Why console makers can legally brick your game console
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Put it this way - it's pretty common for devices to have their DRM keys downgraded in the video industry if they are leaked, and that has never presented any issues for manufacturers under the CRA.
Not always. Many games don't get physical releases, or only get an expensive limited-run physical collectors edition, and when they do get a physical release it doesn't necessarily even contain all of the game data so part of it may still have to be downloaded.
The latter is apparently going to be even more common with the Switch 2 due to the high cost of its faster storage. Nintendo is now giving publishers the option of releasing "game key carts" which contain zero game data and are essentially just DRM dongles that grant permission to download and play the game.
I'm not positive this is possible. I seem to remember times when trying to play a newer game on the Switch required a system update, even though I had the physical card. I might be misremembering, though.
The other problem with incentives around bricking devices sold for a loss is that when the seller is big enough to absorb a bit of negative PR they also have no incentive to address false positives or small infractions, any time spent dealing with these users is viewed as compounding the loss. It also generates a bunch of electronic waste as a consequence.
I think although it would make a very vocal segment of the consumers angry, it's not something that ultimately would hurt Nintendo.
It's kind of sad imo but it's the reality of it, Nintendo is one of the most litigious and protective companies in the world when it comes to their intellectual property and this isn't a new thing.
That vocal part of the consumers are those that grew up with the old 'you buy it, you get to play it' approach.
And those consumers are now the ones who will decide what their children get to play. Needless to say, I do not see Nintendo in my household anymore after the switch2 announcement.
There is an entire generation of consumers that grew up with Wii U, Switch 1, Netflix and Spotify and don't know or care about ownership and future preservation. That's where the money is. You may refuse to buy one for your kids but there're many more parents who don't play video games or care enough to keep them from getting one for their kids.
Sure there are people who don't care, but those people don't bring people into the fold. It's a slow erosion. It's how Microsoft is losing ground to Chromebooks and Macs. People who don't know aren't hearing that they need a windows machine as much. They hear they need a Mac for security/ease of use or all they need is a Chromebook because they just surf the web anyway.
Microsoft of course will be fine because they have business on lock, but they used to have consumers as well.
I never bought a Sony console again after they took away OtherOS on the PS3. And now that Nintendo starts acting like they own the device I paid for, a customer relationship that started in the mid-1980s ends.
edit: and come on, what other purpose do eFuses really provide besides lockin
The option is still available for Pixel phones and those using niche brands like Purism and Librem.
Getting blocked from the Nintendo servers doesn't just mean losing online play, you can't update the console or games, play game-key card games, or run downloaded games that it needs to validate your ownership of.
You can only license a console's underlying software, not own it.
Nintendo turning off your software should fall under some kind of consumer protection law.
I don't own the intellectual property of a physical book I purchase, but I do own a copy of the book and the copyright owner can't just show up at my house and redact the whole book or just take it from me.
But somehow if they do it with software it's different.