For the switch 2 it’s far more restrictive from the few videos I’ve seen where people have used flash carts and gotten banned. For one, a good deal of the games don’t exist on physical media even if you purchase physical copies. So an online ban means that if the console is ever reset for any reason those games are done. No updates obviously.
Though I do think some physical games will work without needing a digital “receipt” at least to activate and play, so you are correct in that the console isn’t entirely useless after being banned, just significantly limited in functionality and restricts you from playing a majority of your game library (even if 99% of those games have no online component)
That last point is the kicker for me. There should be regulation on this. If you’re sony/nintendo/microsoft and you’re pissed I modified my console and want to ban me because I might cheat online? Fine, I guess. If you want to ban me from making purchases because you’re afraid I spoofed the purchasing system? Ban me from making purchases, I guess. But you should never be able to ban me from redownloading titles I have purchased legitimately.
Frankly the 3ds freeshop fiasco (which, unlike switch freeshops that rely on external servers, was a system that spoofed nintendos purchase authentication ticketing system and allowed downloading directly from their servers) has likely made nintendo overly wary. The counterpoint to this though is that nintendo handled that situation terribly. The freeshop worked for years. They sent a dmca takedown almost immediately for the software but obviously people kept hosting copies. It took them almost 2 years to patch and at that point the 3ds was basically dead.
Imagine sony or microsoft in the same situation: their console is exploited with a softmod. They’re already probably working on a hardware revision to stop the softmod. But then an exploit comes out that allows modded users to download literally any game, update, or dlc from their servers, for free? They’d have that patched in weeks, maybe days (though tbf they’d probably also issue tons of bans here)
So essentially nintendo is overcorrecting because in the past they’ve made boneheaded security decisions and responded to people exploiting them like idiots. That’s not anyone’s fault but nintendos and it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to be super hostile to consumers. Fuck the switch 2
Without online functionality, the system might as well be bricked. I’m not 100% so someone can fact check but I’m reasonably certain it will refuse to let you play any software you’ve downloaded and only allow you use physical carts without the option to update them. When 90% of a console is built around online activity, being able to remotely disable that makes the console useless.
Thats bullshit. The switch 1 also had all of this functionality and nobody complained…
Physical media ftw btw
First lookup what youre saying, seriously. None of what you said is true. If it was, a system that had no internet could not start any downloaded content, which it can…
Backwards comparability obviously might not work because it needs the title update to get possible fixes if not big part of the gpu shaders that were recompiled for switch 2 ( which is needed because the switch 1 and switch 2 gpu’s are not compatible ). Iirc from my sources within the switch homebrew community it tries to trans compile them but might not always work, hence title updates.
And if you got the console banned, you did some serious bad shit haha
When a switch 2 cannot reach online services, all your physical 3rd party “Game Keycards” become useless to you, as they require the game to be downloaded from nintendo online services.
A brick is very specifically a device that cannot be used for its intended purpose at all. This is a banned console that has limited functionality, not a brick. The terminology matters because people are misunderstanding just how much power Nintendo has because of it. I thought that Nintendo made it unable to get past a boot screen when I first heard the term used.
If there is over a 50% chance the device will not do what it is supposed to do (play your game) then nobody will want to use that device.
We are just arguing over semantics here.
I hope you see this as a not good thing for nintendo to do… “Samus”
Oh, I fully agree - banning an account is one thing, but banning at a hardware level is complete and utter bullshit. I’m arguing against using inaccurate terminology for what they’re doing, not supporting them in any way. As my username implies, I used to be a fan of theirs. They’ve always had a shady side, but since Iwata died and Reggie left, it’s all pure corporate greed there now.
Do people really use the term “brick” to refer to consoles with permanent online bans? To me they’re very different and a brick is much worse.
For the switch 2 it’s far more restrictive from the few videos I’ve seen where people have used flash carts and gotten banned. For one, a good deal of the games don’t exist on physical media even if you purchase physical copies. So an online ban means that if the console is ever reset for any reason those games are done. No updates obviously.
Though I do think some physical games will work without needing a digital “receipt” at least to activate and play, so you are correct in that the console isn’t entirely useless after being banned, just significantly limited in functionality and restricts you from playing a majority of your game library (even if 99% of those games have no online component)
That last point is the kicker for me. There should be regulation on this. If you’re sony/nintendo/microsoft and you’re pissed I modified my console and want to ban me because I might cheat online? Fine, I guess. If you want to ban me from making purchases because you’re afraid I spoofed the purchasing system? Ban me from making purchases, I guess. But you should never be able to ban me from redownloading titles I have purchased legitimately.
Frankly the 3ds freeshop fiasco (which, unlike switch freeshops that rely on external servers, was a system that spoofed nintendos purchase authentication ticketing system and allowed downloading directly from their servers) has likely made nintendo overly wary. The counterpoint to this though is that nintendo handled that situation terribly. The freeshop worked for years. They sent a dmca takedown almost immediately for the software but obviously people kept hosting copies. It took them almost 2 years to patch and at that point the 3ds was basically dead.
Imagine sony or microsoft in the same situation: their console is exploited with a softmod. They’re already probably working on a hardware revision to stop the softmod. But then an exploit comes out that allows modded users to download literally any game, update, or dlc from their servers, for free? They’d have that patched in weeks, maybe days (though tbf they’d probably also issue tons of bans here)
So essentially nintendo is overcorrecting because in the past they’ve made boneheaded security decisions and responded to people exploiting them like idiots. That’s not anyone’s fault but nintendos and it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to be super hostile to consumers. Fuck the switch 2
You are correct. A banned Switch 2 is severely limited in what it can do, but it is not “bricked.”
Without online functionality, the system might as well be bricked. I’m not 100% so someone can fact check but I’m reasonably certain it will refuse to let you play any software you’ve downloaded and only allow you use physical carts without the option to update them. When 90% of a console is built around online activity, being able to remotely disable that makes the console useless.
Thats bullshit. The switch 1 also had all of this functionality and nobody complained…
Physical media ftw btw
First lookup what youre saying, seriously. None of what you said is true. If it was, a system that had no internet could not start any downloaded content, which it can…
Backwards comparability obviously might not work because it needs the title update to get possible fixes if not big part of the gpu shaders that were recompiled for switch 2 ( which is needed because the switch 1 and switch 2 gpu’s are not compatible ). Iirc from my sources within the switch homebrew community it tries to trans compile them but might not always work, hence title updates.
And if you got the console banned, you did some serious bad shit haha
When a switch 2 cannot reach online services, all your physical 3rd party “Game Keycards” become useless to you, as they require the game to be downloaded from nintendo online services.
This is a brick
Yet you could put in a Mario Kart World game card and play the game offline. This is a console with restricted utility, but it is not a brick.
Yes most 1st party published games are on the cartridge yes, but the majority of the library is/will be 3rd party…
So being generous this is a “majority brick”
A brick is very specifically a device that cannot be used for its intended purpose at all. This is a banned console that has limited functionality, not a brick. The terminology matters because people are misunderstanding just how much power Nintendo has because of it. I thought that Nintendo made it unable to get past a boot screen when I first heard the term used.
If there is over a 50% chance the device will not do what it is supposed to do (play your game) then nobody will want to use that device. We are just arguing over semantics here. I hope you see this as a not good thing for nintendo to do… “Samus”
Oh, I fully agree - banning an account is one thing, but banning at a hardware level is complete and utter bullshit. I’m arguing against using inaccurate terminology for what they’re doing, not supporting them in any way. As my username implies, I used to be a fan of theirs. They’ve always had a shady side, but since Iwata died and Reggie left, it’s all pure corporate greed there now.
If the banned system is reset like in a trade-in then even offline games will not work.