40 replies to this topic

[StanJr]

I don't plan on screwing with my 3DS by trying to mod the hardware,
I don't plan on buying pirate games or really any games from anyone other than a reputable second hander (so no to ePay),

I do plan on buying legit 3DS games either new or from a second hand I trust.
I do plan on enjoying my 3DS.

I do not see a problem with this policy.

I do not understand why people always gotta try to monkey with stuff (especially stuff they pay hundreds of dollars for).  If Nintendo only wants me to play legit 3DS games on my system, I am cool with that, seems only fair since they put the effort into manufacturing it.  Seems like this policy will only really affect people looking to "get one over" on Nintendo or people who are careless with what they purchase and from whom they purchase it.  As long as you buy and use the system and its software as intended you should be fine.

[godslabrat]

RevEng, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

godslabrat, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 PM, said:

Tons of reasons, not the least of which being than they need to show that they actively defend their IP.  It's easier to reserve a legal right and never use it than it is to Ty and justify an action after the fact.

So you're conceding they're at least considering it an action they may take?

Yes, to the same extent that using iTunes to create biological weapons is an action that I "may" take.  I hope you don't lose sleep over the possibility.

FWIW, there's also language in my house lease that says I could be severely fined if my landlord discovers a domestic animal at my place that is not documented on my lease.  In theory, this means I can't so much as let a friend bring a dog over to play with my cat for an afternoon.  In reality, no one gives a shit and nothing will happen-- the clause is just in there to keep me from running an unlicensed kennel.

Lots of clauses are put into legal documents just so that the drafting party can save face in a dispute.  Not everything gets enforced, not everything is even enforceable.

Edited by godslabrat, Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:06 PM.

[atarian63]

Rex Dart, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:06 PM, said:

atarian63, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:00 PM, said:

godslabrat, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:01 PM, said:

Rex Dart, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:27 AM, said:

godslabrat, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:15 AM, said:

It doesn't make sense for Nintendo to start bricking systems all willy-nilly, even if they have the right to do so

*cough cough $150 profit per unit sold ACHHHHEM*  

Man, that was nasty.

Yeah, because if Nintendo bricks my system, I'm TOTALLY going to go buy another one!

People are already boycotting the 3DS because of this, and not one system has been bricked.  What kind of backlash will we see if it actually happens?  It'll make the 360's RRoD drama look like nothing by comparison.

I fully respect anyone's decision to not have a 3DS because of this, but don't act like the EULA puts the ball entirely in Nintendo's court...

Not quite the same but 360's self bricked and people still bought another one... LOL!
As an example my retail store had a tough return policy, it was in place for those trying to commit theft or other. We seldom enforced it to it's full extent but posting it and putting in on your credit card receipt meant we could. Probably what Nintendo is doing.

Well, accepting returns is a bit different than destroying paid merchandise.  And Microsoft purposefully crippled a lot of 360s, including one of mine, and I did buy another... so there

Just saying it not impossible that people would buy another 3ds if they had a "problem" with theirs. Not happily mind you.
Hard to judge right or wrong on this one. IP to Nintendo's side and "It's mine I bought it" (the hardware) on the user side.
As others have said, I think that is the way things are going to be from now on. Does make retro game systems more attractive.

[RevEng]

godslabrat, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:06 PM, said:

Yes, to the same extent that using iTunes to create biological weapons is an action that I "may" take.  I hope you don't lose sleep over the possibility.

Yeah, there's a more mundane explanation. Apple reused a standard EULA that was used in earlier versions of MacOS, and the clause came along for the ride.

Quote

Lots of clauses are put into legal documents just so that the drafting party can save face in a dispute.  Not everything gets enforced, not everything is even enforceable.

Yup, agreed on all points.

And sometimes there are clauses that are enforced too. Caveat emptor.

[Mendon]

In the end, this whole matter just comes down to what the consumer is comfortable with.  

If Nintendo's policy doesn't bother you at all or if you just don't care about user agreements, then that's perfectly okay. Make your purchase and I sincerely hope you get many years of enjoyment and service.

But for myself, even though I do not pirate games or modify my consoles, I am not comfortable with giving Nintendo (or ANY company) this type of cart blanche power over my investment. Especially when coupled with the agreement statement that Nintendo can change the user agreement at any time, in any way, without notification to the consumer.

Nintendo (or ANY company) has every right to protect their business model, their profits, their idea's, and their products. And I do not begrudge them in any way the ability to do so. But to give them the power and right to render permanently inoperable any purchased product, based solely on what THEY consider to be an infringement, goes beyond what I am willing to give.

I fully believe the choice is totally up to the consumer and no one is at fault for choosing what is best for them.

As someone in this thread suggested, this is probably going to be the New World Order of modern gaming and you either get used to it and accept it or you stick with "classic" gaming.  

For myself, I can live happily ever after without systems and games that incorporate these types of user agreements.


Mendon

Edited by Mendon, Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:25 AM.

[hex65000]

I admit that the 3DS was looking mighty tempting sight unseen. I've concluded that I am a pretty hefty Nintendo fanboy when it comes to their handheld gear. At least my buying habits and collection support that argument.

I own 5 DS systems and a sixth I periodically forget about has been on indefinite loan to a friend of mine.

That sentence scares me quite a bit. Especially when I am the only gamer in the house.
Before I panic -- and part of me is ready to, because if the game makers are going to brick hardware at their discretion I want out of the modern scene.

Now.

The stance that they may be saying this to cover their rear is more plausible, but I still remain leery of what the industry's intent with gamers really is. So my troll statement is,  "Good luck Early Adopters! May the Beta test be a success!" While mean, it's kind of true. The early adopters are the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. One of these users will do something Nintendo doesn't like and the company's intentions will be made clear. If there are confirmed brickings of systems, it'll be all over the place in a short period.

The other route is to simply take your system offline and if a firmware hack becomes available it will have to be able to handle fooling forced updates on a regular basis.

Of course, the next extreme would be something like Steam (which is already seriously intrusive IMO) having the capability of borking your PC because it sees something it doesn't like. While it's pretty unthinkable, the parallel is there. So I feel like a broken record stating my opinion of game publishers in general: "The hate us as users, but they love our money."

Hex.
[ Feels that I'm going to see my threshold for pain in terms of DRM looming pretty quickly... ]

[HammR25]

save2600, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:34 PM, said:

M$ has been doing a great job of gouging with their lovely 360 system. I know at least 3 people that ended up having to buy new units because M$ either wouldn't stand by their product or would send another defective model after their broken box sat in Texas for a month or two. Gouging and turning the end user into a beta tester is just the way the game is played today. pun intended

I can't find the pun you intended.

[Mendon]

As a quick follow-up, even 3DS game carts are carrying the "unplayable" warning. On the back of the Shadow War's box (not sure if its on all game titles) is the statement:

"This product contains technical protection measures. Use of an unauthorized device or any unauthorized technical modification to your Nintendo 3DS system will render this game and/or your system unplayable."

Whether bricking ever really happens is a case of "It Might or Might Not" . But to me, Nintendo and software companies are very serious regarding this.


Mendon

Edited by Mendon, Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:51 AM.

[Mord]

Mendon, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:14 AM, said:

As someone in this thread suggested, this is probably going to be the New World Order of modern gaming and you either get used to it and accept it or you stick with "classic" gaming.  

Although option 3 becomes available if the majority of the potential customers were to decide to stick with classic gaming for even 1 year. That being "the current console and developers wisen up and stop all the BS they're doing in a last ditch effort to avoid going out of business."

Of course, that's something that will simply never happen - and they know it.

http://ca.kotaku.com...n-this-bad--yet

[rockman_x_2002]

Animan, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:47 PM, said:

I think they are more referring to flash carts the illegal copies. It'd be plain stupid for Ninty to brick a system for using illegal copies that someone didn't even know were fakes. I can see them sending a message to the user that the copy they are using is illegal. Then it becomes an issue of knowing if the user was doing so intentionally or not.

I am glad that Nintendo is taking big steps to curb piracy, and I think that they are being reasonable.

Would be nice if Nintendo had some sort of trade-in program for this situation.  Say you bought a game you thought was legit off eBay or Amazon, and it turned out to be illegal.  If Nintendo had some way of letting you send in the illegal copy, its packaging, and information regarding the seller, along with a small fee, Nintendo would take the illegal copy and send you a legit copy of the same game in the mail for helping them curb the piracy problem.

It would never happen, of course.  But it would still be a nice PR move so that people that get screwed buying illegal games can at least do a decent trade for a legit copy at less-than-retail directly through Nintendo and/or its third-party developers.

Also:

RevEng, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

The EULA accompanying the latest Wii updates don't contain the "will render the system permanently unplayable" clause at all. This is a change in direction for Nintendo.

Chapter II of the EULA for the Wii, last sentence in the only paragraph states:

"If we detect unauthorized software, services, or devices, your access to the Wii Network Service may be disabled and/or the Wii Console or games may be unplayable."


So I'm afraid it does say that.  Has been in there when they updated the EULA to account for people installing the Homebrew Channel, I believe.  Sometime about a year or two ago.  Full EULA can be seen here.

Edited by rockman_x_2002, Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:09 PM.

[RevEng]

rockman_x_2002, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:02 PM, said:

RevEng, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

The EULA accompanying the latest Wii updates don't contain the "will render the system permanently unplayable" clause at all. This is a change in direction for Nintendo.

Chapter II of the EULA for the Wii, last sentence in the only paragraph states:

"If we detect unauthorized software, services, or devices, your access to the Wii Network Service may be disabled and/or the Wii Console or games may be unplayable."

I actually reviewed the latest Wii EULA right befire making my original post.

The two clauses in question don't have the same meaning.

[rockman_x_2002]

RevEng, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:40 PM, said:

rockman_x_2002, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:02 PM, said:

RevEng, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

The EULA accompanying the latest Wii updates don't contain the "will render the system permanently unplayable" clause at all. This is a change in direction for Nintendo.

Chapter II of the EULA for the Wii, last sentence in the only paragraph states:

"If we detect unauthorized software, services, or devices, your access to the Wii Network Service may be disabled and/or the Wii Console or games may be unplayable."

I actually reviewed the latest Wii EULA right befire making my original post.

The two clauses in question don't have the same meaning.

Very true, but they are quite similar.  Enough so that I believe the intent is the same.  I still think that the statement is a CYA clause.  If you use homebrew software on your system, for example, then you potentially compromise the integrity of the original OS itself.  Now that's your prerogative to do so, and I believe sincerely in having that right, of course.  I have made absolutely no bones about the very same scenario concerning the PS3.

But what I think is going on here is Nintendo doesn't want the following scenario:  You install homebrew software, firmware, etc., on your machine.  A firmware update comes down from "Upon High" and does some cleanup work.  It removes some of the homebrew stuff but not all, and the OS can't fully install itself because some application or process didn't quit and can't exactly be killed or won't allow the system itself to boot up without it.  This would end in a bricked scenario without any real solution to fix it on the user end (which could be corrected of course but that's another story or another date).

If Nintendo didn't include this warning, it would be tantamount to looking for homebrew software, finding it, wiping it out, and killing the system in the process of the housecleaning that the update does.  All this without notifying the user about a single thing.  This would then give the grounds for the user to sue Nintendo for damages.  But this way, by including the warning in the EULA, Nintendo is essentially saying "Use homebrew software and it's your puppy if something goes belly-up."  I don't think they would ever actively exercise a kill switch on the machine (the fallout in public relations would be disasterous for them).  But I do think if they do an update and it accidentally kills your system, they want a way of saying, "Well... dems the berries.  Sorry."

This is their way of doing that.  Legally speaking.

[RevEng]

Just so it's clear, I'm not preaching my position - everbody deals with their own comfort zone. If someone else feels differently and gets a 3DS, I hope it turns out to be a non-issue for them and they enjoy their purchase hiccup-free.

rockman_x_2002, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:19 PM, said:

But what I think is going on here is Nintendo doesn't want the following scenario:  You install homebrew software, firmware, etc., on your machine.  A firmware update comes down from "Upon High" and does some cleanup work.  It removes some of the homebrew stuff but not all, and the OS can't fully install itself because some application or process didn't quit and can't exactly be killed or won't allow the system itself to boot up without it.  This would end in a bricked scenario without any real solution to fix it on the user end (which could be corrected of course but that's another story or another date).

If Nintendo didn't include this warning, it would be tantamount to looking for homebrew software, finding it, wiping it out, and killing the system in the process of the housecleaning that the update does.  All this without notifying the user about a single thing.

The existing Wii EULA already covers these activities and any accidental bricking. The change in language with the 3DS EULA strengthens the brick clause to cover bricking regardless of intent.

I sympathize with Nintendo and their battle with the pirates, but giving the Big N an OK to brick my system if it's used with something they didn't authorize is a non-starter for me. I wouldn't grant GM the right to brick my car if it they thought it contained pirate "OEM" parts either.

I have no intent of pirating anything, but Nintendo has made embarrassing mistakes with their security code in the past, as well as showing a willingness to rush out security updates without proper QA. I just don't have faith that their measures won't have false positives or other problems which cause bricks.

[wood_jl]

All of this restrictive EULA will just make the hackers chuckle harder when they crack it, and make pirate clamor even more to come up with whatever it is they contrive.

[Lemmi]

revolutionika, on Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:33 AM, said:

This is the way of the future for ALL new systems going forward. get used to it or stick with the classics.

thats why i stopped collecting at the GC and Xbox, systems that require internet and hard drives isnt a console anymore but a computer system and i have one of those already that i dont play games on

[Mendon]

rockman_x_2002, on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:19 PM, said:

Very true, but they are quite similar.  Enough so that I believe the intent is the same.  I still think that the statement is a CYA clause.  If you use homebrew software on your system, for example, then you potentially compromise the integrity of the original OS itself.  Now that's your prerogative to do so, and I believe sincerely in having that right, of course.  I have made absolutely no bones about the very same scenario concerning the PS3.

But what I think is going on here is Nintendo doesn't want the following scenario:  You install homebrew software, firmware, etc., on your machine.  A firmware update comes down from "Upon High" and does some cleanup work.  It removes some of the homebrew stuff but not all, and the OS can't fully install itself because some application or process didn't quit and can't exactly be killed or won't allow the system itself to boot up without it.  This would end in a bricked scenario without any real solution to fix it on the user end (which could be corrected of course but that's another story or another date).

If Nintendo didn't include this warning, it would be tantamount to looking for homebrew software, finding it, wiping it out, and killing the system in the process of the housecleaning that the update does.  All this without notifying the user about a single thing.  This would then give the grounds for the user to sue Nintendo for damages.  But this way, by including the warning in the EULA, Nintendo is essentially saying "Use homebrew software and it's your puppy if something goes belly-up."  I don't think they would ever actively exercise a kill switch on the machine (the fallout in public relations would be disasterous for them).  But I do think if they do an update and it accidentally kills your system, they want a way of saying, "Well... dems the berries.  Sorry."

This is their way of doing that.  Legally speaking.

GREAT post!! While the wording of the "warning" still gives me plenty of pause, your logic makes perfect sense and I can understand better perhaps why Nintendo put the "warning" there.


Mendon