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.
Comment on Nintendo faces legal action over ability to brick Switch 2s whenever they want
zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 2 days ago
DacoTaco@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Thats bullshit. The switch 1 also had this functionality and nobody complained…
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
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
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
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.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
You are correct. A banned Switch 2 is severely limited in what it can do, but it is not “bricked.”
Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
If the banned system is reset like in a trade-in then even offline games will not work.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
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