<story><title>Indie Game Removed from Switch After Dev Reveals It Has a Hidden Code Editor</title><url>http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/04/indie_game_removed_from_switch_eshop_after_dev_reveals_it_contains_a_hidden_code_editor</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jdietrich</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s not the story at all. Rajan entered a voluntary agreement with Nintendo, through which his game would be distributed on their platform. He deliberately deceived them about the presence of a potentially security-critical feature, thereby breaching that agreement; Nintendo took the perfectly reasonable decision to remove his game from their platform.&lt;p&gt;There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about bootloader unlocking, sideloading and consumer choice, but this is not that debate. The issue here is fundamentally about someone intentionally deceiving a business partner.&lt;p&gt;Sidebar: There are no shortage of tablet-ish computers that will run arbitrary code. The Joy-Con controllers are class-compliant and will work with any Bluetooth host. There are open alternatives, but a lot of people buy the Switch specifically because it offers a curated experience with clear age ratings and effective parental controls.&lt;p&gt;To meaningfully contribute to the debate on walled gardens, it is first necessary to acknowledge their relative popularity compared to open platforms. If walled gardens were universally and unconditionally bad, it is implausible that they would have such broad market acceptance. In the case of Nintendo, this issue is particularly acute - many informed observers credit the NES10 chip and the Nintendo Seal of Quality with saving the video games industry.</text></item><item><author>praptak</author><text>The fact that Nintendo were always like this does not mean it is okay. If there&amp;#x27;s anything wrong with this story it&amp;#x27;s how everyone seems to silently accept it is okay for a company to tell you what you can run on the hardware that you &amp;quot;buy&amp;quot; but not really own.</text></item><item><author>jdietrich</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt;The narrative that has played out online is exactly what&amp;#x27;s wrong with this trashcan fire of a world.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Everyone is an armchair expert. Everyone thought the worst. You&amp;#x27;ve seen that I&amp;#x27;ve been called a dick, idiot, and everything in between. Because sensationalised news sells. If the narrative was &amp;#x27;I added a sandbox to A Dark Room that lets you mod the game and provide a medium for kids to code (and technical parents to show their kids what they do),&amp;#x27; it would have gone unnoticed.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is just desperate. Nintendo are notoriously protective of their platforms and their IP. It has been an essential part of their business model for over 30 years, going back to the NES10 chip. Expecting Nintendo to disregard their own Terms of Service because this specific breach is well-intentioned is utterly naive.&lt;p&gt;Rajan says: &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;I snuck it in assuming that plugging in a USB keyboard and pressing the &amp;quot;~&amp;quot; key wasn&amp;#x27;t part of the test plan&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;. He intentionally deceived Nintendo as to the nature of his app by including a hidden feature that allows for arbitrary code execution. He announced the existence of that feature on social media. What else did he expect to happen?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>drb91</author><text>&amp;gt; If walled gardens were universally and unconditionally bad, it is implausible that they would have such broad market acceptance.&lt;p&gt;This has got to be a joke.</text></comment>
<story><title>Indie Game Removed from Switch After Dev Reveals It Has a Hidden Code Editor</title><url>http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/04/indie_game_removed_from_switch_eshop_after_dev_reveals_it_contains_a_hidden_code_editor</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jdietrich</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s not the story at all. Rajan entered a voluntary agreement with Nintendo, through which his game would be distributed on their platform. He deliberately deceived them about the presence of a potentially security-critical feature, thereby breaching that agreement; Nintendo took the perfectly reasonable decision to remove his game from their platform.&lt;p&gt;There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had about bootloader unlocking, sideloading and consumer choice, but this is not that debate. The issue here is fundamentally about someone intentionally deceiving a business partner.&lt;p&gt;Sidebar: There are no shortage of tablet-ish computers that will run arbitrary code. The Joy-Con controllers are class-compliant and will work with any Bluetooth host. There are open alternatives, but a lot of people buy the Switch specifically because it offers a curated experience with clear age ratings and effective parental controls.&lt;p&gt;To meaningfully contribute to the debate on walled gardens, it is first necessary to acknowledge their relative popularity compared to open platforms. If walled gardens were universally and unconditionally bad, it is implausible that they would have such broad market acceptance. In the case of Nintendo, this issue is particularly acute - many informed observers credit the NES10 chip and the Nintendo Seal of Quality with saving the video games industry.</text></item><item><author>praptak</author><text>The fact that Nintendo were always like this does not mean it is okay. If there&amp;#x27;s anything wrong with this story it&amp;#x27;s how everyone seems to silently accept it is okay for a company to tell you what you can run on the hardware that you &amp;quot;buy&amp;quot; but not really own.</text></item><item><author>jdietrich</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt;The narrative that has played out online is exactly what&amp;#x27;s wrong with this trashcan fire of a world.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Everyone is an armchair expert. Everyone thought the worst. You&amp;#x27;ve seen that I&amp;#x27;ve been called a dick, idiot, and everything in between. Because sensationalised news sells. If the narrative was &amp;#x27;I added a sandbox to A Dark Room that lets you mod the game and provide a medium for kids to code (and technical parents to show their kids what they do),&amp;#x27; it would have gone unnoticed.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is just desperate. Nintendo are notoriously protective of their platforms and their IP. It has been an essential part of their business model for over 30 years, going back to the NES10 chip. Expecting Nintendo to disregard their own Terms of Service because this specific breach is well-intentioned is utterly naive.&lt;p&gt;Rajan says: &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;I snuck it in assuming that plugging in a USB keyboard and pressing the &amp;quot;~&amp;quot; key wasn&amp;#x27;t part of the test plan&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;. He intentionally deceived Nintendo as to the nature of his app by including a hidden feature that allows for arbitrary code execution. He announced the existence of that feature on social media. What else did he expect to happen?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>inflatableDodo</author><text>I think that a legal fudge I would be satisfied with is where a manufacturer wants a branded store and some lock-in, that they nevertheless must allow secondary marketplaces, with the legal protection provided for both users and the original manufacturer that any secondary marketplaces can be contractually required to be clearly labelled as such.</text></comment>