2 ms·

How it would have happened if that clause wasn't there: someone could sue them for breach of contract, claiming they had agreed to provide the service indefinit

How it would have happened if that clause wasn't there: someone could sue them for breach of contract, claiming they had agreed to provide the service indefinitely. It could get litigated and a judge would decide whether they had made that promise. And they could be found to be at fault and forced to pay some damages, even though the contract was one they weren't legally entitled to fulfil because they didn't have a perpetual license to the IP. Or they could settle out of court, fearing that the judge would rule against them. IANAL but in most jurisdictions I expect EA would not have lost the case and most likely no one would have taken the case. The TOS avoids the risk, though.

mlyle 7y ago
The big issue here is whether one can reasonably think that "using an app that I bought in an app store" offline requires the app developer to provide a service. Long ago, we'd buy video games, and the multiplayer servers might eventually go offline--- but the single player modes were offline. Now, for nearly no technical or gameplay reason, we have games that require connecting home for singleplayer, in turn allowing game publishers to arbitrarily yank the rights to the game. Massive EULA aside, what does "purchase" mean anymore, and do customers have a reasonable understanding of what transaction they're entering?