm super frustrated with Nintendo over game keycard.

If I was Nintendo CEO, I will make a requirement for third party companies to put full game on cartridge and Nintendo will be responsible for all of cartridge cost, also must offer several different cartridge sizes based on game data. Invest in better compression technology. Nintendo can offset the loss by use money from 30% on digital sales to pay for cartridges.

Live games like Fortnite would be exception.

I mean chances are the entire reason they were made was because 3rd party developers told them they wouldn't support the platform without a cheaper option. Similar thing happened before the Switch 1 released with Capcom saying they wouldn't develop for the system unless Nintendo made changes. Though realistically forcing devs to pay for these full carts would likely just result in devs not supporting the system or going completely digital only.

 

[Moe87]

I mean chances are the entire reason they were made was because 3rd party developers told them they wouldn't support the platform without a cheaper option. Similar thing happened before the Switch 1 released with Capcom saying they wouldn't develop for the system unless Nintendo made changes. Though realistically forcing devs to pay for these full carts would likely just result in devs not supporting the system or going completely digital only.

I'm saying about Nintendo cover 100% of cartridge cost.

Post automatically merged: Jun 17, 2025

We don't know the situation in full detail, but given the tech behind the carts for Switch 2 is likely similar to 3D NAND, I'd suggest that it's less about cost and more about supply. 3D NAND takes a LOT longer to manufacture than 2D NAND, but it is also has faster speeds and is technically cheaper at the same capacity due to its design. The choice to go with 64GB carts is likely because they (Nintendo and Macronix) don't have the time to go making multiple sizes. Plus, going with the bigger size can help in reducing costs over time.

The thing is, there are games that most definitely can't fit into a 32GB cart or less, where using the 64GB size made sense, but they chose not to go with that anyways and opted for Game Key Cards. If those GKC were not available, then those games would be digital-only. This is on the devs and publishers. Compression with Switch 2 games use the FDE block designed for the task, but it only works on specific formats. To go using a different compression format means alienating the use of that block, and going back to having the CPU do it at a slow pace.

Ok, it seems like Nintendo, Marvelous and CD Projekt are only 3 companies that continue to put full games on cartridge. Can't think about other companies.

 

[aoimatsuri]

Honest with you, I'm super frustrated with Nintendo over game keycard.

If I was Nintendo CEO, I will make a requirement for third party companies to put full game on cartridge and Nintendo will be responsible for all of cartridge cost, also must offer several different cartridge sizes based on game data. Invest in better compression technology. Nintendo can offset the loss by use money from 30% on digital sales to pay for cartridges.

Live games like Fortnite would be exception.

Same.
It's the worst news regarding Nintenso EVER

 

[zajebanosaurus]

I have a theory that consoles which are not banned are covered under the EU EULA. Nintendo can block pirated games from receiving updates, accessing online play, or even launching, but remote “bricking” of the console is explicitly mentioned only in the U.S. EULA. I’m not sure how it applies in other regions.


So, is there anyone from the EU who has actually been banned? From what I’ve read, Nintendo cannot brick your console remotely in the EU, even if you pirate a game — let alone if you use your own legally dumped games.

 

[x149te]

I have a theory that consoles which are not banned are covered under the EU EULA. Nintendo can block pirated games from receiving updates, accessing online play, or even launching, but remote “bricking” of the console is explicitly mentioned only in the U.S. EULA. I’m not sure how it applies in other regions.


So, is there anyone from the EU who has actually been banned? From what I’ve read, Nintendo cannot brick your console remotely in the EU, even if you pirate a game — let alone if you use your own legally dumped games.

Twitter guy with banned Switch 2 was from France. France is EU, right?

 

[Prof0nWear]

This is not true. Get the day one update and all games work. Each game does not need an update to run on switch 2. Idk where u heard this.

This not completely true - most switch 1 games will work out of the box, however upgraded games won't IIRC.

Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario Wonder require separate updates in order to work on SW2

 

[linuxares]

Twitter guy with banned Switch 2 was from France. France is EU, right?

Banning doesn't equal to bricked.

 

[zajebanosaurus]

Twitter guy with banned Switch 2 was from France. France is EU, right?

And there goes my theory... If his account and console was under EU EULA theoretically he can sue them

 

[AshWeststar]

A service agreement differs from a software licence; it governs access to ongoing services, not just a product you buy once. While a licence covers how you can use purchased software, a service allows companies like Nintendo to control your continued access to features like online services or system updates.

This gives them broad discretion; if you breach their service agreement, even in ways that might be legally permissible under copyright law, they can revoke access. You may have the legal right to dump and back up your games, but using that copy outside Nintendo's approved ecosystem (Such as the Mig Switch) is not permitted.

It's my understanding that this is the case throughout the US, the UK, and the EU.

In short, it might be legal for you to play backups, but it's also legal for Nintendo to revoke your access to their service for doing it.

 

[linuxares]

A service agreement differs from a software licence; it governs access to ongoing services, not just a product you buy once. While a licence covers how you can use purchased software, a service allows companies like Nintendo to control your continued access to features like online services or system updates.

This gives them broad discretion; if you breach their service agreement, even in ways that might be legally permissible under copyright law, they can revoke access. You may have the legal right to dump and back up your games, but using that copy outside Nintendo's approved ecosystem (Such as the Mig Switch) is not permitted.

It's my understanding that this is the case throughout the US, the UK, and the EU.

In short, it might be legal for you to play backups, but it's also legal for Nintendo to revoke your access to their service for doing it.

Depends , I would like to see a lawsuit since the banning of the console have degraded the usage of it. Which in theory is a violation against law. Mostly you can't agree away the law in EU.

 

[franky0815]

looks like nintendo is also banning switch2 consoles that never saw any insertion of a mig switch
if its true, this guy putting in the mig switch never in his switch2, but in a switch1 thats using the same nintendo account on both consoles

 

[der:Tom]

I have a theory that consoles which are not banned are covered under the EU EULA. Nintendo can block pirated games from receiving updates, accessing online play, or even launching, but remote “bricking” of the console is explicitly mentioned only in the U.S. EULA. I’m not sure how it applies in other regions.


So, is there anyone from the EU who has actually been banned? From what I’ve read, Nintendo cannot brick your console remotely in the EU, even if you pirate a game — let alone if you use your own legally dumped games.

Banned is not bricked and banns are also a thing in the EU, got a banned V1 here.

 

[Savoury]

Howdy guys, greetings from Germany!
I’ve been reading the forums for a while now, but I think I finally have a question that hasn’t been answered yet (or if it has, I might have overlooked it).

What would happen if you set up two users on the console — one that you strictly use offline with the MIG card, and another that you use online with regular cartridges? I mean, by law they wouldn’t be allowed to collect data from the offline user, right? Data privacy and all that. So to me, this would seem like a safe option, pretty much as safe as doing a factory reset in between.

 

[franky0815]

Howdy guys, greetings from Germany!
I’ve been reading the forums for a while now, but I think I finally have a question that hasn’t been answered yet (or if it has, I might have overlooked it).

What would happen if you set up two users on the console — one that you strictly use offline with the MIG card, and another that you use online with regular cartridges? I mean, by law they wouldn’t be allowed to collect data from the offline user, right? Data privacy and all that. So to me, this would seem like a safe option, pretty much as safe as doing a factory reset in between.

doesnt matter, your console will get banned

 

[AshWeststar]

Depends , I would like to see a lawsuit since the banning of the console have degraded the usage of it. Which in theory is a violation against law. Mostly you can't agree away the law in EU.

Banning consoles does not make them completely unusable. Revoking online access for breaches of service agreements is generally legal within the EU. While you are correct that you can't agree away core consumer rights, service bans are generally acceptable. The exception is if the ban significantly degrades usage beyond online features, it might be challenged.

I have not seen anything suggesting that anything other than online usage is affected?

Banned is not bricked and banns are also a thing in the EU, got a banned V1 here.

Switch 1 bans operated without issues are worth pointing out.

 

[Biduleman]

Howdy guys, greetings from Germany!
I’ve been reading the forums for a while now, but I think I finally have a question that hasn’t been answered yet (or if it has, I might have overlooked it).

What would happen if you set up two users on the console — one that you strictly use offline with the MIG card, and another that you use online with regular cartridges? I mean, by law they wouldn’t be allowed to collect data from the offline user, right? Data privacy and all that. So to me, this would seem like a safe option, pretty much as safe as doing a factory reset in between.

The Switch will still send telemetry data about the Switch. Data like "this Switch has used a Mig Flash".
The consoles are getting banned, not the users.