3 ms·

> I bought the damned thing. I didn't buy it "for X years". Misunderstanding what you bought doesn't actually entitle you to anything more than what you bought

> I bought the damned thing. I didn't buy it "for X years". Misunderstanding what you bought doesn't actually entitle you to anything more than what you bought. No one promised you that your game would last forever. It was clearly advertised as reliant on an online connection to their servers, and the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs here demonstrate an understanding that such a connection connotes an eventual cessation of service. If you want to have full ownership over the capability of running the game, get it in writing before you pay.

eropple 14y ago
And your rationale is why we have consumer protection laws: because that behavior is bullshit and cannot be accepted by a reasonable society. It cannot be acceptable to sell one game for $60 that works in perpetuity and one for $60 that gets the plug pulled after two or three years. Shame that those consumer protection laws are toothless.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  Games are fruit, not apples. That is, if a company wants to sell bananas, they shouldn't have to meet your expectations surrounding apples.
  - eropple 14y ago
    Except they're not even selling bananas. They're selling you maybe-bananas. You don't know what you're buying, you don't know the term of the product's lifetime, and they won't tell you. Markets don't work without fair access to information. If a company commits, with a posted bond, to support the game through date X--sure, you're right. But they're not. They are selling the proverbial cat in a bag. That is anti-consumer, and consumers--people--are more important than the companies that exist to serve them.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      If you look up a few levels of the comment tree, you will see that I say people should be focusing on requiring accurate labeling. The company longevity thing is problematic, but I have trouble getting worked up about it for $50 luxury purchases.
      - eropple 14y ago
        I make games. I consider them important enough to get worked up over. =)
        saraid216 14y ago
        I wasn't sure whether to respond to this comment or the ones further up the tree... Long story short, I agree. maxerickson's idea of labeling is a good one, since the point isn't really the mechanism so much as the principle of stipulating the contents of the contract in detail. If the game industry decided to standardize on only promising a year of service, I suspect that would be fine: it's explicit, it's well-known, and the game-maker will almost certainly run longer than that if their product is remotely successful.

eropple 14y ago

And your rationale is why we have consumer protection laws: because that behavior is bullshit and cannot be accepted by a reasonable society. It cannot be acceptable to sell one game for $60 that works in perpetuity and one for $60 that gets the plug pulled after two or three years. Shame that those consumer protection laws are toothless.

maxerickson 14y ago
Games are fruit, not apples. That is, if a company wants to sell bananas, they shouldn't have to meet your expectations surrounding apples.
- eropple 14y ago
  Except they're not even selling bananas. They're selling you maybe-bananas. You don't know what you're buying, you don't know the term of the product's lifetime, and they won't tell you. Markets don't work without fair access to information. If a company commits, with a posted bond, to support the game through date X--sure, you're right. But they're not. They are selling the proverbial cat in a bag. That is anti-consumer, and consumers--people--are more important than the companies that exist to serve them.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    If you look up a few levels of the comment tree, you will see that I say people should be focusing on requiring accurate labeling. The company longevity thing is problematic, but I have trouble getting worked up about it for $50 luxury purchases.
    - eropple 14y ago
      I make games. I consider them important enough to get worked up over. =)
      - saraid216 14y ago
        I wasn't sure whether to respond to this comment or the ones further up the tree... Long story short, I agree. maxerickson's idea of labeling is a good one, since the point isn't really the mechanism so much as the principle of stipulating the contents of the contract in detail. If the game industry decided to standardize on only promising a year of service, I suspect that would be fine: it's explicit, it's well-known, and the game-maker will almost certainly run longer than that if their product is remotely successful.