6 ms·

I'm curious, how do Nintendo justify such an anti-consumer protection? It seems like it only really has upside for them.

orloffm 6y ago
Justify to whom? I am a consumer and this is irrelevant to me. And Nintendo has always been aggressively fighting emulation/homebrew, so it is nothing new.
Jonnax 6y ago
They sell the machine as a single purpose box that plays games sold by them in their store. If someone buys it expecting something different that's really on them.
manojlds 6y ago
Why is the upside only to Nintendo? If Nintendo can maintain a proper "hack free" device more third parties will be willing to release their games on the Switch - as a consumer my upside is that I get the games.
- bibabaloo 6y ago
  Huh, that's a really nice way of looking at it. I suppose I was thinking that it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it. But it's true that I'd prefer a restricted device with a greater game library over an unrestricted device with no games!
  - smichel17 6y ago
    > If Nintendo can maintain a proper "hack free" device more third parties will be willing to release their games on the Switch I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as this. - The draw of a "hack free" platform varies by genre. For competitive multiplayer games, it's a big draw. For single-player and creative games, you might find a larger market in less restrictive, more moddable, platforms (eg, if you were making a Minecraft clone, would you target Switch or PC?). - If the platform is popular enough, the level of lockdown may not affect the calculus that much. - And, of course, it depends on how successful these measures are at preventing hacks. There's a big difference in draw between 50%, 90%, and 100% hack prevention, because of how the knowledge of cheaters affects player perception. Eg, in a competitive game, knowing cheats exist can taint the experience of being outplayed, as you wonder whether your opponent was cheating. Overall, I'm not saying that GP's viewpoint is an invalid one, just that the tradeoffs are a little more nuanced than "more lockdown more games".
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      > if you were making a Minecraft clone, would you target Switch or PC? This depends a lot on your monetization strategy. If your plan is a free or low-cost game with skins for sale, having a wild west story for modding may not be at all what you want.
      - monadic2 6y ago
        Ahh, the drug dealer model.
        mikepurvis 6y ago
        Well yes. Not at all condoning it, but I mean, this is how Fortnite and friends work.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Which holds true until they abandon the platform. Then the homebrew community would take over, if they had access.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    > it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it In the grand scheme of things, this is a very niche opinion. How specifically would your use of the Switch change if Nintendo didn’t prevent downgrades in this way?
    - bibabaloo 6y ago
      I'd be free to choose the version of software to run on it. If they were to, for example, put out a release that broke compatibility with a niche game that I enjoyed, I could downgrade and continue to play that game. But, honestly, it's more about the principle.
      - paulcole 6y ago
        Has a release of Switch software ever broken compatibility with an already released Switch game?
    - salawat 6y ago
      >In the grand scheme of things, this is a very niche opinion. Uh, how ya figure? Oh, do you mean in the, "Well, no consumer would ever actively think of that sense!" Because that's downright wrong, and it has been a longtime complaint of mine since childhood, which my family will be happy to attest to the degree of ear bending that results from these types of shenanigans every single time I discover them. Further, if you think that idea is niche, I'd like to point you toward the right-to-repair movement,as well as the bloody Android ecosystem as well. The only people to whom what you refer to as a "niche" idea, are a niche into an nd of themselves; namely production companies that wish to infringe on the right of First Sale. Get with the 21st Century. People are not satisfied with planned obsolescence, and while they'll consume things made in a user hostile way, I'll assure you, once an actor that commits to consumer friendly electronics fabrication gets traction in the space, and shows signs of the ability to collect good talent, people will flock to them. Don't get me wrong. I like Nintendo, I just hate predatory hardware forging practices.
      - paulcole 6y ago
  - rusk 6y ago
    > it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it Another way of looking at it is that it’s a platform to which they have licensed you access ... of course under those terms it should be lease rather than outright purchase (eg like a proprietary set top box) but I guess the market hasn’t quite wised up to that yet ...
  - nottorp 6y ago
    It really depends on how much those protections restrict you. Does buying music online come with unlimited redownloads yet? Or do you still have to make a backup yourself, which is tied to a device and you'll lose anyway?
    - Kaze404 6y ago
      That analogy doesn't make much sense. It's more comparable to the iPod than to iTunes.
- monadic2 6y ago
  How do you figure? You could also argue this restricts the switch market by only allowing capital-infused creators.
tasogare 6y ago
This is not anti-consumer as consumers don’t care, nor running homebrew or pirated games are supported or advertised features. This is something that target precisely people who doesn’t want to be consumer: those that want to get and play games for free. Now, there is also the very very minor homebrew community, which should buy a devkit instead if running code is their main goal.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  Devkits are not available to the general public, only to licensed developers who signed NDAs, and are severely restricted in how they can distribute their software.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>This is not anti-consumer as consumers don’t care consumers "caring" about something is not the definition of Anti-Consumer at all, there are all manner of business practices that have been made illegal because they were anti-consumer that the majority of consumers did not care about (and still do not). For example the Warranty if Removed Stickers on electronics. Most consumers do not care if the manufacturers place them on devices however this practice is very much Anti-Consumer and is illegal in the US >> This is something that target precisely people who doesn’t want to be consumer: those that want to get and play games for free. Ahh yes, If I want complete control over my device, what to use my device in a non-standard way, or some other reason I do not want a manufacturer to permanently alter my device with a firmware change it must mean I only oppose it because I want free games... I also oppose the war on drugs, do i only do that because I want to get high as well? or is it a fundamental ethical reason around property ownership and the role of manufacturers as SELLERS not leasing agents of a device
  - tasogare 6y ago
    I expected this kind of comment, reinterpreting the general idea into something else I didn’t say to attack it. The "does not care" was not about abusing customers it was about why they chose one console or another. Just like people valuing the ability to tweak a device will likely more buy an Android phone than an iPhone. If someone wants a console that can execute their code, Xbox One is the way to go (or a PS3 with an old fireware). If on the contrary they don’t care about that, then the Switch is totally OK. Now the ironical thing is I didn’t even disagree with you rant. Actually I’m all for more open devices. What I’m saying is that it’s not possible right now, so buying a Switch with the expectation that it will run third party code is living in a parallel universe.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Is this any different from Apple with the iPhone? The iPhone bothers me much more because it's a general-purpose computer.
- _sbrk 6y ago
  No, it's not and has never been held out as such. iPhones are a captive market. If you bought one, you bought into the closed ecosystem. Be that for convenience or ignorance, you are now subject to the whims of Apple. Android is another path, but perhaps just as capitalistic as Apple, but by different mechanisms. You are always free to buy raw hardware and build your own phone from scratch, and write all the software for it. Life is a series of compromises. Choose wisely.
nottorp 6y ago
As far as i know Nintendo is the only console maker still having region locks and being extremely fussy about transferring your purchases when your hardware dies/is replaced. I'd call THAT anti consumer. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's the impression I got from reading here and there and the reason I don't own Nintendo products.
- currymj 6y ago
  Nintendo’s portable systems (going back to the Game Boy and including the Switch) have never had region locks, on the logic that somebody might want to buy a new game while traveling. The consoles (except for Switch) do, though.
  - pokemod97 6y ago
    The 3ds did have region locks on it. I think the rest didn't.
    - nottorp 6y ago
      Funny enough, that's when I wanted to buy a Nintendo portable. 3D without glasses seemed interesting. Then I noticed that not many games are available in eastern europe and I wasn't willing to jump through hoops to give them my money.
  - stordoff 6y ago
    3DS was region locked - I had to import a Japanese 3DS to play the Japanese version of Persona Q2 (or I could have used CFW, but I didn't want to risk the downloaded content I have).
- mttjj 6y ago
  The Nintendo Switch is not region locked. You can play any game from any region on it. Moving to new hardware is more complicated than it needs to be but is not restrictive.
  - 6y ago
koonsolo 6y ago
On a side note: a product is always a 2 party deal, and needs to be win/win. For example increasing the price is always anti-consumer, but it might be part of the deal. So I don't like to look at products from the perspective of 1 party, since it is always a negotiation between 2 parties where both end up with a win.
kiplkipl 6y ago
The switch is 3 years old and - as the other comments have noted - this technique is much older. Yet, on a website for self-styled hackers, so many are learning about it for the first time. Did people really care that much? If the device depends on write-once ROM that was written in the factory, is that also anti-consumer?
- anoncake 6y ago
  > If the device depends on write-once ROM that was written in the factory, is that also anti-consumer? That depends on the intent.
stordoff 6y ago
I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that. In some sense, the restrictions _enhance_ THE thing I bought it for - playing a wide range of games. A platform where piracy is trivial is less attractive to some publishers, which may mean they don't release games there, or release later than on other platforms. If the largely theoretical benefits of a more open platform (I'm simply not interested in using the hardware for other purposes, whether I can or not) cause even modest damage to the range of games available, that's not a good trade off for me. Sony[1] with the PSP claimed that: > There's a number of titles from American publishers that will be there, but are we getting full-line support? No. I'm not going to bullshit you on that. > A lot of the stuff that will be announced at E3 we're very excited about, because they are huge titles. And we also believe that there's a way that you will be able to, not stop, but slow down the piracy in the first 30 to 60 days from a tech perspective. [...] That's been the biggest problem, no question about it. It's become a very difficult proposition to be profitable, given the piracy right now. Of course they're incentivised to portray piracy as damaging to the platform even if it isn't changing publisher decision making to any significant extent, but it's an argument that makes sense, and I find it difficult to believe that it wasn't dampening publisher enthusiasm to at least some extent. In some ways, I'd like to see a phased path to openness, where say ten years down the line or when official support is dropped, some of the barriers are taken away (most platforms get there anyway due to third party efforts, and as Sony allude to above, _slowing_ piracy can be sufficient), even if only to aid game preservation and avoid games being forever tied to a particular physical hardware platform. [1] Specifically, Sony Computer Entertainment America's then senior vice president of publisher relations, Rob Dyer - https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/133097/the_sony_situation_sceas_rob_.php?page=4 https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/133097/the_sony_situa...

orloffm 6y ago

Justify to whom? I am a consumer and this is irrelevant to me. And Nintendo has always been aggressively fighting emulation/homebrew, so it is nothing new.

Jonnax 6y ago

They sell the machine as a single purpose box that plays games sold by them in their store. If someone buys it expecting something different that's really on them.

manojlds 6y ago

Why is the upside only to Nintendo? If Nintendo can maintain a proper "hack free" device more third parties will be willing to release their games on the Switch - as a consumer my upside is that I get the games.

bibabaloo 6y ago
Huh, that's a really nice way of looking at it. I suppose I was thinking that it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it. But it's true that I'd prefer a restricted device with a greater game library over an unrestricted device with no games!
- smichel17 6y ago
  > If Nintendo can maintain a proper "hack free" device more third parties will be willing to release their games on the Switch I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as this. - The draw of a "hack free" platform varies by genre. For competitive multiplayer games, it's a big draw. For single-player and creative games, you might find a larger market in less restrictive, more moddable, platforms (eg, if you were making a Minecraft clone, would you target Switch or PC?). - If the platform is popular enough, the level of lockdown may not affect the calculus that much. - And, of course, it depends on how successful these measures are at preventing hacks. There's a big difference in draw between 50%, 90%, and 100% hack prevention, because of how the knowledge of cheaters affects player perception. Eg, in a competitive game, knowing cheats exist can taint the experience of being outplayed, as you wonder whether your opponent was cheating. Overall, I'm not saying that GP's viewpoint is an invalid one, just that the tradeoffs are a little more nuanced than "more lockdown more games".
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    > if you were making a Minecraft clone, would you target Switch or PC? This depends a lot on your monetization strategy. If your plan is a free or low-cost game with skins for sale, having a wild west story for modding may not be at all what you want.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Ahh, the drug dealer model.
      - mikepurvis 6y ago
        Well yes. Not at all condoning it, but I mean, this is how Fortnite and friends work.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Which holds true until they abandon the platform. Then the homebrew community would take over, if they had access.
- paulcole 6y ago
  > it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it In the grand scheme of things, this is a very niche opinion. How specifically would your use of the Switch change if Nintendo didn’t prevent downgrades in this way?
  - bibabaloo 6y ago
    I'd be free to choose the version of software to run on it. If they were to, for example, put out a release that broke compatibility with a niche game that I enjoyed, I could downgrade and continue to play that game. But, honestly, it's more about the principle.
    - paulcole 6y ago
      Has a release of Switch software ever broken compatibility with an already released Switch game?
  - salawat 6y ago
    >In the grand scheme of things, this is a very niche opinion. Uh, how ya figure? Oh, do you mean in the, "Well, no consumer would ever actively think of that sense!" Because that's downright wrong, and it has been a longtime complaint of mine since childhood, which my family will be happy to attest to the degree of ear bending that results from these types of shenanigans every single time I discover them. Further, if you think that idea is niche, I'd like to point you toward the right-to-repair movement,as well as the bloody Android ecosystem as well. The only people to whom what you refer to as a "niche" idea, are a niche into an nd of themselves; namely production companies that wish to infringe on the right of First Sale. Get with the 21st Century. People are not satisfied with planned obsolescence, and while they'll consume things made in a user hostile way, I'll assure you, once an actor that commits to consumer friendly electronics fabrication gets traction in the space, and shows signs of the ability to collect good talent, people will flock to them. Don't get me wrong. I like Nintendo, I just hate predatory hardware forging practices.
    - paulcole 6y ago
- rusk 6y ago
  > it's my device that I've paid for so there shouldn't have unnecessary restrictions imposed on it Another way of looking at it is that it’s a platform to which they have licensed you access ... of course under those terms it should be lease rather than outright purchase (eg like a proprietary set top box) but I guess the market hasn’t quite wised up to that yet ...
- nottorp 6y ago
  It really depends on how much those protections restrict you. Does buying music online come with unlimited redownloads yet? Or do you still have to make a backup yourself, which is tied to a device and you'll lose anyway?
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    That analogy doesn't make much sense. It's more comparable to the iPod than to iTunes.
monadic2 6y ago
How do you figure? You could also argue this restricts the switch market by only allowing capital-infused creators.

tasogare 6y ago

This is not anti-consumer as consumers don’t care, nor running homebrew or pirated games are supported or advertised features. This is something that target precisely people who doesn’t want to be consumer: those that want to get and play games for free. Now, there is also the very very minor homebrew community, which should buy a devkit instead if running code is their main goal.

marcan_42 6y ago
Devkits are not available to the general public, only to licensed developers who signed NDAs, and are severely restricted in how they can distribute their software.
syshum 6y ago
>>This is not anti-consumer as consumers don’t care consumers "caring" about something is not the definition of Anti-Consumer at all, there are all manner of business practices that have been made illegal because they were anti-consumer that the majority of consumers did not care about (and still do not). For example the Warranty if Removed Stickers on electronics. Most consumers do not care if the manufacturers place them on devices however this practice is very much Anti-Consumer and is illegal in the US >> This is something that target precisely people who doesn’t want to be consumer: those that want to get and play games for free. Ahh yes, If I want complete control over my device, what to use my device in a non-standard way, or some other reason I do not want a manufacturer to permanently alter my device with a firmware change it must mean I only oppose it because I want free games... I also oppose the war on drugs, do i only do that because I want to get high as well? or is it a fundamental ethical reason around property ownership and the role of manufacturers as SELLERS not leasing agents of a device
- tasogare 6y ago
  I expected this kind of comment, reinterpreting the general idea into something else I didn’t say to attack it. The "does not care" was not about abusing customers it was about why they chose one console or another. Just like people valuing the ability to tweak a device will likely more buy an Android phone than an iPhone. If someone wants a console that can execute their code, Xbox One is the way to go (or a PS3 with an old fireware). If on the contrary they don’t care about that, then the Switch is totally OK. Now the ironical thing is I didn’t even disagree with you rant. Actually I’m all for more open devices. What I’m saying is that it’s not possible right now, so buying a Switch with the expectation that it will run third party code is living in a parallel universe.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Is this any different from Apple with the iPhone? The iPhone bothers me much more because it's a general-purpose computer.

_sbrk 6y ago
No, it's not and has never been held out as such. iPhones are a captive market. If you bought one, you bought into the closed ecosystem. Be that for convenience or ignorance, you are now subject to the whims of Apple. Android is another path, but perhaps just as capitalistic as Apple, but by different mechanisms. You are always free to buy raw hardware and build your own phone from scratch, and write all the software for it. Life is a series of compromises. Choose wisely.

nottorp 6y ago

As far as i know Nintendo is the only console maker still having region locks and being extremely fussy about transferring your purchases when your hardware dies/is replaced. I'd call THAT anti consumer. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that's the impression I got from reading here and there and the reason I don't own Nintendo products.

currymj 6y ago
Nintendo’s portable systems (going back to the Game Boy and including the Switch) have never had region locks, on the logic that somebody might want to buy a new game while traveling. The consoles (except for Switch) do, though.
- pokemod97 6y ago
  The 3ds did have region locks on it. I think the rest didn't.
  - nottorp 6y ago
    Funny enough, that's when I wanted to buy a Nintendo portable. 3D without glasses seemed interesting. Then I noticed that not many games are available in eastern europe and I wasn't willing to jump through hoops to give them my money.
- stordoff 6y ago
  3DS was region locked - I had to import a Japanese 3DS to play the Japanese version of Persona Q2 (or I could have used CFW, but I didn't want to risk the downloaded content I have).
mttjj 6y ago
The Nintendo Switch is not region locked. You can play any game from any region on it. Moving to new hardware is more complicated than it needs to be but is not restrictive.
- 6y ago

koonsolo 6y ago

On a side note: a product is always a 2 party deal, and needs to be win/win. For example increasing the price is always anti-consumer, but it might be part of the deal. So I don't like to look at products from the perspective of 1 party, since it is always a negotiation between 2 parties where both end up with a win.

kiplkipl 6y ago

The switch is 3 years old and - as the other comments have noted - this technique is much older. Yet, on a website for self-styled hackers, so many are learning about it for the first time. Did people really care that much? If the device depends on write-once ROM that was written in the factory, is that also anti-consumer?

anoncake 6y ago
> If the device depends on write-once ROM that was written in the factory, is that also anti-consumer? That depends on the intent.

stordoff 6y ago

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that. In some sense, the restrictions _enhance_ THE thing I bought it for - playing a wide range of games. A platform where piracy is trivial is less attractive to some publishers, which may mean they don't release games there, or release later than on other platforms. If the largely theoretical benefits of a more open platform (I'm simply not interested in using the hardware for other purposes, whether I can or not) cause even modest damage to the range of games available, that's not a good trade off for me. Sony[1] with the PSP claimed that: > There's a number of titles from American publishers that will be there, but are we getting full-line support? No. I'm not going to bullshit you on that. > A lot of the stuff that will be announced at E3 we're very excited about, because they are huge titles. And we also believe that there's a way that you will be able to, not stop, but slow down the piracy in the first 30 to 60 days from a tech perspective. [...] That's been the biggest problem, no question about it. It's become a very difficult proposition to be profitable, given the piracy right now. Of course they're incentivised to portray piracy as damaging to the platform even if it isn't changing publisher decision making to any significant extent, but it's an argument that makes sense, and I find it difficult to believe that it wasn't dampening publisher enthusiasm to at least some extent. In some ways, I'd like to see a phased path to openness, where say ten years down the line or when official support is dropped, some of the barriers are taken away (most platforms get there anyway due to third party efforts, and as Sony allude to above, _slowing_ piracy can be sufficient), even if only to aid game preservation and avoid games being forever tied to a particular physical hardware platform. [1] Specifically, Sony Computer Entertainment America's then senior vice president of publisher relations, Rob Dyer - https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/133097/the_sony_situation_sceas_rob_.php?page=4 https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/133097/the_sony_situa...