Hardware The "Primary Console" Insanity

[HarveyHouston]

Try buying one physical game cart. And try sharing it with a friend of yours who lives in another place. So, you lend them your game cart. Are you still able to play the game you lent without buying a second copy?

This is the reason systems like this one exist in several digital shops. Otherwise, you could buy a game, share your account with hundreds of people and everyone would be playing the game at the same. Of course everyone should buy their own copy, Nintendo is a business after all, not a charity.organization.

And yeah, none wants to shell out more and more money on games. But that's because gaming is a luxury. You can live without gaming AT ALL. It's not something needed to breath; and if you don't want to use money because of whatever personal reason, or because it's not possible in your current financial situation, mod your consoles, pirate your games, and that's it.

While this is true, we're talking about sharing games locally, as well as remotely. If you can't even do it locally, then why have separate Nintendo Accounts? In fact, why even call the Switch a multiplayer system?!? This is not really gamer-friendly; it's just another way that Nintendo can rake in the cash! Face it, guys - Nintendo is screwing you whether you believe it or not.

 

[Draxzelex]

While this is true, we're talking about sharing games locally, as well as remotely. If you can't even do it locally, then why have separate Nintendo Accounts? In fact, why even call the Switch a multiplayer system?!? This is not really gamer-friendly; it's just another way that Nintendo can rake in the cash! Face it, guys - Nintendo is screwing you whether you believe it or not.

What video game console, let alone device, lets you share games locally without purchasing additional copies? The closest thing is the Nintendo DS and even then, that was game-specific. Not all games had that feature and you were lucky if it had it. And its called a multiplayer console because the assumption is all of your friends would buy the game not cheat the system.

 

[HarveyHouston]

What video game console, let alone device, lets you share games locally without purchasing additional copies? The closest thing is the Nintendo DS and even then, that was game-specific. Not all games had that feature and you were lucky if it had it. And its called a multiplayer console because the assumption is all of your friends would buy the game not cheat the system.

The Wii U. Seriously. Have you tried it? It can have multiple accounts on the same console, and each account can be able to play each others' games.

I think I'm beginning to understand why this problem exists. This is my own theory, but it seems logical (at least, to me, anyway). With the 3DS and the Wii U, you could only have one console per account. This is the first time that Nintendo has allowed your account to be tied to more than one console of the same type - specifically, the Switch and Switch Lite. Thus, since Iwata is gone and there aren't any true innovators in Nintendo now, I don't think they know how to handle this. Perhaps they weren't ready for it. Unfortunately, they're in it too deep to back out now, so they're just doing stupid crap to try to maintain their business and not fail altogether. This includes forcing people to buy separate copies of the same game if their accounts aren't on the same primary console.

Doesn't make it right, IMHO. This could still be done far better than what they're doing now. They are losing the honor and trust of their consumer base by doing this sh- STUFF! Okay, I really need to clean up my language!

 

[Draxzelex]

The Wii U. Seriously. Have you tried it? It can have multiple accounts on the same console, and each account can be able to play each others' games.

I think I'm beginning to understand why this problem exists. This is my own theory, but it seems logical (at least, to me, anyway). With the 3DS and the Wii U, you could only have one console per account. This is the first time that Nintendo has allowed your account to be tied to more than one console of the same type - specifically, the Switch and Switch Lite. Thus, since Iwata is gone and there aren't any true innovators in Nintendo now, I don't think they know how to handle this. Perhaps they weren't ready for it. Unfortunately, they're in it too deep to back out now, so they're just doing stupid crap to try to maintain their business and not fail altogether. This includes forcing people to buy separate copies of the same game if their accounts aren't on the same primary console.

Doesn't make it right, IMHO. This could still be done far better than what they're doing now. They are losing the honor and trust of their consumer base by doing this sh- STUFF! Okay, I really need to clean up my language!

The issue is as you stated that the Wii U and 3DS only allowed you to link one account per console therefore game sharing between the accounts was never an issue because only one console would ever be able to play the game. On the Switch, you can now have up to potentially 2 consoles playing the game. Therefore putting no restrictions on this means you have essentially pirated a copy of the game for someone else. That is why there are restrictions on game sharing on the Switch and any other console that allows for multiple devices per account.

 

[HarveyHouston]

On the Switch, you can now have up to potentially 2 consoles playing the game. Therefore putting no restrictions on this means you have essentially pirated a copy of the game for someone else. That is why there are restrictions on game sharing on the Switch and any other console that allows for multiple devices per account.

With all of the telemetry that is on the Switch system, I think it would be very hard for Nintendo to not find out which games have been pirated or not. You can ask some of the hackers on here; they will tell you that in order to hack your Switch system, you need to be offline first. Even then, whenever you get back online, it can still be reported to Nintendo what happened on your Switch system while it was offline. Therefore, I still don't see why the restrictions should be so... well, restrictive.

The restrictions are mainly for financial purposes, not just for preventing piracy. While I know that Nintendo has been trying to catch pirates, they weren't as strict about it as they have been in more recent times. They've become more rigid on what you can and can't do because they only see $$$ that are not in their bank accounts, thanks to Kimishima and his approved puppet Furukawa. They don't really need more money; they want more money. If they truly were a respectable company, they would be setting lower financial goals and doing what they could to please customers; instead, they're abusing their capitalist powers. While I'm very capitalist myself, I would also consider the "little people", as well. Nintendo hasn't been doing that, and this is why I'm against this "primary console" stupidity.

It really isn't about the luxury of gaming. It's about honor. Japan is a country whose culture is all about honor - honoring family, friends, royalty, and sometimes even sworn enemies! Honor is very, very important to them, and it still is, even though they've become more "Westernized" - you know, more like the United States. Regardless of Buddha or any religion that is practiced there, honor is a major part of their religions, their beliefs, their entire political system. Therefore, what they are doing is not honorable. They do not honor their customers. The customer, then, is NOT always right! That old adage has been tossed out the window! I respect their honor, their culture, their beliefs that are shared in the Christian principles that I believe in and practice. This is what I truly am fighting for, and why I am against what I call "The Primary Console Insanity".

 

[Deleted member 373223]

With all of the telemetry that is on the Switch system, I think it would be very hard for Nintendo to not find out which games have been pirated or not. You can ask some of the hackers on here; they will tell you that in order to hack your Switch system, you need to be offline first. Even then, whenever you get back online, it can still be reported to Nintendo what happened on your Switch system while it was offline. Therefore, I still don't see why the restrictions should be so... well, restrictive.

The restrictions are mainly for financial purposes, not just for preventing piracy. While I know that Nintendo has been trying to catch pirates, they weren't as strict about it as they have been in more recent times. They've become more rigid on what you can and can't do because they only see $$$ that are not in their bank accounts, thanks to Kimishima and his approved puppet Furukawa. They don't really need more money; they want more money. If they truly were a respectable company, they would be setting lower financial goals and doing what they could to please customers; instead, they're abusing their capitalist powers. While I'm very capitalist myself, I would also consider the "little people", as well. Nintendo hasn't been doing that, and this is why I'm against this "primary console" stupidity.

It really isn't about the luxury of gaming. It's about honor. Japan is a country whose culture is all about honor - honoring family, friends, royalty, and sometimes even sworn enemies! Honor is very, very important to them, and it still is, even though they've become more "Westernized" - you know, more like the United States. Regardless of Buddha or any religion that is practiced there, honor is a major part of their religions, their beliefs, their entire political system. Therefore, what they are doing is not honorable. They do not honor their customers. The customer, then, is NOT always right! That old adage has been tossed out the window! I respect their honor, their culture, their beliefs that are shared in the Christian principles that I believe in and practice. This is what I truly am fighting for, and why I am against what I call "The Primary Console Insanity".

The issue is that, by definition, sharing two accounts and playing the game at the same time is Piracy. They are, however, being kind and allowing us to "pretend" the Digital games are like Carts, in the fact that as many people as one wants can use them on their switch as long as it's not at the same time.

 

[HarveyHouston]

The issue is that, by definition, sharing two accounts and playing the game at the same time is Piracy. They are, however, being kind and allowing us to "pretend" the Digital games are like Carts, in the fact that as many people as one wants can use them on their switch as long as it's not at the same time.

Hmmm, well I hope you're able to buffer your argument, because according to what I've been reading, there are plenty of people who may just disagree with that statement, or perhaps don't even care what it's called, so long as Nintendo fixes it. I do not think it's piracy to allow other people to play your games, so long as you have control over who plays it or not.

I think that the responsibility should be up to the owner, not the company. If the owner wants the company to interfere, then that's different, but if their account or devices get stolen or lost, it should be where they can take the appropriate action. Nintendo just doing it for you without your consent is not the answer.

 

[Deleted member 373223]

Hmmm, well I hope you're able to buffer your argument, because according to what I've been reading, there are plenty of people who may just disagree with that statement, or perhaps don't even care what it's called, so long as Nintendo fixes it. I do not think it's piracy to allow other people to play your games, so long as you have control over who plays it or not.

I think that the responsibility should be up to the owner, not the company. If the owner wants the company to interfere, then that's different, but if their account or devices get stolen or lost, it should be where they can take the appropriate action. Nintendo just doing it for you without your consent is not the answer.

Okay, so, picture this, in a scenario where digital works like you want it to:
You have one cart game.
You somehow copy it, so now you have two (This is an hypothetical, not going to ask how that could be even done)
Now another person can play a copy of your game at the same time you do. That, is Piracy.

You have one digital game.
You "copy" it, by putting your Account on another Switch and Downloading it so now you have two.
Now, another person can play a copy of your game at the same time you do. That is piracy.

What you think does not matter legally. I could think of grabbing something from a store and walking away with it without paying as not shoplifting. Does that make it not shoplifting in the eyes of the law? Nope.

 

[HarveyHouston]

Okay, so, picture this, in a scenario where digital works like you want it to:
You have one cart game.
You somehow copy it, so now you have two (This is an hypothetical, not going to ask how that could be even done)
Now another person can play a copy of your game at the same time you do. That, is Piracy.

You have one digital game.
You "copy" it, by putting your Account on another Switch and Downloading it so now you have two.
Now, another person can play a copy of your game at the same time you do. That is piracy.

What you think does not matter legally. I could think of grabbing something from a store and walking away with it without paying as not shoplifting. Does that make it not shoplifting in the eyes of the law? Nope.

Ah, I see where you're going with this, but aren't you taking this a little too extreme? I think you misunderstand why this thread exists in the first place! I'm not trying to get Nintendo games on the Switch for free; I only want to be able to share my digital games with my friends. Besides, how can it be piracy if Nintendo says that you can share your games with other people? If the OEM says that sharing games with others is okay, then it can not be labelled piracy. That's actually what I'm hoping will happen; I'm not trying to break the restrictions myself.

In an attempt to suffice your argument that "sharing games is piracy", perhaps, then, a compromise can be made by Nintendo and the consumers who want to share games freely where the restrictions are not removed, but just altered, allowing to share your library of games only to a certain number of Nintendo accounts, maybe only those who have joined your Family Group, a certain number of friends, those who are covered by the Family tier of Nintendo Switch Online, or by other means that will allow you to share games with other Nintendo Accounts on non-primary consoles where your account is also linked. It could also be limited to a certain number of consoles, say six or ten.

There are various ways that this could be worked out and Nintendo still earn money, without the fear of their games being pirated. Believe me, piracy is still a concern, but so is financial stability for the consumers who shelled out $59.99 for each copy of a game for their family members during the pandemic, and ended up going broke because of it. Nintendo just needs to rethink their strategies, that's all.

 

[Draxzelex]

Ah, I see where you're going with this, but aren't you taking this a little too extreme? I think you misunderstand why this thread exists in the first place! I'm not trying to get Nintendo games on the Switch for free; I only want to be able to share my digital games with my friends. Besides, how can it be piracy if Nintendo says that you can share your games with other people? If the OEM says that sharing games with others is okay, then it can not be labelled piracy. That's actually what I'm hoping will happen; I'm not trying to break the restrictions myself.

In an attempt to suffice your argument that "sharing games is piracy", perhaps, then, a compromise can be made by Nintendo and the consumers who want to share games freely where the restrictions are not removed, but just altered, allowing to share your library of games only to a certain number of Nintendo accounts, maybe only those who have joined your Family Group, a certain number of friends, those who are covered by the Family tier of Nintendo Switch Online, or by other means that will allow you to share games with other Nintendo Accounts on non-primary consoles where your account is also linked. It could also be limited to a certain number of consoles, say six or ten.

There are various ways that this could be worked out and Nintendo still earn money, without the fear of their games being pirated. Believe me, piracy is still a concern, but so is financial stability for the consumers who shelled out $59.99 for each copy of a game for their family members during the pandemic, and ended up going broke because of it. Nintendo just needs to rethink their strategies, that's all.

There's no way around it. What you want is instead of Nintendo selling one copy per individual to sell one copy to multiple individuals. That is a net loss because now those people will never have bought the game when they could have which is the definition of piracy.

 

[HarveyHouston]

There's no way around it. What you want is instead of Nintendo selling one copy per individual to sell one copy to multiple individuals. That is a net loss because now those people will never have bought the game when they could have which is the definition of piracy.

For any respectable company, it shouldn't be about the money; it should be more about what the consumer wants. Oh, if only Saturo Iwata was here! He would know how to handle this and explain it better than I ever could.

If anyone who understands what I'm trying to say and agrees wants to comment, please do! I'm dyin', here!

 

[Draxzelex]

For any respectable company, it shouldn't be about the money; it should be more about what the consumer wants. Oh, if only Saturo Iwata was here! He would know how to handle this and explain it better than I ever could.

That makes even less sense. First of all, you just admitted that piracy is better than their current model. Secondly, if you make no money, then your business will fail. You have to strike a balance between earning profits and meeting your audience's expectations. You also have to remember that Nintendo primarily makes their profits via selling games so ensuring they sell as much as possible.

 

[HarveyHouston]

That makes even less sense. First of all, you just admitted that piracy is better than their current model. Secondly, if you make no money, then your business will fail. You have to strike a balance between earning profits and meeting your audience's expectations. You also have to remember that Nintendo primarily makes their profits via selling games so ensuring they sell as much as possible.

UGH! This is giving me a headache... You guys, you just don't get it. I'm done explaining my point of view about whether this is piracy or not to you; besides, I already have nearly 60% of voters who agree with me on this, so it really doesn't matter what you call piracy. Besides, I don't want to keep debating legalities; I want people to discuss this as a problem.

You guys can keep talking about this piracy thing, if you like, but count me out. I really do need a break.

 

[Draxzelex]

UGH! This is giving me a headache... You guys, you just don't get it. I'm done explaining my point of view about whether this is piracy or not to you; besides, I already have nearly 60% of voters who agree with me on this, so it really doesn't matter what you call piracy. Besides, I don't want to keep debating legalities; I want people to discuss this as a problem.

You guys can keep talking about this piracy thing, if you like, but count me out. I really do need a break.

First of all, you have as many votes as there are posts so your poll is hardly indicative of the feelings of the entire scene. Not to mention that vocal minorities are always louder than the people who are happy with the status quo.

Secondly, the problem you cite is illegal because of what you are trying to "change" i.e. by allowing more than one console to play only one copy of a game.

Thirdly, I reviewed what you said in the first post and you stated lies. More than one console can play the same game at the same time. The restriction is they cannot both be online which makes sense because again, you are duplicating a copy of the game.

 

[A Generic User]

Are you asking to have digital copies of a game shared the same way as a physical copy of a game? Because if you are...you kinda can't? At least, not conventionally? If you buy a digital game, you buy into the auspices of a digital game, no? Especially ones that have end user license agreements dictating how exactly they're allowed to be used? Yeah yeah, EULA =/= law, but if you take what they say at face value you realize how much you'd actually be able to do. Hell, even the ones for physical releases can be quite stringent: like most sample CDs explicitly permit only a non transferrable license to the person who first buys it. So, yes, even physical releases have those restrictions you find so anathema: it's just harder to notice / do anything about it because it's easy to occur under the radar.

I also don't think the Wii U analogy works because it's an entirely local copy. Come on, you'd find it stupid if you bought a disc and it would work on only one of the user accounts on the system, right? The principle here is the same: the system has no reason to restrict permission on the local use of a copy on your game system. That's different from uploading the game to another console and allowing them to play it. Heck, the Wii U didn't even allow you to do that in the first place, so the Switch's solution, while by no means perfect, is still better than what the Wii U had which was fuck all.

Just because you think it should be allowed, and other people have some semblance of agreement, doesn't mean it must be allowed. You might not think it's piracy, and you might be right, but ultimately, if Nintendo feels that it endangers their property, they're going to stray from it. They're a business: they have to find some way to balance their interest of getting money with consumers' interest of desiring a good service. Even if as you said it could only be restricted to friends....how would Nintendo even monitor that? And without potentially getting in trouble for unwarranted surveillance? How many NSO "Family Plans" actually involve a family and not a collective group of friends pitching in for one cost?

I'm not saying I like the situation, nor do I believe it cannot be improved, but these are circumstances I feel a digital comestible was never designed for.

 

[HarveyHouston]

I reviewed what you said in the first post and you stated lies. More than one console can play the same game at the same time. The restriction is they cannot both be online which makes sense because again, you are duplicating a copy of the game.

Okay, I made a few edits to the post to correct this mistake, as well as allowing people to draw their own conclusions instead of enforcing my own. I still think that there will be more who will agree that this restriction is too limiting, though.

 

[Draxzelex]

Okay, I made a few edits to the post to correct this mistake, as well as allowing people to draw their own conclusions instead of enforcing my own. I still think that there will be more who will agree that this restriction is too limiting, though.

...Its still incorrect because any console can access content from a Primary console's account as long as they are connected to the Internet. The Primary and Secondary still can't go online at the same time because as stated previously, you only own one copy of the game.

 

[Captain_N]

Their policy is stupid. If you dont like it they dont buy/play switch. Simple concept. Or just hack it and enjoy.

 

[HarveyHouston]

...Its still incorrect because any console can access content from a Primary console's account as long as they are connected to the Internet. The Primary and Secondary still can't go online at the same time because as stated previously, you only own one copy of the game.

Yes, but isn't it where on the non-primary that only the account in question can access the games, and not any other account, even offline? I was pretty sure that I clarified this.

 

[Draxzelex]

Yes, but isn't it where on the non-primary that only the account in question can access the games, and not any other account, even offline?

No? How would the game know its being accessed on the Primary console if its not online?