You don’t know what form will be taken when this happens. They haven’t used it yet. I could say in a EULA that I have the right to destroy earth, doesn’t make it true. Certain things are unenforceable, and you don’t know what route or method Nintendo is going to use that this clause is supposedly protecting.
The EULA is a “we CAN do this”. It doesn’t dictate what form it will take, how they approach it, etc. Until someone breaks this clause, we won’t know how it’s approached, or even if it’s enforced, or how.
Yes. They can now brick your physical device. It is something they can now do. Brick the entire thing. That was the point of this post, and you said “no it’s just online service stuff.” My whole point was saying that’s not true. They can now brick your Nintendo Switch if you mod it. It’s not a thing the CAN do. I’m glad we finally agree.
No, Bricking would be rendering the firmware useless. It has a definition and this is not it. Rendering the Switch unable to play games, does not make it a brick. Definitions matter.
A brick (or bricked device) is a mobile device, game console, router, computer or other electronic device that is no longer functional due to corrupted firmware, a hardware problem, or other damage
Banning you from using their online service, does not make the Switch a brick, as the firmware still functions as intended.
So now, you’re arguing over a “What if” – AND you’re getting definitions completely wrong, resulting in the spread of misinformation.
No company in the history of electronics has ever been in the habit of remotely bricking devices, get real.
And yes, I’ve read it - ON TOP of that, I’m familiar with these types of clauses in a real world basis. Let me tell you, you’re off in lala land with your interpretation.
You don’t know what form will be taken when this happens. They haven’t used it yet. I could say in a EULA that I have the right to destroy earth, doesn’t make it true. Certain things are unenforceable, and you don’t know what route or method Nintendo is going to use that this clause is supposedly protecting.
The EULA is a “we CAN do this”. It doesn’t dictate what form it will take, how they approach it, etc. Until someone breaks this clause, we won’t know how it’s approached, or even if it’s enforced, or how.
Yes. They can now brick your physical device. It is something they can now do. Brick the entire thing. That was the point of this post, and you said “no it’s just online service stuff.” My whole point was saying that’s not true. They can now brick your Nintendo Switch if you mod it. It’s not a thing the CAN do. I’m glad we finally agree.
No, Bricking would be rendering the firmware useless. It has a definition and this is not it. Rendering the Switch unable to play games, does not make it a brick. Definitions matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_(electronics)
Banning you from using their online service, does not make the Switch a brick, as the firmware still functions as intended.
So now, you’re arguing over a “What if” – AND you’re getting definitions completely wrong, resulting in the spread of misinformation.
What part of wholey disable the device isn’t clicking. They can wipe the firmware. Also bricking is used in a lot of ways, but even this they can do.
This isn’t banning from online service… Did you even read what I quoted about hardware?
No company in the history of electronics has ever been in the habit of remotely bricking devices, get real.
And yes, I’ve read it - ON TOP of that, I’m familiar with these types of clauses in a real world basis. Let me tell you, you’re off in lala land with your interpretation.