Nintendo Is Already Punishing Switch 2 Users Over Piracy ‘Suspicions’

from the pre-crime dept

Back in May, we talked about a change that Nintendo made to its EULA that essentially amounted to “We’ll brick your console if we don’t like how you use it.” Now, Nintendo will tell you that the changes were done to protect the company from the threat of piracy. The problem is that’s not what the EULA actually says. Instead, it lists out a series of actions it is prohibiting, despite most of those actions having perfectly legal and legitimate use-cases that have nothing to do with piracy. Here’s what PC Gamer had to say about it at the time:

The sections I most take issue with are the prohibitions on copying, modifying, or decompiling software—particularly as it no longer accounts for it being “expressly permitted by applicable law”—as well as hardware/software modifications “that would cause the Nintendo Account Services to operate other than in accordance with its documentation and intended use.”

No game or hardware modding, no extracting ROMs⁠—something Nintendo continuously asserts we cannot do, even though it is a legally protected consumer right⁠—and no dual booting to another OS.

When it comes to extracting ROMs, that is perfectly legal in America. Threats to render a $500 console functionally destroyed because someone engaged in legal activity isn’t just absurd, it should itself be illegal. As is often the case, Nintendo is asserting rights it simply doesn’t have here, with overly broad restrictions on a console that the buyer, in theory at least, owns.

Well, we have yet to see Nintendo go that nuclear route of bricking devices, but it is already exacting punishments on owners of the Switch 2 for the use of a MIG Switch.

The device in question is called the MIG Switch and it’s a cartridge that users can load up with games—either ones backed up from legally purchased copies or files pirated online. Nintendo started suing people who sell the MIG Switch last year and designed the Switch 2 so the carts wouldn’t work with it. The makers of MIG Switch, however, recently released a firmware update that made it possible to use the devices to load Switch 1 games on the Switch 2.

Nintendo has responded by banning any Switch 2 that it’s seemingly found to have run one of the illicit flash cartridges at some point. “My NS2 has been console banned and I have absolutely no idea why!” wrote SquareSphere on the Switch 2 subreddit earlier today. “The only thing I can think what has happened is that I tried my Mig switch in my NS2 once.”

There are a lot more of these reports out in the wild, but essentially Nintendo is cutting these consoles off from all online services. And, again, the offense leading to this punishment is the use of a device that can be, but is not strictly, used for piracy. Other uses include backing up your game library, loading your ROMs from games you absolutely purchased so they can be ported over to your new Switch 2 on one cartridge. In fact, for their piracy concerns, Nintendo has a bunch of other methods for policing that sort of thing.

That being said, it isn’t as simple as dumping pirated copies on a MIG-Switch and calling it a day since Nintendo has robust anti-piracy measures in place, often through unique cartridge identifiers. If two users attempt to play the same game online simultaneously using a single copy, Nintendo can flag this as piracy. As you can expect, this likely has led to many false positives, especially in the case of used cartridges.

It appears the Switch 2 is even stricter on this front, as there are now widespread reports of users being banned even when using what they purport as their own legitimately dumped game ROMs on the MIG-Switch. While users’ Nintendo accounts reportedly remain unaffected, their consoles are now blocked from accessing Nintendo’s online services. That means saying goodbye to Mario Kart World, the eShop, YouTube, cloud saves, and the list goes on.

Now, why it’s allowed to do all of this without any confrontation from any sort of consumer rights organization or, hell, civil litigation lawyers is possibly just a matter of time. The console is new and perhaps we’ll see some of that activity in the near future. We certainly should, after all, given how wildly anti-consumer this all is.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: nintendo

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Nintendo Is Already Punishing Switch 2 Users Over Piracy ‘Suspicions’”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

clicks “X” on Xbox ad appearing in the notifications on my work computer

That they advertise the Xbox is not nearly the worst thing about it.

As for using Windows as an advertising platform, sure, that’s shitty, and I guess they get a pass because nobody’s really choosing to use Windows anymore. People buying retail non-Apple computers are basically forced into paying for a license, even if they know enough to install a less user-hostile operating system; and some people have to use Windows for work.

(I’m not sure why large businesses aren’t using their influence to pressure Microsoft here. My guess is that, if they cared enough to complain, they’d probably learn there are Group Policy settings to disable most of this shit. That, or Microsoft know that most businesses are never actually going to stop using Windows, even if they threaten it, however bad this frog-boiling gets.

When I last used Windows, circa 2008, I had a list of more than a hundred settings to be adjusted to make it tolerable, plus various SysInternals and other utilities to install. You might be able to disable those ads yourself. If the corporate security policy is too strict, complain to your administrator, and tell them how to do it.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

While Sony’s actions the past two years or so are indicative of hating customers(and money), Nintendo has consistently proven that they don’t give a fuck about goodwill.
Shutting down fan-made conventions, fan projects that wouldn’t harm their IPs at all and tangentially, suing a company for making a popular product that reminded everyone of Pokémon, you’d be hardpressed to find anyone as vindictive as Nintendo.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Console players are junkies buying from unethical drug dealers. The idea that a mod can make a game system backwards compatible with legally purchased games when the developer didn’t allow it is absurd and reveals the money-grab. Not only will you own nothing and be happy, you’ll keep paying to rent the same content on different platforms because the CEO needs another yacht.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

For a while, there weren’t too many other options for mobile gameplay. But now there’s the Steam Deck and at least 3 other products which are similar to or better than the Switch 2 in most specifications, and are not locked down.

(The Switch 1 was significantly lighter than all, but the Switch 2 is 80% heavier than it—now being only 10-20% lighter than its open competitors.)

Thad (profile) says:

Re:

The idea that a mod can make a game system backwards compatible with legally purchased games when the developer didn’t allow it is absurd and reveals the money-grab.

But AIUI that’s not what’s happening here.

You can play Switch games on Switch 2. If you pay extra, you can upgrade them to enhanced “Switch 2” versions (higher resolution etc.).

As I understand this story, what Nintendo’s cracking down on aren’t official game carts, it’s dumped ROMs.

And it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that Nintendo’s being shitty and heavyhanded here, but it’s probably a good idea to understand the basic facts of the story first.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You can play Switch games on Switch 2.

Perhaps MrWilson was talking about being unable to play legally-purchased NES games on the Switch 2, for example. A mod can make the system compatible with those games—and legally-purchased games for other systems, such as MS-DOS.

Nintendo mostly won’t let people publish software to do that, which is generally the first thing people want to do when a locked-down system is opened. Nintendo will, however, sell people new Switch 2 copies of some of the games they already own.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

As I understand this story, what Nintendo’s cracking down on aren’t official game carts, it’s dumped ROMs.

The problem is, from what I gather, part of what has been observed was that one component of the system they are using to find people using these ROMs seems to be a serial identifier unique to individual cartridges, which if true suddenly makes the entire second-hand market a minefield.

Regardless, Nintendo benefit whether or not that’s really the case, since just the threat of it being a possibility is going to discourage people from buying used copies of games.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Daydream says:

You know, in cybersecurity terms, something that lets a third party spy on and break your device at will is generally called ‘a serious vulnerability’ and ‘something to patch as fast as possible’.

Incidentally, aren’t contracts and EULAs legally void and unenforceable if they contain stuff like ‘you give us the right to do this illegal thing’? Because even if you made the computer/console/device, I’m pretty sure using a zero-day exploit to break it is still a crime.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Incidentally, aren’t contracts and EULAs legally void and unenforceable if they contain stuff like ‘you give us the right to do this illegal thing’? Because even if you made the computer/console/device, I’m pretty sure using a zero-day exploit to break it is still a crime.

There are cases of this happening, such as AOL Instant Messenger, and probably DirecTV’s “Black Sunday” hack. They didn’t get in legal trouble, and I don’t think Nintendo’s doing anything like that anyway.

It’s unlikely to be illegal for Nintendo to ban any person, for any reason or no reason, from an online service they operate. Bricking the consoles and some of the other shit apparently allowed by the EULA could be illegal, but hasn’t yet happened. Sony did settle a lawsuit for crippling their consoles; as a settlement, there was no admission or determination of illegality.

in cybersecurity terms, something that lets a third party spy on and break your device at will is generally called ‘a serious vulnerability’ and ‘something to patch as fast as possible’.

That’s not really true. It’d have to be an unauthorized third party (that is, not permitted by the security model) to be a “security vulnerability”. Software/hardware-makers giving themselves “authorization” without any input from the user is certainly shitty, but the people of the Free Software movement have been warning about that for 40-plus years, and the public mostly don’t seem to care.

flickparlorfront (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s unlikely to be illegal for Nintendo to ban any person, for any reason or no reason, from an online service they operate. Bricking the consoles and some of the other shit apparently allowed by the EULA could be illegal, but hasn’t yet happened.

Quick premise by saying I have a legal background (in the UK; I can’t speak as to the law outside England & Wales). I’d say there’s a pretty good case to be made that actually Nintendo precisely is bricking the console. Connectivity to online services is an integral feature of the device. This isn’t a case of Nintendo disabling a user account; they are disabling the device itself from being able to access critical firmware and security updates, install digital purchases, etc regardless of who owns the console.

Think of it this way: if you owned such a device, could you realistically sell it on for typical used value? Obviously not. It’s no longer fit for purpose.

It’s also worth pointing out that Nintendo’s European (and UK) EULA was never updated to add any clause concerning rendering devices ‘permanently unusable’. Despite this, at least two affected users are in the UK and EU, and this puts Nintendo in an even more difficult position.

Consumer rights (breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty) are generally a matter between the consumer and the retailer (which in many cases is not Nintendo, but an authorised distributor). But here I think there’s certainly a solid case to be made that, whether or not Nintendo was the specific retailer, its actions are unlawful in Europe under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (or Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act in the UK).

In some other regions there is also clearly applicable precedent, such as Sony in Brazil being ordered to reverse PS5 console bans, notwithstanding their use in piracy. Ban the user, not the device.

Anonymous Coward says:

Banned from what?

we have yet to see Nintendo go that nuclear route of bricking devices […] Nintendo has responded by banning any Switch 2 that it’s seemingly found to have run one of the illicit flash cartridges at some point.

The article never seems to say what it’s banned from. It does however, in a section hidden by stylesheets (attempted paywall?), quote an error saying “The use of online services on this console is currently restricted by Nintendo”.

I suppose these people are lucky. DVDs were set up such that “compromised” devices could be excluded from being able to see new movies; it’s rumored that newer systems—some consoles and maybe Blu-ray, if I recall correctly—can even “brick” consoles/players entirely, because the discs are able to force firmware updates (making it dangerous to use “new” discs). I’m not sure if anything so extreme has ever happened in this context, but definitely some people found themselves unable to use new media releases. And DirecTV did have “Black Sunday” in 2001, in which un-approved smart cards were destroyed.

I’d be a bit surprised if Nintendo didn’t have similar capabilities, which is to say that the affected people might soon find themselves unable to play the newest games. And such games, or the online service if people connect to it, probably could brick their consoles entirely; it’s just a question of what NIntendo thinks they can get away with. None of this shit seems to have stopped many people from clicking “I agree”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

No. It only applies to “consumer products”, being “any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed).”

The online service from which people are being banned does not meet this definition. The Switch 2 itself does, and if Nintendo were to intentionally brick it during the warranty period, they’d have to replace or repair it. It wouldn’t be legal to void the warranty for use of an unauthorized third-party device, unless that device actually caused the problem (such as by bending the cartridge-connector pins, as the NES Game Genie did).

wibblewobble (profile) says:

suspicion

I have this odd feeling Nintendo is targetting people they think won’t fight back, and are unlikely to be purchasers of lots of games.

So brick their console, refuse a refund. No support etc required. Then the user either has to fight a protracted legal battle OR give up their brand-new console AND the games they bought for it. (games blocked by serial number).

And rebuy them down the line…which is what Nintendo is aiming for. Effectively the switch 2 is $1200+ and games start at $120+ when you have to buy them again.

This will get some exec a big performance raise for the idea, then as people turn against the 10s of thousands of bricked consoles, Nintendo will go the way of Sega….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Who ever said it was going to happen tomorrow? Just stick around a decade or so.

They’ve been around for 135 years, and their anti-consumer behavior—which, itself, goes back at least 40 years—shows no signs of harming them. They’ve got some people bitching on the internet, but isn’t that kind of what the internet’s for?

Nintendo doesn’t need to worry about Timothy calling out their bullshit. What they need to worry about is that, eventually, Timothy and others might not find them worth mentioning at all. Will that happen in a decade? I’m not saying “no”; I’m just saying it seems more like wishful thinking than anything based on evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

As pleasant a thought as Nintendo going out of business due to their anti-customer stance

Although, if we’re going to invent “pleasant” things to think, can’t our optimism extend to imagining that Nintendo could become consumer-friendly?

(I recall Sega making some small steps in that direction, after “dying”.)

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...