from the pray-I-don't-alter-it-any-further dept.
TechDirt reports:
Nintendo: It protects what it believes it owns with great vigor. The company has rarely missed an opportunity to make sure that other people are not allowed to alter or mess with the stuff Nintendo insists is Nintendo's. In an apparent effort to maximize the irony combo-meter, Nintendo also has been known to make sure that customers don't mess with or alter the properties those customers actually own, such as online support for games that Nintendo decided to alter long after purchase... just because.
But the cold grip of Nintendo's control over its customers' property is apparently no longer limited to games. Nintendo recently released an update for the Wii U that forces you to "agree" to a new end-user license agreement, or else it simply [locks up] the console altogether.
This is how Nintendo's update to its end-user license agreement (EULA) for the Wii U works, as described by YouTube user "AMurder0fCrows" in this video. He didn't like the terms of Nintendo's updated EULA and refused to agree. He may have expected that, like users of the original Wii and other gaming consoles, he would have the option to refuse software or EULA updates and continue to use his device as he always had before. He might have to give up online access, or some new functionality, but that would be his choice. That's a natural consumer expectation in the gaming context--but it didn't apply this time. Instead, according to his video, the Wii U provides no option to decline the update, and blocks any attempt to access games or saved information by redirecting the user to the new EULA. The only way to regain the use of the device is to click "Agree."
gewg_ objects to the use of "brick" to describe something that can be set right with a software tweak and does not require soldering equipment to correct the condition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:22PM
bullshit!
Not mention grounds for a major lawsuit. You don't have to agree to a EULA to buy the damn thing now do you?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @09:03PM
So have you filed a lawsuit yet? What's stopping you? Too full of bullshit?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by BTRE on Saturday October 18 2014, @09:04PM
As much as I hate EULAs and this sort of crap, you would have had to had agreed to their terms. In order to use the online functions of the console (and by extension, get updates), you would have agreed to their previous EULA. So no, as crappy as having new terms forced upon you is, it is sadly not grounds for a lawsuit. At least not in the US. Hopefully the EU can sort out this type of practice in the future but I wouldn't hold my breath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @09:48PM
It is grounds for lawsuit in this case. An equivalent would be if your mortgage provider declared that you have to sign a new mortgage agreement for a higher rate and if you don't, then you are not allowed back into your home. It is a license agreement through coercion. In legal speak, racketeering. A justice system that was truly just (i.e. equal and equitable) would RICO the whole lot of 'em.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday October 20 2014, @07:45AM
It's unlikely these arguments would be accepted in a UK court. Okay, the online part is a service that requires on-going acceptance of the EULA, but you can't play offline games without agreeing either. The Sale of Goods Act overrides all EULAs anyway, so if the machine is no longer fit for purpose (can't play games without agreeing to onerous terms) it will need to be refunded or replaced with one that does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 19 2014, @01:57AM
agreed. i expect this kind of behavior from Sony, but Nintendo? i thought they were better than this. disgusting. i was planning on getting one of the New 3DSs when they came out to replace my standard 3DS, but if Nintendo is pulling this shit i'll have to wait until i can buy a used one so that none of my money goes to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @04:18PM
It is proprietary software, this is exactly what was predicted to happen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kunasou on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:26PM
If you don't like the EULA try to send them back the Wii U.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by choose another one on Saturday October 18 2014, @10:58PM
Depends where you are, but in some jurisdictions, yes you could go this route - take it back to where you bought it. In the UK, if you've had it over six months then they can offer repair or replacement instead of money back, but that would be fine - repair would mean fixing it so you don't have to accept the new terms, replacement would have to not have the new terms because otherwise it is not fit for (your) purpose.
I would go with notifying them that you are not bound by the terms because you had to agree under duress - you had no option to decline them.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday October 20 2014, @07:39AM
Many Wii U users are children and not able to agree to those terms anyway, even if they do click "I agree" so they can carry on playing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday October 19 2014, @03:58AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:28PM
In a sane world, the entirety of the new EULA would be null and void since it was only agreed on due to coercion. That would put an end to companies hiring Darth Vader to run their legal department.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @08:10PM
It should be void for the same reason any contract without quid pro quo is void. In the original contract you bought the device and agreed to the Eula in exchange for the ability to use the device. You paid money and, in exchange, you got the ability to use the device under the previous terms. However if they change the Eula, even if you hit agree, that's still not a valid contract because there is no consideration involved. Any changes to the original contract must have something that benefits both parties and both parties must agree and one party can't simply have the option to void only their end of the original contract if you don't agree to the new terms. They must give you the option not to agree to the new terms and to continue with the contract under the old previously agreed upon terms unaffected by the fact that they would like to impose new terms. Otherwise they would be forcing you to change the terms without consideration. Consideration is something that you would voluntarily agree to given the option between continuing with the old contract, exactly as before, or choosing to agree to the new terms. Without both those options available then anything they claim to give you in exchange for clicking agree is not consideration and so the contract is not valid (or at least should not be considered valid in any sane world).
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:30PM
Hack it, tweak it, do whatever you want and if big N dares to say boo simply point out that contracts agreed to under duress are unenforceable. Boy their lawyers fucked up big time with this one, without a way to decline they have made this unenforceable, no different than if you put a gun to the users heads...stupid.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by http on Sunday October 19 2014, @03:25AM
No. Protest to the contrary. Unless people kick up and make a fuss (and quickly), the lawyers will be able to argue "everything must be OK, because no big fuss was made" with a straight face.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday October 19 2014, @05:15AM
Agreed. I gave them a one-star review on Amazon and I'm hoping others will do the same. When EA announced that Spore could only be installed 3 times 1,500 people gave them 1 star reviews on Amazon and that got them to loosen* their policy.
* The allowed more installs, there were more concessions but I do not remember them off the top of my head.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday October 19 2014, @09:25AM
Why? There is a REASON why you have to have a "I don't agree" button and the case law is solid as a rock, a one party contract is simply unenforceable and that is EXACTLY what it is! I'm sorry but no court would accept a one party only contract as it would be tossing out decades of case law.
Somebody at Big N fucked up royally on this one, and I bet once their lawyers get wind of how bad the pooch got screwed you can rest assured that a new one with an opt out will be forwarded REAL quick.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:51PM
Gamers don't know what words mean, they just shout things. That's why you hear them spouting nonsensical drivel such as "beat the game" and "my rig" and "win him!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @09:01PM
gewg_ isn't a gamer. Never has been.
gewg_ was a hardware guy back in the days when hardware didn't contain any software.
gewg_ has had to deal with things that were actually bricked.
gewg_ knows full well what bricked means, youngster.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @09:11PM
Nobody said gewg_ is a gamer.
gewg_ is correct to object to the misuse of "brick"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @12:17AM
Editor gewg_ should have just edited the submission if he had a problem with the wording. gewg_ doesn't have to explain every line edit he makes. Unless it's flamebait, I guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @03:05AM
gewg_ did alter the wording that was in the article before he submitted and explained why he did that.
Thank you for your careful attention to detail.
Oh, wait...
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dltaylor on Saturday October 18 2014, @10:06PM
I used the support web site to ask for a copy of, or usable (outside the Wii U) link to, the new EULA.
It will be interesting to see if I get any response.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 20 2014, @01:50AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday October 19 2014, @02:19AM
I hope someone fixes a jailbreak & rooting for that Nintendo box. And they deserve a shitlisting for this stunt. As icing on the cake some insult can be added to the boot screen..
(Score: 2) by hellcat on Sunday October 19 2014, @10:38AM
First a contract isn't one sided if you agree to it.
Second, our society has been moving to a subscription consumer model for decades, and this simply reflects that reality. Cell phones are a good example.
Our company makes machines for factories around the world. It's going to be much easier for us to sell them if we sell them as a service, not a "product." And our eula will probably look a lot like N's.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19 2014, @04:53PM
I dont see how people put up with all the warnings and ads before you even play games on modern consoles.
Last boot sequence of a wii unit I saw it gives a warning not to throw the controller at the screen.