I thought all of the IP was controlled by The Pokemon Company, which Nintendo owns a minority stake in. Shouldn’t it be the Pokemon Company who is filing the DMCA takedown and taking legal action?
Look Epic, those are very nice presents but as I told you many times already, I am happily married to Steam and I plan to keep it that way. Please respect my decision and stop sending me gifts, it´s getting awkward and honestly you´re making an ass of yourself.
Well, a bunch more talent just hit the job market with The Escapist melting down, too.
I encourage anyone that hasn’t yet to try any subscription-based journalism for a month just to see how different the writing is when it’s not beholden to advertising and SEO.
Their parent company fired some people, including the editor-in-chief, and he was so well liked the entire video team resigned and went with him. They’re now Second Wind. youtube.com/
remember when consoles got cheaper as they aged? …and eventually they’d hit that $99 sweet spot in the last few quarters of life? and used game stores were overstocked with older cheap used games…
I selected all and copy/paste before it popped up with the subscribe. It’s not perfect and I didn’t do any editing, but it’s readable.
Edit: now that I read it, I guess it’s not all there but TLDR there is encryption between the dock and console that prevents 3rd party docks.
How Nintendo locked down the Switch 2’s USB-C port and broke third-party docking
We whipped out a USB-C PD analyzer to test how Nintendo walled its garden this time around. by Sean Hollister Jul 2, 2025, 3:47 PM EDT
121 Comments121 New
If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement. Nintendo Switch 2 Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge Sean Hollister Sean Hollister is a senior editor and founding member of The Verge who covers gadgets, games, and toys. He spent 15 years editing the likes of CNET, Gizmodo, and Engadget.
There’s always a reason why universal USB-C ports don’t “just work” like you’d expect. In the early days, it was incompetence or naiveté. Later, manufacturers often cheaped out. But in the case of Nintendo’s Switch 2, it appears to be intentional.
With the Nintendo Switch 2, it should be easy to plug your new, more expensive console into video glasses or TVs when you’re traveling away from home. USB-C makes it so. But Nintendo has intentionally broken the Switch 2’s compatibility with those devices, using a new encryption scheme and some form of dedicated encryption chip, two accessory manufacturers tell The Verge.
I haven’t yet found proof of that encryption chip myself — but when I analyzed the USB-C PD traffic with a Power-Z tester, I could clearly see the new Nintendo Switch not behaving like a good USB citizen should. A third-party Switch dock, plugged into a USB-C PD tester, about to be plugged into the Switch 2. Please forgive the terrible photo. A third-party Switch dock, plugged into a USB-C PD tester, about to be plugged into the Switch 2. Please forgive the terrible photo. Photo: Sean Hollister / The Verge
If you’ve been wondering why there are basically no portable Switch 2 docks on the market, this is the reason. Even Jsaux, the company that built its reputation by beating the Steam Deck dock to market, tells us it’s paused its plans to build a Switch 2 dock because of Nintendo’s actions. It’s not simply because the Switch 2 now requires more voltage, as was previously reported; it’s that Nintendo has made things even more difficult this generation. How docking works
That “U” in USB isn’t always “universal,” but this is generally true: if you plug any USB-C to HDMI adapter, dock, or hub into a USB-C laptop, tablet or handheld that supports USB-C video output, you can expect to see your screen automatically appear on your TV.
The magic is normally possible because of a simple, standardized set of instructions that any manufacturer can follow to make their docking station or hub “talk” to the computer. Subscribe to The Verge to continue reading. More in this stream See all We confirmed Nintendo’s Switch 2 TV dock supports VRR — so why doesn’t it work with Switch 2? Sean HollisterJul 3 12 Can you spot an authentication chip in the Nintendo Switch 2’s dock? Sean HollisterJul 2 9 Obsbot will update its Tiny and Meet webcams for Nintendo Switch 2. Sean HollisterJul 2 More in Report We confirmed Nintendo’s Switch 2 TV dock supports VRR — so why doesn’t it work with Switch 2? We confirmed Nintendo’s Switch 2 TV dock supports VRR — so why doesn’t it work with Switch 2? Sean HollisterJul 3 12 Meet Soham Parekh, the engineer burning through tech by working at three to four startups simultaneously Meet Soham Parekh, the engineer burning through tech by working at three to four startups simultaneously Emma RothJul 3 20 Can the music industry make AI the next Napster? Can the music industry make AI the next Napster? Elizabeth LopattoJul 1 15 ‘We are the media now’ ‘We are the media now’ Mack DeGeurinJun 29 101 Reddit turns 20, and it’s going big on AI Reddit turns 20, and it’s going big on AI Jay PetersJun 28 24 The Nintendo Switch 2 webcam compatibility mystery is solved and updates are on the way The Nintendo Switch 2 webcam compatibility mystery is solved and updates are on the way Sean HollisterJun 26 14 Top Stories An hour ago The American system of democracy has crashed Two hours ago This is not a tattoo robot 2:37 AM EDT The Loop Micro is my new favorite bicycle phone mount Jul 3 Deerhoof did not want its music ‘funding AI battle tech’ — so it ditched Spotify Jul 3 Meet Soham Parekh, the engineer burning through tech by working at three to four startups simultaneously Jul 3 A guide to the best sci-fi streaming this summer
<span style="color:#323232;">Contact
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Tip Us
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Community Guidelines
</span><span style="color:#323232;">About
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Ethics Statement
</span><span style="color:#323232;">How We Rate and Review Products
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Terms of Use
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Privacy Notice
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Cookie Policy
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Licensing FAQ
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Accessibility
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Platform Status
</span>
Not every game has frame gen… not everybody wanna introduce lag to input. So 50% is 100% sketchy marketing. You can keep your 7 frames, Imma wait for 6090
Their whole gaming business model now is encouraging devs to stick features that have no hope of rendering quickly in order to sell this new frame generation rubbish.
If you were OOTL and confused af, here is a paragraph that makes it easier to understand:
The consequences of the full permanent injunction would stretch far beyond Epic’s own store and its game Fortnite. They would force Google to effectively open up its app store to competition for three whole years. Google would have to distribute other rival app stores within the Google Play store, too, give rivals access to the full catalog of Google Play apps, and it would be banned from a variety of anticompetitive practices including a requirement that apps use Google Play Billing. You can read a summary of the details here.
This judge actually fully understand how companies abuse two sided marketplaces and is thus forcing Google to open up both sides of the marketplace to competition. Both forcing Google to host new app stores inside the Play store so that they’re visible to consumers, and forcing Google to allow those app stores to distribute the Google Play apps so that the app stores aren’t crippled by a lack of developers.
This is a way way way bigger win than I could ever have hoped for.
Yeah, remember how big of a stink Internet Explorer on Windows was in the 90s? Imagine if Internet Explorer blocked you from downloading other browsers. That’s basically what Google Play Store has been doing. Why it’s taken this long to get fixed is beyond me, but I’m glad it’s happening.
Hits the griddy with Thanos or something, idk, I don’t play Fortnite.
There is a bigger barrier to them being able to take it away from you. But they absolutely can. Broadcast content like a movie or TV show illegally, and see what happens.
This is about the medium by which the license is provided, there is no doubt whatsoever that the license is the same. This has been proven repeatedly. The difference here is that the distributor can be legally forced to remove the content by the owner of the media. So, if for instance you order a physical disc and pay for it ahead of time and then the place you order from loses the right to distribute that disc, you absolutely won’t get it in the mail because they’re required to send it back to the owner.
You’d likely get a refund in that case but that’s because you didn’t get to actually enjoy that media at all. But buying a license to a show on Amazon or something is different only because it’s likely that they have pull the show after you paid for it and outside the return window. Meaning in theory you have enjoyed or consumed the media you paid for. So the license is legal.
What really needs to change imo isn’t the transparency. This discussion keeps being had repeatedly and people keep being outraged by it as if they have never heard that this can happen. Its been 20 some odd years of this and I would think it would be common knowledge by now.
What really needs to change is the terms by which the owner who licenses the content in the first place should either be required to provide a refund or equivalent on a different platform, or they should be the ones held liable for their terminology in the licensing agreement that would require that license to be null and void for people who have already purchased it.
But literally every single time I say this people get upset about it and nobody can explain why.
Broadcast content like a movie or TV show illegally, and see what happens.
Yeah, that’s because you own the property, not the intellectual property. This is copyright law, not an affront to your ownership. When you “buy” a movie digitally on Amazon, you’re only buying access to their copy of the movie. Amazon bought the right to distribute it to you. When that contract expires, they can’t distribute it to you anymore. That’s why it’s not ownership. When you buy a game on GOG, you download the installer, and they cannot take it away from you, no matter how hard they try; that’s their whole shtick.
But literally every single time I say this people get upset about it and nobody can explain why.
Someone has probably explained the above to you before.
On the basis of technicality, it will depend very wildly on the ToC of said intellectual property. As you said, GOG just distributes the installer and that is it, the IP holder can technically revoke your/GOG license if that is in the ToC somewhere.
Yeah, hence why I said that technically the license can be revoked. Enforcing that is another matter. Without going into the weeds, we need to rethink how to handle it. At minimum, we need to make sure that if the license is revoked not from breaking ToS, the Copyright/IP holder must refund the purchase too. The copyright/ip holder still has the right to their creation but the consumer is also protected via those refund. It is indeed not bulletproof but whether you like it or not, copyright/ip protection is needed to some extent.
Not trying to argue, but I don’t believe I can re-sell my copy of a game I “bought” on GOG, so in my view that’s not full ownership as most people understand it. If you’re a full, legal owner of some property, you can sell that property anywhere you like.
Until Bungie gives me back the content I already paid for, that company can rot in hell. I feel for the devs who point stuff out to leadership and tell them exactly what they need to do to fix their reputation, but the leadership saying “player’s still love us” means that piece of shit scumbag, Pete Parsons, can go get dry fucked by splintering balsa wood.
I won’t play the Legacy Collection, not even when it’s free. Fuck you, Bung-hole.
Oh well, maybe they should have made better games instead of looter shooter grind fests that were an obvious trend and not actually a fun fucking game play loop.
The troll was able to spoof the Nintendo.co.jp domain because Nintendo didn’t setup their DMARC settings correctly. They have it setup but with policy “none” instead of “reject”. What a bunch of dumb asses. Such a big company doesn’t even protect their domains against spoofing. Probably why they got hacked, they don’t invest enough in IT security. Though this is typical for Japanese corporations.
Claiming “multiple patent rights” without mentioning smells like kafkatrapping.
I think that Nintendo’s delayed reaction was to gauge how much money it could get from bullying Pocketpair to accept some unfavourable settlement outside the court; if too little the costs would be too high to bother, considering the risk, but now that Palworld sold a bazillion it’s more profitable to do so. It might actually backfire if Palworld decides to go through the whole thing, I don’t know how Japanese law works in this regard but if Nintendo loses this certainly won’t look good for them, and even if they win it might be a pyrrhic victory.
theverge.com
Ważne