I just made the comparison because people come crying afterwards. First they tell the same shit ''oh update it's no problem blablabla'' and then they come crying afterwards, even if a console gets an entry point quite soon. I just made that comparison because they acted exactly the same way then as people are doing now with the switch and afterwards they came crying and spammed the fucking entire forum with '' am i fucked ?'' and it's gonna be the same thing now. Plus the switch makes downgrading literally impossible plus i think it's a lot more secure then previous systems soYeah, but everyone was telling you all along not to update your Wii U, but I continuously did, and by the time that CBHC was publicly released, I was on the latest Wii U firmware and it worked like a charm. The Wii U was an era where they told us not to update the whole time, yet by the time you could really hack your Wii U, you could be on the latest FW to do it. The 3DS constantly found new exploits for the latest FWs that Nintendo kept having to patch away, you could be out of luck for a few months to hack a 3DS, but typically one way or another an exploit would drop until we got to the point where we're at now where an impossible to block exploit exists regardless of the FW. And the Wii would get patched, but was so easy to exploited that it would almost immediately find a new exploit when any new FW tried to block entrypoints.
See what I'm saying? That their stance that the Wii, Wii U, and 3DS should stand as examples as reasons not to update to ensure you can hack your system, are poor examples of why you shouldn't update considering with each FW update containing blocks to entrypoints, other new ones would arrive fairly quickly. I'm aware that the Switch is a different beast, and that new entrypoints wont be found nearly as quickly or easily, as such, I think it should be compared to much more difficult to exploit systems based on firmware, like the PS3.
Last edited by kumikochan,