Hacker News Reader

Comment by haswell | Hacker News Reader

> I'd never buy something like this

You'd never buy a Switch because of this?

I hear what you're saying, and I philosophically have similar feelings, but I purchased my Switch to play games I purchased for said Switch. The Switch does exactly what I want it to do, and this technical limitation doesn't impact that.

Could Nintendo do something in a future OS update that I really dislike and will make me change my tune? Possibly.

But they've also built enough trust that I'll take that risk.

Obviously you are free to make purchasing decisions for your own reasons, but I don't fully understand the hardline stance in this context.

I'd never buy a general-purpose computing device that did this, but that's because I buy general-purpose computing devices to do whatever I want.

I bought the Switch to play Breath of the Wild and arguably some of the best games I've played since I started playing games in the early 90s, and don't regret that.

View on HN

> But they've also built enough trust that I'll take that risk.

And subsequently extracted the most value they could get from that trust and goodwill: https://www.inverse.com/gaming/nintendo-eshop-closure-3ds-wi...

Games are art: if you disagree, consider that cinema is also art, and that the crassness of Michael Bay-style Hollywood films doesn't invalidate arthouse, the same way that this year's Call of Battlefield doesn't invalidate Papers Please or Monument Valley.

And if games are art, and art defines our culture, then consigning titles to the memory-hole in the name of profitability is immoral, so Nintendo's corporate stance is philistinian.

Respecting copyright is important (the software industry, our livelihoods, is built on copyright - and copyleft - after-all), copyrights aren't indefinite because it would be immoral to deny society creative-works because they're being held-hostage by rightsholders for a licensing ransom. And Nintendo isn't a solo-creator, who might have personal reasons for wanting to retract and un-license their work: their adoption of the Disney Vault strategy is entirely soulless and without merit.

I can't argue that Nintendo should be in any way be compelled build and maintain ports of old games for modern hardware, or even official emulators: doing-so is very expensive, but I do think that Nintendo should be legally restrained from continuing with their usual bully-tactics against people involved in game-preservation.

I don't think this argument applies to the switch personally. You aren't "preserving" a game that came out this year and is available in multiple formats, you're just stealing it.

In general I agree though. The shutting down of the old eShop is very sad. There are probably hundreds of digital-only titles that are going to vanish. I like the response of the video game history foundation. Basically, we understand they can't keep the shot up forever, but what are fans supposed to do if they want to play these games and there's no legal way to do so?

I guess we'll keep our 3ds's and hope we're alive when they enter the public domain.

Agree. They should be deDRMed like after a decade. Hello Windows XP activation server?

^ For better and absolutely for worse, I don't think Nintendo has ever made large user-facing changes to one of their consoles via a software update. The Wii never got an account system, and the Switch still hasn't gotten a web browser.

The one product that kind of evolved a bit was the 3DS, which gained (poor) support for custom themes and services like Miiverse. However, the UI remained basically the same since day 1.

I do appreciate the ability to buy a product for a specific experience, rather than rely on a company's future whims.

Nintendo blocks downgrades so that it's harder to use an exploit to run unlicensed software and pirated games. The former reason is inherently user-hostile, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much on a game console as on a general purpose device like the iPhone.

> The Wii never got an account system, and the Switch still hasn't gotten a web browser.

the PS5 also did this, but I think both systems are doing it in the pursuit of preventing people from easily jailbreaking/exploiting webkit. It can still be done via DNS trickery and finding an http:// link within a game (some game cartridges with 0 updates have them).

That may have been part of it, but I do suspect it was also an artistic decision, at least on Nintendo's part (I've never used a PS5). The Switch's UI prioritizes launching games above absolutely everything else. The system doesn't ship with any multimedia capabilities, and while there are a handful of apps available in the eShop, major players like Netflix are still completely unavailable.

They included a hidden browser so people can connect to captive portals and play games with online functionality, but I think Nintendo wanted to send a message that the Switch is for games first, last, and everything in between.

P.S. I don't necessarily agree with this approach. The Switch OLED is the best screen that I own, so I would like to use it to view more types of media. But I respect that Nintendo is curating an experience.

Precisely, I just don't buy closed down stuff unless I absolutely have no other choice.

I don't care how good the games are, they're ultimately entertainment, which is at the very bottom of the list when it comes to spending. I did pay for MMOs that turned into garbage after a while, which only reinforced this "hardline" stance, I guess.

Hell, I've hacked my ISPs ONT, the piece of shit wouldn't let me set it to bridged mode or even change the Wifi name/password. Couldn't care less that it's against the terms. There's things that people must compromise on all the time when it comes to personal freedoms - in this case, I'm not going to even if it's illegal.

They'll march me off to war if need be, but God forbid if I upset some company's marketing plan or bottom line.

So perhaps a different way to frame this then is that the Switch is a product that was not made for you. And that’s ok.

I don't know really how to argue this here, but there is no such thing as a switch. It's a general purpose computer, implemented on a very specific set of hardware, restricted in its use by software whose only purpose is to maintain the illusion that a switch is a thing.

If we are arguing “it’s a Turing Machine!” Then you could argue that WiFi light bulbs are

> implemented on a very specific set of hardware, restricted in its use by software whose only purpose is to maintain the illusion

The Switch has a 720p touchscreen display, a reasonably powerful CPU, and 4GB of RAM. It's not fair to compare that to the specialized embedded hardware in a light bulb.

Do those characteristics somehow automatically equate to some expectation about the hackability of the device? Must hardware creators cater to a niche part of their user base just because they use those components?

Don’t get me wrong. I like to tinker, and I’ve had plenty of fun using hardware for unintended use cases. But I don’t understand the seeming entitlement that some feel that Nintendo is not worthy of their purchase.

In a vacuum, allowing for hackability is easier than building a walled garden. Locking a device down requires hardware and software to be developed that would otherwise be unnecessary. From that perspective, it's understandable that some people feel entitled to be able to use the hardware they paid for in whatever way they please.

Of course, in the real world, hardware like the Switch is subsidized by publishing fees and the like. I imagine that that revenue must outweigh the R&D costs of gimping the device.

Fortunately, I wasn't arguing "it's a turing machine". I'm arguing that a switch is a quite powerful computer that has been crippled by its software to do less. Much less. The result of this is the thing that you think of as a switch, but "being a switch" is not fundamentally different from being banned from a particular bar, or being allergic to peanuts, as a descriptor.

Do these things not exist?

- My LG Smart TV

- A TI-84 calculator

- The Peloton (exercise equipment)

Are you trying to argue that because the Switch uses components also used to build general purpose devices that this somehow implies some kind of general purpose “identity” on all derivative devices and an expectation that somehow every product should be more clear that “well actually, this product doesn’t exist because it has a CPU and a screen”?

I’m truly grasping trying to understand your argument here.

The switch runs extremely general software. Drawing a parallel between it and a ti84 is extremely disingenuous.

The smart TV is basically just a worse version of a monitor with a very cheap computer attached.

The peloton is a BIKE.

> The switch runs extremely general software. Drawing a parallel between it and a ti84 is extremely disingenuous.

I specifically mentioned the TI-84 because I have played Mario on mine, among many other things that it was not intended for. Respectfully, it belongs on the list.

But you still haven’t answered my question. Do these products not exist?

> The peloton is a BIKE

The Peloton is also a product, and a product that uses a general purpose OS (Android) and general purpose screen. It’s still built to do one thing.

It’s not just a bike - I have three of those, and none of them have a screen, and I can ride them outside.

The point here is that products are real things, have specific purposes, and often use general purpose tech to achieve a very specific outcome.

Is it cool to run Mario on my TI-84? Yes! But I wouldn’t be bent out of shape if I couldn’t.

Ok, but you should be a little bent out of shape that your PC can't run switch games.

Why?

Should I be bent out of shape that not every native Mac app has a Windows/PC counterpart? Or vice versa?

Setting that aside, personally, I have no desire to play Switch games on my PC. The Switch is the best device for playing Switch games. Does that imply some kind of moral failing on my part?

If you have philosophical issues with console gaming in general, that's one thing. But then this becomes a conversation about something else entirely.

I'm still curious about why you continue to sidestep the question. This conversation is no longer moving forward.

TI-84 can be rooted to do pretty much whatever you want. Not sure about the other two.

Exactly! It’s also still a TI-84 calculator.

I'm also one of the people who ultimately decided not to buy a switch (despite wanting to) because of nintendo's aggressive and misguided notion of ownership. There are other options that doesn't involve me betraying my principles and financially rewarding those who trample on my rights.

Now that the steam deck is out, I'm glad I did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com