Hardware Mig Switch on Switch 2

[der:Tom]

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

This looks very unbelievable.
He's showing his Mig Switch many times prominent in the video but "noooo I never used it inside" (maybe ask wife and kids kids if they did?) and he recorded but won't show his conversation with Nintendo on Youtube but only on his paid Patreon? Sure...

 

[Skelletonike]

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.

They are not bricking it, they are removing access from one of their services, which they are allowed to. You can still use the system, just not online with their services.

 

[franky0815]

This looks very unbelievable.
He's showing his Mig Switch many times prominent in the video but "noooo I never used it inside" (maybe ask wife and kids kids if they did?) and he recorded but won't show his conversation with Nintendo on Youtube but only on his paid Patreon? Sure...

could be bullshit for sure, but would also say that could be true because of nintendo beeing nintendo
same account on both console, one consoles flagged with mig switch, just ban all consoles that are linked to this account

 

[dovahkiing]

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.

Don’t 32 bit Switch 1 games require a 64 bit update to run on Switch 2? I recall reading the Switch 2 cannot run 32 bit titles - hence the updates you need to download from Nintendo if you, for example, insert an older copy of Mario Kart 8 in a Switch 2

 

[dovahkiing]

could be bullshit for sure, but would also say that could be true because of nintendo beeing nintendo
same account on both console, one consoles flagged with mig switch, just ban all consoles that are linked to this account

If that’s the logic, why not just issue an account ban? I’m not buying it…

 

[franky0815]

Why not just issue an account ban if that’s the rationale on their end? I’m not buying it…

with an account ban only you can make new accounts over and over
with an console ban you need a new console if you wanna play online

if they rly do it like that, more ppl will come up with it anyways, so time will tell us if this is true

 

[twatsandwich]

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

I think I lost a braincell watching that

 

[Shadow_The_Hedgehog82]

They are not bricking it, they are removing access from one of their services, which they are allowed to. You can still use the system, just not online with their services.

they essentially are bricking it though because most switch 2 carts need eshop downloads so you cant just buy a game ad play it anymore, basically turns the console into a switch 1 lol

 

[Shadow_The_Hedgehog82]

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

you sure about this i tested 2 games on my unupodated model and both said i need a sys update i debated doing it idk if i should leave the console or 19 or update to 20 while its still possible

 

[j0hnny]

They are not bricking it, they are removing access from one of their services, which they are allowed to. You can still use the system, just not online with their services.

I would like to see their approach challenged by a regulator (in the EU or otherwise). If Nintendo is preventing customers from accessing game updates (by banning them from their services) for legitimately purchased games, then that may well be ruled unlawful, as the consumer has purchased the game expecting to receive any patches and updates available.

 

[Shadow_The_Hedgehog82]

I would like to see their approach challenged by a regulator (in the EU or otherwise). If Nintendo is preventing customers from accessing game updates (by banning them from their services) for legitimately purchased games, then that may well be ruled unlawful, as the consumer has purchased the game expecting to receive any patches and updates available.

never gonna happen though unfortunately

 

[der:Tom]

could be bullshit for sure, but would also say that could be true because of nintendo beeing nintendo
same account on both console, one consoles flagged with mig switch, just ban all consoles that are linked to this account

Then why didn't they ban my oled Switch I got the same account on as on my banned V1?
Also my brother uses his account, also from a banned V1 without any problems on his Switch2 online.

 

[twatsandwich]

I would like to see their approach challenged by a regulator (in the EU or otherwise). If Nintendo is preventing customers from accessing game updates (by banning them from their services) for legitimately purchased games, then that may well be ruled unlawful, as the consumer has purchased the game expecting to receive any patches and updates available.

They're blocking the console from accessing their services - not your account, or the game you purchase though. I could see this being an issue if they were blacklisting the game cert, or blocking your account.

You still have the option to use the game in another console, and retrieve updates that way. I'd find it hard to believe there'd be any issues there.

This might be considered a bad take, considering the thread I'm in - but in all honesty - I'm disappointed by how naive at a large the community was for trying to use an old flashcart in a console within the first 2 weeks of release. Honestly - what did everyone expect to happen here?

 

[Blythe93]

Honestly - what did everyone expect to happen here?

People don't take into account the consequences until they finally catch up with them. There are some users that genuinely want to contribute to the community by willingly testing such flashcarts on their consoles and seeing what would happen in a few different scenarios and we all appreciate their efforts. Kudos to them, really. The rest are just pointlessly getting their consoles banned (unless they are fully aware about risks of getting their console banned and limitations their console will have afterwards and that they are fine with that).

 

[yankii]

I would like to see their approach challenged by a regulator (in the EU or otherwise). If Nintendo is preventing customers from accessing game updates (by banning them from their services) for legitimately purchased games, then that may well be ruled unlawful, as the consumer has purchased the game expecting to receive any patches and updates available.

Someone would've done it already seeing how Nintendo has already banned Switches from receiving game updates in the past if it would hold up in court.

Also, you're not banned from updating your game, just from using the eShop to do so, i.e., you can get the updates from a friend locally.

 

[PureFallen]

There are some users that genuinely want to contribute to the community by willingly testing such flashcarts on their consoles and seeing what would happen in a few different scenarios and we all appreciate their efforts.

This.

We could of course just go the "UnlockSwitch" approach and not do anything until others paved the path for us and make fun of those fallen along the way. But realistically nothing is gonna improve until people started testing what you can get away with and what not. So making fun of these or talking down on them seems rather inappropriate now. Especially if it should turn out to be true that Nintendo goes after people using Mig Switch with their own backups, things seem to be blown hella out of proportion now as their is legitimate interests on this approach (carrying less cartridges around; cartridge rotting, ...)

 

[x149te]

One more victim

 

[twatsandwich]

People don't take into account the consequences until they finally catch up with them. There are some users that genuinely want to contribute to the community by willingly testing such flashcarts on their consoles and seeing what would happen in a few different scenarios and we all appreciate their efforts. Kudos to them, really. The rest are just pointlessly getting their consoles banned (unless they are fully aware about risks of getting their console banned and limitations their console will have afterwards and that they are fine with that).

This.

We could of course just go the "UnlockSwitch" approach and not do anything until others paved the path for us and make fun of those fallen along the way. But realistically nothing is gonna improve until people started testing what you can get away with and what not. So making fun of these or talking down on them seems rather inappropriate now. Especially if it should turn out to be true that Nintendo goes after people using Mig Switch with their own backups, things seem to be blown hella out of proportion now as their is legitimate interests on this approach (carrying less cartridges around; cartridge rotting, ...)

Yeah, I don't mean to mock those who know what risk they're taking. Genuinely I applaud and thank them for both taking the financial risk and investing the time in furthering our knowledge here. It's those who go head first without thinking first, then jump to reddit, youtube and here to complain who are frustrating.

If you choose to play with fire, you can’t act surprised when you get burned.

 

[kyrio19]

what are chance that they forgot and keep the legitimate dump on both switch and switch 2 at the same time but forget about that.

 

[AshWeststar]

I would like to see their approach challenged by a regulator (in the EU or otherwise). If Nintendo is preventing customers from accessing game updates (by banning them from their services) for legitimately purchased games, then that may well be ruled unlawful, as the consumer has purchased the game expecting to receive any patches and updates available.

The Digital Content Directive (Directive 2019/770) requires traders to provide updates to keep digital content, like games, in conformity with the contract. However, suppose a user breaches the terms of service. In that case, Nintendo may terminate the contract, which could result in the suspension of updates. This is likely legal, as service agreements commonly permit such actions, and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (Directive 93/13/EEC) allows termination if the terms are fair. For physical games, updates might be seen as part of the good. Still, in practice, they're delivered via services, complicating the issue.

It seems likely that regulators could challenge Nintendo if updates are essential for game functionality, arguing consumers have a right to them. However, the ban affects only the console's online access, not the game itself. Since you can access updates on another console, your ability to receive updates isn't completely blocked, which would align with consumer protection laws, such as the Digital Content Directive (2019/770) and the Sale of Goods Directive (2019/771).

From my understanding, there is no infringement occurring within the existing directives.