Which is to mean: rarely ever, and barely when it does but only after great fiddling.Denamic said:As in, you can't buy anything from it, but everything you've already bought should still work as normal.
It won't protect them in any market outside the United States, as many countries have pointed out that such agreements are a crock. In all honesty, the US needs to actually work on its laws surrounding digital media and ownership rights because this is going to be a problem sooner or later, and no one is going to be happy.Zachary Amaranth said:Pretty much every online service providing access to games expresses within its TOU the right to shut down with a given period of notification.CpT_x_Killsteal said:Also, people can still play their games, if they shut that down they'd have legal issues wouldn't they?
They've agreed that they can't supersede your rights, but have they actually made a proactive statement regarding the termination of a gaming service?shirkbot said:It won't protect them in any market outside the United States, as many countries have pointed out that such agreements are a crock.
I like you.tardcore said:The monster isn't dying. They are just putting back on the laboratory table to splice in a few new body parts and a brain that isn't from some poor bloke named "Abby Normal". Don't worry once the new guy has it all sussed out they'll hit that sucker with a big bolt of lightning and send it lurching back out into the world to terrify the digital villagers once again.
As far as I know nobody has done anything definitive simply because it hasn't actually become a problem yet. The judiciary is an inherently reactionary institution after all and nobody wants to legislate on it because they have bigger problems to deal with.Zachary Amaranth said:They've agreed that they can't supersede your rights, but have they actually made a proactive statement regarding the termination of a gaming service?shirkbot said:It won't protect them in any market outside the United States, as many countries have pointed out that such agreements are a crock.
So by their very nature they haven't ruled anything of the sort.shirkbot said:As far as I know nobody has done anything definitive simply because it hasn't actually become a problem yet. The judiciary is an inherently reactionary institution after all and nobody wants to legislate on it because they have bigger problems to deal with.
In this particular instance it is only speculation, but it's interesting speculation. Courts and law have a tendency to be almost absurdly specific.Zachary Amaranth said:So by their very nature they haven't ruled anything of the sort.
Unless the nature of games services is defined by law, it's folly to assert legal repercussions would come of it. They could come of it, but....