German Consumer Group Threatens Legal Action Against Blizzard
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Then ask yourself this, would a company RISK lessening their initial sales figures by being more "upfront" with the introduction of Online Only DRM on single player games which the average consumer (or any consumer fort that matter) would NOT expect OR be as vague about it as possible because they KNOW that they can get away with just saying "it's on the box, I did not say it was easy to see though..." but make the correction ONLY if the government of a country demands it specified to not mislead consumers at the point of sale.... how many country's Government besides Germany decided to take notice again?Twilight_guy said:
Will Blizzard even decide to apply this "sticker" to ALL games worldwide because one country saw this as putting consumers at a disadvantage?
Company's have been doing things like THIS for decades trying to see how far they can "get away" with something then act surprised/considerate when caught and questioned on their actions, Blizzard is no different in that regard. took them long enough to make a well worded statement by the head of Blizzard on the issues they had on Diablo 3 for weeks after it's launch...
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,490
- 3,437
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You mean the woman that ended up with 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body because the coffee was served at a temp of 180 to 190 degrees and needed skin grafts and who even tried to just settle for only 20k?Ed130 said:
The thing we have to remember is that there are a lot more consumers out there than just "us." Somebody's mom is shopping for her 17-year-old kid's birthday, sees D3 on the shelf and remembers him saying something about how cool it is isn't going to have any idea about this always-on business. Maybe she reads the back and maybe she doesn't, maybe she parses "persistent connection required" and maybe she doesn't, maybe the guy at the counter tells her about it and maybe he doesn't. That's exactly the sort of thing consumer protection laws are put into place to guard against.
Sometimes it goes too far, and maybe this has, I don't know the details. But laws like this are about more than protecting the stupid from themselves, and if we start making room for exceptions because, hey, this is obvious and you should have known, we're invalidating the entire system, good and bad.
Sometimes it goes too far, and maybe this has, I don't know the details. But laws like this are about more than protecting the stupid from themselves, and if we start making room for exceptions because, hey, this is obvious and you should have known, we're invalidating the entire system, good and bad.
That woman was an American, from somewhere in the midwest. Yeah she got badly burned by unnecessarily hot coffee. There's nothing wrong with protecting your consumers, btw. Also, I drank my first beer in a McDonalds in Germany.
I try not to gain pleasure from Blactivision's setbacks, but any time they get a little bruised for their premeditated decision to low-ball the server numbers needed for launch, it's a good thing. I honestly don't care if the number of servers you'll need a few months after launch, you don't require a constant connection on one hand and then limit the, i dunno, space/bandwidth thingamabobs needed for connections. Even weeks after launch I stopped playing when I couldn't get anything going on the EU servers for more than 5 minutes over a 3-day period. So happy I got a refund.
I try not to gain pleasure from Blactivision's setbacks, but any time they get a little bruised for their premeditated decision to low-ball the server numbers needed for launch, it's a good thing. I honestly don't care if the number of servers you'll need a few months after launch, you don't require a constant connection on one hand and then limit the, i dunno, space/bandwidth thingamabobs needed for connections. Even weeks after launch I stopped playing when I couldn't get anything going on the EU servers for more than 5 minutes over a 3-day period. So happy I got a refund.
You just reminded me of this conversation:FantomOmega said:
Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
OT: I'm all for this change. Half of PC games have that "internet connection required" note on it somewhere, whether it's for the multiplayer, the Steam registration, or a Securom activation. Not everyone is going to know that Diablo 3's online rules are the same as a MMOs. Why should they expect that? Diablo 1 and 2 weren't a MMO at all! It's easy to forget how informed I am, because I go "duh!" at my last sentence, but not everyone is me.
I just wish Blizzard was taking more flak here in the states. I think it goes to show the state of consumerism and corporate power in Europe versus America.
Yeah, on some level this is just making excuses to rail on Blizzard.
There really isn't much issue with changing the packaging though, so I don't see how it's really bad except for people who are buying collector's editions really late and having to deal with a stupid sticker marring their box.
There really isn't much issue with changing the packaging though, so I don't see how it's really bad except for people who are buying collector's editions really late and having to deal with a stupid sticker marring their box.
Exactly! I really can't believe people are defending Blizzard here. They were vague on the box and I believe it was intentional. I believe that they thought that if they displayed "This is an online game" or similar on the box, they may have turned some people off. They figured people would just roll with it once they got it home. Better to ask forgiveness than permission type of thing.Andy Chalk said:
I would like a Blizzard defender to tell me why they were so vague on the box?
because blizzard is a subsidary of activision, and people only play activision games for the multiplayer! hahhahahaha your so stupid!Crono1973 said:
/troll answer is troll obvious.
OT: a punch to the face for blizzard?
i can get behind that. Los, Deutschland!
I decided to translate their quotes from the last two paragraphs:
Potential customers need to know what kinds of requirements a software has before purchase. Whether that be an "always on"-internet connection, a forced registration on an internet platform including the access to the game or the download of additional software: All of these are relevant information that the consumers need to be made aware of before purchase.
We consider the response we received from Blizzard insufficient and decided to give them a final deadline on July 27th 2012. Should an additional statement not convince us, then we will probably sue to resolve the remaining open questions in court.
The recent Steam ruling on the EU-level? The consumer protections group in Germany? These are good signs. These rules apply to every business out there and videogame publishers are no exception; I guess these folks think they don't have to care about the rules because it's still a comparably new medium that many people don't quite understand yet, but clearly the parties standing for consumer rights are catching up now.
Captcha: fair and square
You betcha, it's about time.
Potential customers need to know what kinds of requirements a software has before purchase. Whether that be an "always on"-internet connection, a forced registration on an internet platform including the access to the game or the download of additional software: All of these are relevant information that the consumers need to be made aware of before purchase.
We consider the response we received from Blizzard insufficient and decided to give them a final deadline on July 27th 2012. Should an additional statement not convince us, then we will probably sue to resolve the remaining open questions in court.
Honestly, this is great. I'm so sick of publishers thinking they can get away with nonsense like this. I assume it has to do with the fact that we gamers primarily just want to play our games and as long as you wave that carrot in front of us, little else matters, but because of this a lot of us don't seem to care too much about the more and more intrusive measures that publishers and developers force us to accept and even defend them.
The recent Steam ruling on the EU-level? The consumer protections group in Germany? These are good signs. These rules apply to every business out there and videogame publishers are no exception; I guess these folks think they don't have to care about the rules because it's still a comparably new medium that many people don't quite understand yet, but clearly the parties standing for consumer rights are catching up now.
Captcha: fair and square
You betcha, it's about time.
World of Auction House Online in trouble again for misrepresentation? Say it ain't so! Shrink wrap contract and buyer remorse in the states is pretty lax... heh... really really lax... but other more progressive countries take consumer rights pretty seriously. Come to think of it, looking forward to seeing all the gnashing of teeth when the EU forces used digital downloaded content to be resold legally.
Maybe I'm just a bad person...but after their decision to split SC II into 3 games for no other reason but to charge people 3 times to get the full game, I can't help but be sadistically, perversely gleeful at watching fail after fail for Blizzard in regards to Diablo 3.
I mean really, I don't hate EA half as much as I despise Blizzard...now that I think about it, they're really the only game company that I've sworn never to buy from again. Just fucking hate those fucks.
I mean really, I don't hate EA half as much as I despise Blizzard...now that I think about it, they're really the only game company that I've sworn never to buy from again. Just fucking hate those fucks.
I really don't see why so many people are disagreeing with this decision?
Is there some kind of doomsday prophecy that begins with the printing of "Always Online Requirement" stickers?
What exactly is the problem?
What is so bad about Blizzard providing additional clarity on an issue that, even though you think it's clear as day, others obviously find too vague?
It sounds to me like it's mostly some kind of malevolence of wanting people who don't inspect the back of the box very closely or frequent gaming-related news sites to suffer. And I think that's pretty low and elitist.
Nothing wrong with making games available to everyone, including people who just buy these things casually and don't read the back of the box anyway because they haven't the faintest clue what a GHz or a GeForce is.
Is there some kind of doomsday prophecy that begins with the printing of "Always Online Requirement" stickers?
What exactly is the problem?
What is so bad about Blizzard providing additional clarity on an issue that, even though you think it's clear as day, others obviously find too vague?
It sounds to me like it's mostly some kind of malevolence of wanting people who don't inspect the back of the box very closely or frequent gaming-related news sites to suffer. And I think that's pretty low and elitist.
Nothing wrong with making games available to everyone, including people who just buy these things casually and don't read the back of the box anyway because they haven't the faintest clue what a GHz or a GeForce is.
It's on the back of the goddamn box, how much more obvious do they want it to be?
I guess this sort of thing is to be expected when we live in the age of the Lawsuit, where there's vast amounts of money to be made in blaming your own stupidity and incompetence on everyone but yourself.
I guess this sort of thing is to be expected when we live in the age of the Lawsuit, where there's vast amounts of money to be made in blaming your own stupidity and incompetence on everyone but yourself.
since I am German I will explain this for you (really some comments here are so dumb, answering to something they really don't understand)
what really upsets people here is not that an internet connection is required. It's the fact that you needed to authenticate every time you wanted to play and could not (error 37 anyone?) the main reason for this is, that blizzard did not supply the needed infrastructure for their DRM.
they say: if something like this is required, blizzard needs to make sure it works 100% from minute 1 (and not 50% a week later).
another thing that really bothers me here is the attitude of some people here.
you are consumers are you not ? it should bother you too that you cannot buy a single player game out of the box and use it right away. it took a week or more until you got the value of a game that could have been played offline for your hard earned dollars.
as for our laws. they also state that if you buy a piece of software you own it (not only usage rights) this implies you may sell it 2nd hand, currently several systems be it battle.net origin or steam take that right from us. thats another thing that is currently debated apart from the fact that the battle.net did not work right in the beginning.
what really upsets people here is not that an internet connection is required. It's the fact that you needed to authenticate every time you wanted to play and could not (error 37 anyone?) the main reason for this is, that blizzard did not supply the needed infrastructure for their DRM.
they say: if something like this is required, blizzard needs to make sure it works 100% from minute 1 (and not 50% a week later).
another thing that really bothers me here is the attitude of some people here.
you are consumers are you not ? it should bother you too that you cannot buy a single player game out of the box and use it right away. it took a week or more until you got the value of a game that could have been played offline for your hard earned dollars.
as for our laws. they also state that if you buy a piece of software you own it (not only usage rights) this implies you may sell it 2nd hand, currently several systems be it battle.net origin or steam take that right from us. thats another thing that is currently debated apart from the fact that the battle.net did not work right in the beginning.