gaming Nintendo Will Lock Your Wii U if You Don’t Agree to the New License Agreement

[Shanks 10,811]

Nintendo could face the same backlash that Micorsoft did with that DRM announcement with the XboxOne, granted they did change their policy but it was still something that could have been avoided. Maybe what is being "agreed" to isn't bad but it is going to come off to a lot of people as a dick move which makes this a really stupid decision on their part. As a longtime Nintendo fan myself this really makes me wonder what the hell they are thinking?

 

http://www.gamnesia.com/news/nintendo-will-lock-your-wii-u-if-you-dont-agree-to-the-new-license-agreemen#.VEKfVvl4r4E

[Discordian 6,013]

This would be a whole lot worse if anything in the EULA was worth fighting over. I don't know what it's in it, I don't even have a Wii-U yet, but more than likely 99% of people are going to accept it, most without even reading it, and never have an issue.

[boiteporte 591]

This is perfectly normal. When you agree to use a service, you have to agree with the license Agreement.  Otherwise, you do not use it. Simple as that.

 

To be honest, no-one reads license Agreements anyway. Refusing it would be a stupid move.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

.

To be honest, no-one reads license Agreements anyway. Refusing it would be a stupid move.

And that is how you end up in a human centIpad people. Apple makes sure you read those agreements.

 

And really, it does sound like nintendo is just covering its legal bases. In order to use their product, you have to agree to this license agreement so they are just preventing any slips or loop holes by just locking the ones that do not sign it.

[boiteporte 591]

 

 

And that is how you end up in a human centIpad people. Apple makes sure you read those agreements.

 

I have seen that movie. I never read any user Agreements (not even from Apple). I just scroll all the way down and click "Accept". 

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

I have seen that movie. I never read any user Agreements (not even from Apple). I just scroll all the way down and click "Accept". 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglZGSwK6ow

I suggest reading those agreements man.

[Shanks 10,811]

To be honest, no-one reads license Agreements anyway. Refusing it would be a stupid move.

Most companies only lock you out of certain features like online or other things not remove all features including offline which turns the Wii U into a glorified brick. I am not calling for Nintendo's head but I am calling them out for being incredibly stupid by starting a fight that didn't need to be started. If they simply would have taken the same approach other companies have than I don't think it would have been a problem.

I suggest reading those agreements man.

I think more people would if they didn't fill them full of legalese and make them so needlessly long winded. Of course that is something nearly all companies do unfortunately though some are worse than others. 

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Most companies only lock you out of certain features like online or other things not remove all features including offline which turns the Wii U into a glorified brick. I am not calling for Nintendo's head but I am calling them out for being incredibly stupid by starting a fight that didn't need to be started. If they simply would have taken the same approach other companies have than I don't think it would have been a problem.

I think more people would if they didn't fill them full of legalese and make them so needlessly long winded. Of course that is something nearly all companies do unfortunately though some are worse than others. 

They have to make them long winded however, otherwise you do not have an airtight legal agreement. They have to cover all bases, all possible outcomes, and any loopholes they think may exist in the agreement.

[Discordian 6,013]

The more strict your wording the more difficult it is for someone to find a loophole or refute anything you said. That's why legal agreements are as wordy as they are.

 

But really, accepting these agreements is no different than accepting the terms of a job or the rules of a sport. You don't follow the rules, you don't get to work or play.

[AlbaTross 1,581]

Yow, really? MS still hasn't quite gotten out of the doghouse for me for their stupid DRM idea, and I don't think they were genuinely sorry for it either. If Ninty's really going this route, then they've lost some serious browny points with me. Refusing to provide an online service is perfectly reasonable. If you don't agree to a company's terms, it's well within their rights to opt not to provide that service.

 

However, there is absolutely no reason to lock out the entire system. That's witchcraft, and something that will be condemned as a black art if I ever rise to power. I'm sure whatever is in the terms of service is reasonable, but what possible reason could Ninty have to prevent people from using their system period if they don't agree to it? Corporate BS like this has to stop, and people should be able to at least use the product they pay for, whether they agree with the terms for an online service or not. I hope Ninty gets sued over this, and that hackers will mod the Wii U to counteract this BS update, and this is coming from someone who never supports people who do such things. I'm seriously reconsidering investing in a Wii U at some point. I might as well do my part and boycott it out of principle.

[Discordian 6,013]

Yow, really? MS still hasn't quite gotten out of the doghouse for me for their stupid DRM idea, and I don't think they were genuinely sorry for it either. If Ninty's really going this route, then they've lost some serious browny points with me. Refusing to provide an online service is perfectly reasonable. If you don't agree to a company's terms, it's well within their rights to opt not to provide that service.

 

However, there is absolutely no reason to lock out the entire system. That's witchcraft, and something that will be condemned as a black art if I ever rise to power. I'm sure whatever is in the terms of service is reasonable, but what possible reason could Ninty have to prevent people from using their system period if they don't agree to it? Corporate BS like this has to stop, and people should be able to at least use the product they pay for, whether they agree with the terms for an online service or not. I hope Ninty gets sued over this, and that hackers will mod the Wii U to counteract this BS update, and this is coming from someone who never supports people who do such things. I'm seriously reconsidering investing in a Wii U at some point. I might as well do my part and boycott it out of principle.

Principle nothin'. All you gotta do to avoid it is agree to the terms and you have no issue at all. I'd rather be playing games than fighting a political or economic war.

 

And I don't think the agreement is merely covering the online service. It could be covering the entirety of the console's software. If it's like any other EULA then it's asking you to agree to use it as intended and not to try to crack into it or make copies of it.

 

The thing about these types of agreements is that they just want people to play their systems as they are meant to be played.

[AlbaTross 1,581]

Principle nothin'. All you gotta do to avoid it is agree to the terms and you have no issue at all. I'd rather be playing games than fighting a political or economic war. :lol:And I don't think the agreement is merely covering the online service. It could be covering the entirety of the console's software. If it's like any other EULA then it's asking you to agree to use it as intended and not to try to crack into it or make copies of it.The thing about these types of agreements is that they just want people to play their systems as they are meant to be played.

I fail to see how anyone could use offline software in any way that would negatively affect Nintendo. I don't mod my systems or anything, but since when have companies presumed to lock out systems in the past? I suppose it's only in the past gen that companies had the means to via the Internet, but that's all the more reason why they're abusing their power. By the sound of things, you think it's an anti-piracy thing, and I agree that those people are the parasites of the industry, but if I buy a system, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to play games on it no matter what. That raises plenty of other concerns too, like people being wrongfully banned, or someone hacking Ninty's system to shut all Wii Us offline (because there are some people who do stuff like that). The point is, there is a line no company should cross, and we as gamers need to make it clear that it isn't ok to. Stuff like this makes me glad I chose to invest in a PS4 instead. Edited October 18, 2014 by Tross

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

This is perfectly normal. When you agree to use a service, you have to agree with the license Agreement.  Otherwise, you do not use it. Simple as that.

 

To be honest, no-one reads license Agreements anyway. Refusing it would be a stupid move.

 

It used to be that when you bought the console, that in itself was accepting a license agreement.  This is among the many reasons why I hate newer consoles.  PS2 all the way!

[Espurr 449]

Eh. I guess it seems wrong, but three points are seen here. One: Who reads the agreements now a days? They're huge! Two: Ok, so they might be important. But dude, they're locking your system! I think it might be a clue that you should have done your research about the locks and not have bought the console at all. Three: Ok, I see you wanted it because of that game and the article's new! But it's just an agreement! If nothing looks too wrong, just accept it! What person said no, I mean, when we get these agreement thingys on our computers, I think we all just agree to them.

 

I don't know where I'm going with this. Ugh.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Star Ruby

[Dewdlz 938]

That's kinda why I pulled the internet plug out of my console, no more new updates! 

Eh. I guess it seems wrong, but three points are seen here. One: Who reads the agreements now a days? They're huge! Two: Ok, so they might be important. But dude, they're locking your system! I think it might be a clue that you should have done your research about the locks and not have bought the console at all. Three: Ok, I see you wanted it because of that game and the article's new! But it's just an agreement! If nothing looks too wrong, just accept it! What person said no, I mean, when we get these agreement thingys on our computers, I think we all just agree to them.

 

I don't know where I'm going with this. Ugh.

What if you're eating a potato and hit the wrong button?

[Cloud Strife 928]

It's a license agreement to use a product that you agreed to pay for. If you disagree with the terms on the agreement, then by all means you don't have to use the product. You can simply sell it and get something else.

 

The thing is, this license agreement is not for the Wii U itself but for the OS that it runs on, and OS's do get updated licenses agreements (just check Windows). The Wii U still works...technically, but without its OS there isn't much you can do on it. When you buy the Wii U, you're paying for that OS, as well.

 

It's not unfair for a company to expect you to use their products under their terms. They can get into serious legal trouble if you're doing illegal things on their products and they just allow you to do so. By giving a licensing agreement, they're basically saying that if you break the rules of that agreement, they will give you consequences for it - which is something they're legally bound to do. If this upsets you, just don't use the service. That's all there is to it.

[Shanks 10,811]

It's not unfair for a company to expect you to use their products under their terms. They can get into serious legal trouble if you're doing illegal things on their products and they just allow you to do so. By giving a licensing agreement, they're basically saying that if you break the rules of that agreement, they will give you consequences for it - which is something they're legally bound to do. If this upsets you, just don't use the service. That's all there is to it.

You are making it sounds like there are millions of people out there using Wii U software to hack the dang Pentagon or something when what is more likely to go on is people are pirating stuff. For companies to keep their patents on things they do have to show a legal bare minimum that they are trying to "protect" them but there are plenty of companies that don't so far as to turn the device you are using into a glorified brick if you don't "agree" to their terms and these companies aren't having any problem holding onto their patents last time I checked. I also understand that companies have the legal right to make certain moves like this but there are plenty of cases where you can do something but probably shouldn't do it anyway and this sounds like one of those times.

[Cloud Strife 928]

You are making it sounds like there are millions of people out there using Wii U software to hack the dang Pentagon or something when what is more likely to go on is people are pirating stuff. For companies to keep their patents on things they do have to show a legal bare minimum that they are trying to "protect" them but there are plenty of companies that don't so far as to turn the device you are using into a glorified brick if you don't "agree" to their terms and these companies aren't having any problem holding onto their patents last time I checked. I also understand that companies have the legal right to make certain moves like this but there are plenty of cases where you can do something but probably shouldn't do it anyway and this sounds like one of those times.

 

Pirating is still illegal, though...? Regardless of it's a small or large thing, Nintendo can still get in trouble for it. It may be the difference between breaking someone's arm and breaking both of their legs, but you're still breaking a bone here. Also, you're reading a tone I never placed into my post by saying that I'm apparently saying that there are millions of people trying to use the Wii U to hack into...Pentagon, whatever that is. I was merely explaining why that would be in place. I didn't try to come off as, and it shouldn't have read as, me implying that people are trying to do something illegal on the Wii U.

 

Also, as I said in my post, it's a "glorified brick" because the terms that you're agreeing to are about the OS, on which the whole Wii U runs. If you aren't agreeing to the OS's terms then you shouldn't be so surprised that the Wii U doesn't function.

 

You haven't adequately explained why it's not right for them to update their license agreement after you've obtained the product when many products do the same. You've protested that it bricks the entire Wii U and that they shouldn't have "made" you agree to something after you already paid for the product, but that's implying that they forced you to pay for the product in the first place. You chose that you wanted this system, and they're trying to tell you what you're allowed to do with it, unless you want your contract with them broken. If you feel that any specific terms that they're trying to get you to agree to are "unfair", then you can either take it up with them, or just not buy the product. I simply don't understand the fuss of them wanting to get you to agree even if it means blocking access to their console. You did pay for it but it's ultimately their console that they worked to create and make for you to be able to consume.

[BayoUni2847 528]

Aw man, do I feel bad for the poor soul that accidently hits "I Do Not Agree" .

 

Bricking the console by a mere "No" on an agreement seems a little too extreme, especially for the price a person has to pay for the console.

 

I remember when the Wii U was released and peoples' consoles were bricking when the first update was released, but that's old news.

[Shanks 10,811]

Pirating is still illegal, though...?

"Illegal things" has all sorts of implications other than piracy.

 

 

You haven't adequately explained why it's not right for them to update their license agreement after you've obtained the product when many products do the same.

That is correct that certain terms can in fact change via license agreement updates but it is a bit disingenuous to say that I am arguing against companies updating their license agreements when I am actually arguing against a particular company, in this case Nintendo doing something in an update that will alienate a lot of people. Most updates don't change much of anything but this is a very sudden change that nobody expected and one that is quite negative. I have refused updates simply because the prompt came up at an inconvenient time but tended to do them later is it really fair to someone who just wants to do it later to all of sudden go "gee we are sorry but we are not letting you do jack shit until you let us do the update?" Granted there are some updates that don't let you do anything on other systems as well but those don't come up as often as the ones that you don't have to do right away.

 

 

You chose that you wanted this system, and they're trying to tell you what you're allowed to do with it, unless you want your contract with them broken.

If this was the policy from day one you would have more of a point but I doubt that most of the people that already bought Wii U's knew that such a policy would eventually be adopted. That is not exactly much of a choice if you ask me. I am of the simple school of thought that once someone buys something than it ceases to be the manufacturers property and is the individuals property. With that said I can understand having terms for features like online play for example as there is a good chance that you will in fact interact with others.

[Discordian 6,013]

I fail to see how anyone could use offline software in any way that would negatively affect Nintendo. I don't mod my systems or anything, but since when have companies presumed to lock out systems in the past? I suppose it's only in the past gen that companies had the means to via the Internet, but that's all the more reason why they're abusing their power. By the sound of things, you think it's an anti-piracy thing, and I agree that those people are the parasites of the industry, but if I buy a system, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to play games on it no matter what. That raises plenty of other concerns too, like people being wrongfully banned, or someone hacking Ninty's system to shut all Wii Us offline (because there are some people who do stuff like that). The point is, there is a line no company should cross, and we as gamers need to make it clear that it isn't ok to. Stuff like this makes me glad I chose to invest in a PS4 instead.

Law is the prevention of danger, not accusation of action. They aren't accusing everyone of being pirates. They're protecting their own asses from what piracy there is. All you have to do is say yes and this is a complete and utter non-issue. You aren't the one in trouble so why are you fighting it as if you are?

[AlbaTross 1,581]

Law is the prevention of danger, not accusation of action. They aren't accusing everyone of being pirates. They're protecting their own asses from what piracy there is. All you have to do is say yes and this is a complete and utter non-issue. You aren't the one in trouble so why are you fighting it as if you are?

Well, I do think it is awfully backhanded of a company to do this. Sure, it's not that big of a deal to click agree, but if someone disagrees, they're essentially robbed of the product they paid for, and people who bought a Wii U prior to this stupid update weren't informed up front that it would be happening. If there comes a time when systems are glorified rentals, or monthly fees like cable boxes, then their use of a system is purely contractual, but if someone buys a product, why shouldn't they be able to do what they wish with it?

 

Keep in mind, if this was an essential feature, then Sony would have implemented it, and no one would have stopped MS when they wanted to. I don't think Ninty is malicious. I think they just don't understand how to handle an online infrastructure, as evidenced by their insistence on region locking their systems in 2014 when no other company has. But, more to the point, if we start allowing stuff like this, we'll send a message to scum of the earth companies like Microsoft that it's ok. Besides, if a company can get away with an update like this, what else can they get away with, and where do we draw the line? No, we need to put an end to BS like this before the slope gets any more slippery. As it stands, I'll stick to my 3DS, and give Ninty some time to redeem themselves. If they start pulling that BS with the 3DS or the New 3DS, then they are officially on my hate list.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Tross

[Discordian 6,013]

It's backhanded for a company to do what they can to protect themselves? Even if someone accidentally says no they can't account for every possible situation. If your Wii-U gets cut off, call Nintendo and ask them if they can fix it. There's workarounds for mistakes.

 

The thing here is that they aren't intentionally trying to stop you from playing. At all. The thing is that people assume the worst when stuff like this happens. They automatically assume that the company is going to do everything in it's power to screw over the consumer. Draw the line wherever you feel the need but it's honestly ridiculous to fight against a problem that doesn't exist. That's exactly what this is. A problem that doesn't exist for those who say yes. They aren't preventing people from playing games. They aren't even changing the way anything works. They're updating the license agreement. Words.

[AlbaTross 1,581]

It's backhanded for a company to do what they can to protect themselves? Even if someone accidentally says no they can't account for every possible situation. If your Wii-U gets cut off, call Nintendo and ask them if they can fix it. There's workarounds for mistakes.The thing here is that they aren't intentionally trying to stop you from playing. At all. The thing is that people assume the worst when stuff like this happens. They automatically assume that the company is going to do everything in it's power to screw over the consumer. Draw the line wherever you feel the need but it's honestly ridiculous to fight against a problem that doesn't exist. That's exactly what this is. A problem that doesn't exist for those who say yes. They aren't preventing people from playing games. They aren't even changing the way anything works. They're updating the license agreement. Words.

Eh, I still don't like it. It's not that they're protecting themselves that I dislike, it's the method they're using, which I think should be forbidden. The Internet should never be able to be used to lock someone's system IMHO, and it's clear now that all companies have this power. Ninty could just as easily brick people's systems for any other reason, and we're essentially agreeing to allow them to do that. They're also most likely operating outside of the law, and I don't agree with a company being above the law. Gamers have to agree to a terms of service that gives them consent for this move first, before they're able to do it. I suppose they could have hidden that in the last terms of service, mind you, in which case they've taken an underhanded approach, but a legally binding one. I don't think Nintendo is that terrible a company, but if we encourage this sort of thing, anti-consumer companies like MS will pick up on that, and they wouldn't think twice about doing a lot worse. Edited October 19, 2014 by Tross

[Shanks 10,811]

I suppose they could have hidden that in the last terms of service

That is most likely what they did, these companies know that most people don't read these agreements but with how long winded and legalistic they are can you really blame people for not doing that? But of course since people technically "agreed" legally speaking companies can do some really messed up stuff, Apple for example is notorious for bricking peoples Iphones for whatever reason they damn well feel like and they get away with it because of said "agreements" and I have to say it really baffles me how consumers aren't raising more hell about that.