You’re fixating on legalese boilerplate, I’m talking about what they’re actually doing.
Go back to the start of this conversation. OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
The “legalese” explicitly stated in clear words that they have right to brick your device. If they had no intention of doing it they wouldn’t put that in.
This was added so once they brick it they can argue in court that you agreed to this when purchased your switch.
What do you expect? Disable console first, then put things in EULA?
Why put something like this in EULA if there’s no intention of doing it, especially as they didn’t put it for EU where such practice is outright illegal?
You’re fixating on legalese boilerplate, I’m talking about what they’re actually doing.
Go back to the start of this conversation. OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
The “legalese” explicitly stated in clear words that they have right to brick your device. If they had no intention of doing it they wouldn’t put that in.
This was added so once they brick it they can argue in court that you agreed to this when purchased your switch.
OP said it should just be online bans, I said that it is, and you’re umackshuallying over what hasn’t actually happened.
If it ever happens, we can resume this conversation, but until then?
What do you expect? Disable console first, then put things in EULA?
Why put something like this in EULA if there’s no intention of doing it, especially as they didn’t put it for EU where such practice is outright illegal?
I’m talking about what has actually happened, you’re talking about what hasn’t happened.
Please review the top comments that started this conversation.