Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely.

A few, at least.

I don't care.

Not certain.

Definitely not.

Other.

View poll. / Abstain.

[G-Flex]

As G-Flex noted--you do it to yourselves. And there are no Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds.

I should note, however, that publishers should still be held to higher standards than they probably are, and that some trends are a little worrying, as I've mentioned. However, you can't expect them to be held to high standards when their customers don't themselves.

[KaguroDraven]

My only real problem myself is that publishers are allowed to release games that are half finished, then expect people to pay, again, for something that allows them to download patches which finish, not fix FINISH, the game. Mind many PC games don't make you pay for patching, but 360 games? PS3 games? You have to pay to be allowed to use their online services, and you can't get patches without said online service.

[Jack A T]

I feel that, if anything, it's not that the consumers should have more rights, but that the publishers should have less rights.  To be more precise, they shouldn't have the right to package their games with anything that installs almost unremovable drivers or software (...StarForce...) (seriously, I don't have any StarForce-protected games installed anymore, and I still have to occasionally clean up the drivers with the official removal tool), directly damages computers, depends on something that damages computers...basically, anything that directly harms consumers without actually serving a real purpose should be banned.

[Mipe]

After having bought a few unplayable games due to incompatibility / stopper bug / draconian DRM, I've elected "Definitely". I feel I am being cheated here, as most publishers don't do refunds.

[Vattic]

As far as I remember, it is that way in the Netherlands, store owners have to allow you to return the game within 24 hours (they can give you store credits instead of money though). At least it was that way several years ago (haven't bought any physical disks the past few years).

I must admit that this was true in the UK last I checked. The last time a game wouldn't run despite my PC meeting minimum requirements returning within 24 hours was, unfortunately, out of the question.

I've got to say I agree that gamers are part of the problem and should let the developers and publishers know what they think by voting with their wallets. I do know plenty of gamers who "try before you buy" and while illegal this should let the industry know what these gamers think, unfortunately, the industry punish paying gamers instead of increasing quality. Plenty of indie companies are approaching this right; hopefully it catches on.

[jnecros]

My only real problem myself is that publishers are allowed to release games that are half finished, then expect people to pay, again, for something that allows them to download patches which finish, not fix FINISH, the game. Mind many PC games don't make you pay for patching, but 360 games? PS3 games? You have to pay to be allowed to use their online services, and you can't get patches without said online service.

hmm...I for one don't pay for my Ps3 and 360 game patches beyond the normal cost of my internet, both connect to the internet for free.....maybe this is different in other countries??

[Sappho]

For the most part, they're doing it because if they don't, then it becomes much harder to sue people the next time someone hacks the game and steals bits of code or attempt to claim the code for themselves. Consistency and all.

This is only an issue in some countries. The United States notably has a precedence-based law system where if one person successfully sues over a particular issue, it means all subsequent legal cases on the same type of issue can cite precedence and likely win their cases as well (it can obviously get complicated, but this is the basic idea).

Not all countries have this. The only concrete example I have on hand is the Czech Republic, where I'm living now. If one person sues a supermarket for slipping on a banana and the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the next time a customer slips on a banana they start over from scratch. The old case has no bearing on the new one. I can't imagine the CZR is the only country with this type of system.

I have no idea what the pros and cons are of each system and why each country uses them, but I just thought I'd point out that this is only an issue in some places.

[Mechanoid]

Voted "Definitely"
Corperations would if they could include a way for you to give them your soul if they could shove it into the fucking "Agreement" they basically arm-twist you to into clicking "Yes" on, because apparently, they take your disagreement to the whatever-the-fuck lawbabble diareah as "a desire to not use their program."
Hey, maybe if i click "No" that means i wave my right to complain if shit fucks up.

Oh wait, that's what happens when i click yes, too.
  to infinity.

[czech banana peel legal example]

There's a similar example in scientific papers.
Every once in a while someone publishes a paper that can basically be summarized as "Yup, water is wet." which while initially retarded for stating the obvious, eventually makes more sense when you consider the possibility that in one instance, water may not be wet. (as in, say, when the water freezes into a solid called "ice" )
Edit - re-using your banana example, it could be that the banana was dropped by a customer, or that all employees were occupied cleaning up other messes, etc. Treating each case as independent is definitely resource intensive to figure this stuff out, but the quality produced is (given no corruption or incompetence) glorious.

[nenjin]

The only right as a consumer I don't get right now in regards to games, that I think I should, is the right of resale.

Sometime in the mid 90s, the game developers got together and basically said "Ok, let's invent this position where we only lease the right to play to the users. If we all cleave to it, we will change the way consumers and producers view ownership of digital content."

Now we're here, 15 years later, and the concept of resale has almost completely disappeared from the popular conscious. Most people don't buy games simply so they could resell them. Yet I think if you ask most people if they'd like to get $10 to $20 for some of their titles, the answer would be "Hell yeah!"

It's ironic, but I think the only thing that stopped the total erosion of end user rights when it comes to software and/or games is the console market. Even on their worst day, a console gamer knows they have a piece of physical media they can re-sell to anyone at any time. And since Gamestop is so closely tied to many game releases, they've managed to protect their own little corner of the market, and by extension, our right to own the things we purchase and re-sell them as we want.

Sadly, that still leaves PC users out in the cold, even IF we own a physical copy of a product we bought.

So yeah. In all this DRM insanity, the one thing that very few companies have made allowances for is restoring the PC user's full rights and controls over their purchase. I'm not bothered by the fact Big Gaming Brother needs to know what I'm doing. I'm bothered by the fact that their knowing comes hand in hand with them refusing to do anything beyond registering the product to me. That's BS. Toyota doesn't sell you a car and tell you that you're merely signing a piece of paper saying you paid $40,000 for the right to drive said car. That's a lease agreement. Video game companies have turned PC users into leasers of their products, and that's an understanding they often don't make clear to us. Not only should they make it clear, and not bury it under a 60 page EULA, they should be thinking of ways to fully authorize and validate legitimate users, so they can use their content they way it can and SHOULD be used.

[G-Flex]

The only EULA I recognize is the one text file on my computer that says "By having your software installed on my computer, you acknowledge that I can do whatever I want with it. This supersedes all other EULAs." Aren't arbitrary one-party-created "contracts" awesome?

You know that's not remotely how contracts work, right? Nobody's agreeing (or even has the capacity to see) a bullshit text file you created on your computer. An EULA, no matter what you think of it, is still something that you do explicitly agree to. Yes, they can be unfair (or even damn near unconscionable sometimes), or agreed to by minors, and that sort of thing, but that's still not even the same ballpark.

[Neonivek]

None of this, aside from the technical fact that it is a license (and has been since very early days of computer game development), is true

No all true. I'd read your EULAs much more closely and actually know how Hardware/software companies opperate.

The reason why generally speaking is never has come into play is because the courts consider EULA's questionable and that the other stuff is mostly legal. (Except the termination... that did happen apperantly)

Of course it hardly matters because of one aspect of the EULA's that is included in almost all of them that MUST be illegal

"We reserve the right to change the conditions of the EULA at anytime and not tell you"

While this can be used for some contracts, the method in which it is used for the EULA is not. At least according to USA contract laws depending on what changes were made.

Though In Canada EULA's arn't legal. Though that is because our contract law requires you to read the contract. So maybe I am just using too much Canadian law.

I say this as someone who has written EULAs

I have many doubts on this. Though who says all EULA's are horrible. I've seen innocent ones.

Honestly look at more EULA's, some are just outragously illegal.

Wait wait wait... The Lawyer didn't write the EULA? Well that explains a lot.

Though the Older EULA's weren't always much better. It was more that the gaming community grew while ignoring the EULA's. For example letting people borrow your game and even installing the game on more then one system, for some EULA's, were against the contract. I want to see one that prevents more then one person playing it!

[Trappin]

The announcement was last week, it will be pushed forward in the next few months, they said. Granted, it's not as bad as I've made it sound, but I bet my unhatched chickens every store and their mom will require the credential for you to make a purchase in the next few years and it will only get sillier from there.

The current House will never pass this bill, if partisan bureaucrats within the FCC attempt to usurp congressional authority via new regulations then the House will move to de-fund those specific regulatory provisions. Bills like this can float around the halls of Congress for a decade or more and are revived during election cycles - politically expedient and cynical but it happens.

[Neonivek]

The announcement was last week, it will be pushed forward in the next few months, they said. Granted, it's not as bad as I've made it sound, but I bet my unhatched chickens every store and their mom will require the credential for you to make a purchase in the next few years and it will only get sillier from there.

The current House will never pass this bill, if partisan bureaucrats within the FCC attempt to usurp congressional authority via new regulations then the House will move to de-fund those specific regulatory provisions. Bills like this can float around the halls of Congress for a decade or more and are revived during election cycles - politically expedient and cynical but it happens.

But you have to think about the Congress as a buisness as well.

It would seem to be in Congress' behind the scenes favor to pass it.

I give it a chance. Besides people have projected America going to some sort of system eventually (To admit they projected that the USA would go on a closed internet system rather then the World Wide Web... But this is close enough)

[Neonivek]

This is only an issue in some countries. The United States notably has a precedence-based law system where if one person successfully sues over a particular issue, it means all subsequent legal cases on the same type of issue can cite precedence and likely win their cases as well (it can obviously get complicated, but this is the basic idea).

Canada allows precedence to be used but it doesn't automatically win the case.

Not sure how powerful precedence is though.

Depending on the level of court you don't get precedence at all, the law just changes. (Ok that isn't true. In fact not only do you get precedence, but also the judges who voted against the motion have to write why they didn't)

[Trappin]

Net Neutrality and internet legislation are shaping up to be a 2012 election cycle wedge issue. In general, democrats favor it and republicans are in opposition.