I agree that the device updating without your consent should be illegal, but new games requiring the updates seems fair enough: the Xbox can still run all of the games it was advertised to be able to do so at launch, and if game developers could not rely on the presence of system updates, Microsoft would just release an entirely new, incompatible Xbox instead. I think that updates are fine so long as you can update and roll back whenever you want to.
The PSP had firmware updates as well, and certain games strongly encouraged you to do so. But many had a workaround: The firmware loaded from the UMD itself. This meant your minimum firmware version could be rolled back, or that in some cases you didn't need to update and then rollback at all, as it was all loaded from the UMD. No matter what though, Sony mandated that all games support a minimum version. The last minimum version I remember was 3.00 from 2007 that introduced MemoryStick verification as an alternative to UMD verification because the PlayStation Store necessitated the ability to run without UMDs, and the final firmware update being 6.60 from 2011.
We could easily go back to installing firmware on-disc or in-download and only calling it at runtime. We won't because devs are in a desperate and futile campaign to outrun console modding (and to some extent piracy) they can't control. With consoles moving to common PC hardware rather than custom hardware like Flipper or Cell they're just going to get broken into faster and faster, so the only bet is harsher and harsher DRM on the software side. AMD straight up sold PlayStation 5 defects as the AMD 4700S "all in one" board.
The CFAA's broad enough so as to allow a lot of creative interpretation. A journalist using view source was breaking the CFAA was one district attorneys view.
This is the only carve out I could find for manufacturers of computers:
> No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.
I guess Microsoft could argue their entire operating system business, app store, and update infrastructure are intentionally negligent, and so not covered.
I’d think a reasonable court would say that it’s working as designed, and therefore not covered by the carve out.
