Consumer rights: Updates that make a purchased game worse or completely break it.
- Thread starter WeepingAngels
- Start date
I understand, you are saying that having a radio in a car is dumbass idea anyway. Well whatever.Seth Carter said:
Neither is. Digital goods have far fewer rights that are enforced. Anything regarding updates short of physically damaging your hardware can be written off by the companies. Developers don't have to conserve backwards compatibility of the software nor do they have to provide critical patches to make the program usable, fix vulnerabilities or bugs, or inform you of any potential issues including those of security.
Now. You might technically be protected on some paper, but these are not really enforced by any public sector. Not to mention this would have to often be done across country borders. You would have to sue the billion dollar companies, with more lawyers than your IQ, to get something out of them. Even if that's a F.U.
Now. You might technically be protected on some paper, but these are not really enforced by any public sector. Not to mention this would have to often be done across country borders. You would have to sue the billion dollar companies, with more lawyers than your IQ, to get something out of them. Even if that's a F.U.
It wasn't one specific update, but the gradual feature creep and resulting spaghetti code made Team Fortress 2 nearly unplayable on my potato computer. Where I could once run the game on medium to high settings with 30+ frames, I eventually found myself having to find low fps configs just so firefights wouldn't be a slideshow.
Well, breaking a game that previously ran on specific hardware has nothing to do with backward compatibility. That's more like a 360 game being patched to no longer work on the 360.somonels said:
Half-Life 2 is pretty broken in places thanks to Valve upgrading Source multiple times and then completely abandoning HL2 after 2012 because let's not pretend anyone working there actually cares anymore. NPCs don't blink, there are HDR lighting bugs, scripting bugs, and a range of janky nonsense that didn't exist in the Orange Box version.
Options other then buying a car radio that randomly updates itself without consent.WeepingAngels said:
-A regular radio. AM/FM does not support update distribution.
-Any kind of personal music player.
-Karaoke
-Having your buddy play guitar in the backseat or whatever.
Don't want to deal with Spotify/Sirius/Clear Channel/whoever elses Ads. Don't buy their product. If part of the purchase package was "No Ads" and you get Ads, then yeah, you'd have a case. If Spotify decides to add a "Pay 5 cents to skip this song" to their free service and you're irked by this, stop listening to their service and feeding them Ad money.
I don't know about iPad's particular policies on system adminstration or the details of Parker Brothers shovelware mobile games. But at least on my Android phone, I have to actually approve updates, they don't just happen. I would assume this is a universal feature to avoid data/bandwidth overuse via automated updates. Not updating probably bars from the online components. But online components actually are a service companies maintain. Unless you bought a lifetime subscription to that service without restrictions, you don't have a violation.
As opposed to your first case, which would be more akin to your car company coming and changing the engine out to run on plutonium instead of gasoline without telling you. You're now stuck with something that does not fulfill its basic function (for the purpose of this metaphor, we'll assume plutonium is not widely accessible) of transport at all. If your car takes a few minutes longer to start up, its certainly potentially annoying, but not ultimately a break in the cars basic functionality (Unless you were sold it as a quick starting vehicle).
You're certainly within your right to find the added micro-transactions or prompt annoying. But you still have a functional (I'm assuming) card game behind that. I find the 2-7 company brand ads at the startup and "Don't rip the CD out and soccer punt the system out the window while saving" prompt of every damn game in existence irritating myself, but I'm aware that there's no obligation for them not to be there. And they don't actually impair the game in the way that game breaking bugs or crashes do.
We agree then. If you purchase a product without ads/micro transactions and then ads/micro transactions are later added then the deal has been altered without your permission. If you can't roll back an update or the game won't run at all without having the latest update then yeah, you'd have a case.Seth Carter said:
It has now happened to another game, Clue on IOS. It seems to be a trend to sell an app without ads or micro transactions and then add them later. In this case, I paid $3.99 for Clue but since they added the micro transactions, the game is now $0.99. Do you think I will get my $3 back since I am now stuck with the inferior version (I have emailed the developer)? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/clue-the-classic-mystery-game/id1150534552?mt=8
Does that also apply to the PS3/360 physical versions because I almost bought it on the PS3 yesterday as Wal Mart had it for $15, probably on clearance. I remembered this thread and passed figuring that it would be patched on any online capable console.darkrage6 said:
HL2: Update specifically addresses many of the issues a company where employees are free to do whatever they want 24/7 were too busy/lazy to fix. Did you know Valve managed to break character smirking? Barney stopped smirking. That's just a whole new level of not caring anymore.Ezekiel said:
This site seriously needs to run an article explaining consumer rights to gamers. Ever since Mass Effect 3 I can't stand to see any more threads on "Our consumer rights are being destroyed!" because a game company made a game or gave an update that customers don't like.
It's unreasonable to demand game developers take into account the massive customization options of PC gamers everywhere. And it's unreasonable to demand a company not make changes to their creative product they still hold license to just because you don't like those changes.
So let's sum it up with a nice rule of thumb.
Just because you bought something does not automatically give you rights to it
It's unreasonable to demand game developers take into account the massive customization options of PC gamers everywhere. And it's unreasonable to demand a company not make changes to their creative product they still hold license to just because you don't like those changes.
So let's sum it up with a nice rule of thumb.
Just because you bought something does not automatically give you rights to it
What does this mean? Are you trying to say that I don't have any consumer rights attached to my purchased copy?irishda said:
Depends what you mean by rights. Do you have the right to a product that works as is? Of course. Do you have the right to dictate the future direction a company takes its game or the direction of the story? Of course not.WeepingAngels said:
Think of it less like a product you own, like candy or a car. Think of it more as a place you visit. Like a gym or an amusement park. You have the right, at time of purchase, reasonable access to this place. I say reasonable because if I buy a game that won't export from Japan, I can't complain that I don't have access to something I bought.
However you don't have the right to dictate how the gym/park operates. What equipment they buy. Their prices. You don't own the gym. Similarly you don't own these games. They remain the property of their company, especially in this digital age. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere
The product was altered after purchase to the point that it no longer works on the same hardware it worked on at the time of purchase. Where do you stand with that?irishda said: