Buggy games and the Sale of Goods Act - step forward Gamers Voice and the court case

[crunchyfrog555]

I'm a big advocate (in part because of some of the work I do) of gamers fully understanding where they stand in accordance to the UK's consumer laws. Many, sadly, are either not aware of their rights, or have them slightly skewed (often by unscrupulous retailers).

Anyway, I've also made no secret of my belief in this forum (and others) that this current trend of releasing games that have often unreasonable levels of bugs (with the premise that they may or may not get patched later) will reach a critical point where something gives.

So, as it stands in the UK, games (as almost all other products do) fall under the premise of the Sale of Goods Act, and sometimes the Provisions of Goods and Services Act. Dealing with the former, it states that the product (when purchased) must be of "satisfactory quality", which is to say it must perform to your (reasonable) expectation of what it should do. If not, you are entitled to a full, immediate refund from the retailer. While it's true that many less-scrupulous retailers (GAME, for example) try to worm out of this by saying "we don't give refunds on software" and other such silly "store policies", the fact is they cannot. The caveat being that your "statutory rights are not affected", which means that such company policies, however official or reasonable they may sound, they CANNOT override your basic rights under such laws as the Sale of Goods Act. In short, what they say is poppycock in such a situation.

I've mentioned that one of the "tipping points" over this situation may be that some disgruntled gamer may end up standing up and taking on a major developer over this issue head-on.

Well, that day has come, or more appropriately it has started, thanks to a report I read in this month's PC Gamer.

Gamer's Voice (a gaming consumer group) are suing Activision over this very matter, after their communications with Treyarch and Activision failed.

Read about it here:
www.gamersvoice.org.uk

Best of luck to them!

[crunchyfrog555]

I do feel the Gamers' Voice chairman puts the point across well:


“Gamers’ Voice does not expect games to be bug free and we recognise it's not possible, particularly in light of the size and technical complexity of modern games. What we do expect are games with all the functions of the game working as advertised and that gamers are not treated as beta testers for a game they have paid for.

We don't have unreasonable expectations, but such game breaking bugs as those that everyone is aware of in Black Ops are unacceptable, particularly given how long the game has been out”

[xlxSmokeyxlx]

Question...

Whats to stop people buying a game and copying the disk or keycode then returning it for a refund?

[crunchyfrog555]

Question...

Whats to stop people buying a game and copying the disk or keycode then returning it for a refund?

Nothing at all, assuming of course they're NOT returning it just because they don't like it. You won't get a refund for that.

[GirlPower23]

Activision is already threatening to leave Europe though. Not sure how far this "lawsuit" will go, however, good luck to them. Hopefully they get a chance to nail Activision.

[crunchyfrog555]

Activision is already threatening to leave Europe though. Not sure how far this "lawsuit" will go, however, good luck to them. Hopefully they get a chance to nail Activision.

Activision are threatening to leave Europe. Wow, I can hope...

Seriously though, I wonder if it's because their relevant dept may have looked at some of the laws that they can't exploit, and are running away? I'm sure that's not the whole reason, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's at least contributor.

Thanks for that, I didn't know of it. You're a star once again, GirlPower :)

EDIT: I notice in a report on Activision threatening to close the UK office, one MP said it would cause a "brain drain" amongst development. Apart from being a typically bad MPs comment, he obviously doesn't know Activision very well - I'd say the reverse would be true, lol.

[GirlPower23]

Activision are threatening to leave Europe. Wow, I can hope...

Seriously though, I wonder if it's because their relevant dept may have looked at some of the laws that they can't exploit, and are running away? I'm sure that's not the whole reason, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's at least contributor.

Thanks for that, I didn't know of it. You're a star once again, GirlPower :)

Activision threatening because they aren't getting tax breaks from the UK Government. EA Games says they will stay and rough through it.


http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10325/activision-no-uk-tax-break-for-videogames-a-terrible-mistake

[crunchyfrog555]

Activision threatening because they aren't getting tax breaks from the UK Government. EA Games says they will stay and rough through it.


http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10325/activision-no-uk-tax-break-for-videogames-a-terrible-mistake

My instant response on the subject is "close the door on your way out".

I certainly won't miss them. Why should a rich, greedy company like theirs deserve tax breaks. Small developers, yes. These, no way.

[Fyndir]

Gamer's Voice (a gaming consumer group) are suing Activision over this very matter, after their communications with Treyarch and Activision failed.


Can you direct me to the actual article about the lawsuit?

I skimmed the recently posted article about bugs in Black Ops, and saw no mention of any legal proceedings, and if you're talking about the open letter to the OFT then describing it as them suing is pretty misleading.

[T@F]

Activision is already threatening to leave Europe though. Not sure how far this "lawsuit" will go, however, good luck to them. Hopefully they get a chance to nail Activision.

I hope they do tbh.
There a p*** poor company anyway.
We don't need company's like that tbh.

But the worst part is they won't go,all they do is make open threats to try and keep our mouths shut.

[crunchyfrog555]

Can you direct me to the actual article about the lawsuit?

I skimmed the recently posted article about bugs in Black Ops, and saw no mention of any legal proceedings, and if you're talking about the open letter to the OFT then describing it as them suing is pretty misleading.

Actually, I should have checked their website a little more thoroughly before posting their link. My sincerest apologies.

It would be better to read this interview with their chairman, via a different site:
http://gamereuphoria.com/2011/01/25/exclusive-interview-gamers-voice-paul-gibson-regarding-activisionblack-ops-complaint/

I'll also draw attention to the statement of suing Activision was how PC Gamer described it. Sending it to the OFT is actually the same as suing, as the outcome is the same. Although personally, I would have chosen a better choice of words. Again, I apologise.

[velvetmeds]

I import Blizzard games from the UK, so as much as i hate Activision i want them to stay.

[tibetanpunk]

Activision threatening because they aren't getting tax breaks from the UK Government. EA Games says they will stay and rough through it.


http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10325/activision-no-uk-tax-break-for-videogames-a-terrible-mistake

Jebus...Bobby Kotick eyes look colder and deader every time I see a new picture of him.

It is because of people with his psychological state that the world is going down the crapper.

Activision are a bunch of ruthless materialists. The gaming world's equivalent to cancer.

[Pebr]

I feel a bit behind times because i haven't played a game (except for Deus Ex 2) that i wasn't technically and functionally satisfied with. What are the main bugs with Black Ops that people are having to deal with?

[crunchyfrog555]

I feel a bit behind times because i haven't played a game (except for Deus Ex 2) that i wasn't technically and functionally satisfied with. What are the main bugs with Black Ops that people are having to deal with?

Personally, I have no idea, as I've never played Black Ops and have no inclination to touch anything Activision-related (World of Warcraft being the exception that I am decreasing).

However, from the reports I've read (and there are a huge number according to the Gamers' Voice chairman) are just straightforward senselessly obvious things that really should not have been released with them still in.

I'm sure somebody else who has some finer details could oblige you, but from what I've read this guy (who's an MP) knows what he's doing, and he's got some very, very solid evidence.

[velvetmeds]

I think black ops had/has connection and performance bugs on the PC, possibly crashes too.

[Ganger]

If this does come true as gamers voice wants, the UK games industry is a risk and the goverment must step in to protect it.

The UK is losing jobs right, left and centre and if companys like activison are saying they are going to pull out, the UK can ill afford to lose activision and other companys like that.

But on a good note yesterday the House of Commons MPs overwhelmingly voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights

Thats a start and if euro law starts affecting UK jobs the UK goverment must protect them by any means.

[Draek]

Funny how all these "consumer groups" love to throw around the word "reasonable" as if it were an objective criteria

I do feel the Gamers' Voice chairman puts the point across well:


“Gamers’ Voice does not expect games to be bug free and we recognise it's not possible, particularly in light of the size and technical complexity of modern games. What we do expect are games with all the functions of the game working as advertised and that gamers are not treated as beta testers for a game they have paid for.

We don't have unreasonable expectations, but such game breaking bugs as those that everyone is aware of in Black Ops are unacceptable, particularly given how long the game has been out”

So... what kinds of bugs do they actually accept? other than typos.

[crunchyfrog555]

Funny how all these "consumer groups" love to throw around the word "reasonable" as if it were an objective criteria



So... what kinds of bugs do they actually accept? other than typos.

If you look through that interview, although he doesn't specify, he does say that they're really unreasonable things - play related, obviously.

Technically, under the law, it could be anything, however minor, as long as it affected your enjoyment of the game. But from what I see, the guy is being very balanced and reasonable about it.

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ™]

Now they need to target Ubisoft.

[joeylawn]

My instant response on the subject is "Don't let the door hit your ♥♥♥ on your way out".


fixed it 4 ya....

But, yeah, I never had liked the fact that you can't return something because someone might not do the legal thing after they return it. Here in the U$A, we're stuck with the "shrink wrap" restriction (you break the shrink wrap on th package - no refunds) fobbed off on us by brain-dead comgressmen who li$ten to lobbyists instead of the average American. That and the partiallty unconstitutional DCMA simply state that $$$'s rule here. :p :mad:

[crunchyfrog555]

If this does come true as gamers voice wants, the UK games industry is a risk and the goverment must step in to protect it.

The UK is losing jobs right, left and centre and if companys like activison are saying they are going to pull out, the UK can ill afford to lose activision and other companys like that.

But on a good note yesterday the House of Commons MPs overwhelmingly voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights

Thats a start and if euro law starts affecting UK jobs the UK goverment must protect them by any means.

I don't believe the UK gaming industry is at risk, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, those that are better studios (I use that term in a fairly loose sense) turn out decent product, not ones that are bugged and messy, etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's not as if this is a new law or anything. This is one of the same basic things all manufacturers/retailers must adhere to. If they couldn't appreciate that in their business plan, then frankly they've only themselves to blame.

And that, quite simply is the most base of business principles, survival of the fittest. I doubt that any games company could lose staff on this premise, again for two reasons:

(1) If they turn out bugged goods, the likelihood that they're fairly slack in other areas is high.

(2) Almost all major companies are reinsured against legal action (something which I have first-hand knowledge about, but that's another story), so even if they lost the case and were handed a large penalty, it would only directly affect their change in reinsurance premiums.

[crunchyfrog555]

fixed it 4 ya....

Lol, thank you :) Much more eloquent.

[lionmaster]

I too am ignorant with regard to Black Ops functionality, but with another recent release called Civ5 I see a lot of people crying about it. Ive played Civ5 from day1 and if you were to read and believe some fansites youd think 2k had spawned the antichrist, whereas in my experience there are only minor issues in the game. My cynicism suggests that nothing substantial will happen about blackops, but then hey who knows.

[crunchyfrog555]

I too am ignorant with regard to Black Ops functionality, but with another recent release called Civ5 I see a lot of people crying about it. Ive played Civ5 from day1 and if you were to read and believe some fansites youd think 2k had spawned the antichrist, whereas in my experience there are only minor issues in the game. My cynicism suggests that nothing substantial will happen about blackops, but then hey who knows.

I know precisely what you mean. From my work is the disabled advice I offer, you do get people who have absolutely unreasonable expectations of things, and of course, particularly on forums you get the "yeah, me too" mentality. All this detracts or diminishes the real problems.

I had a number of people who came to me about real game-breaking problems with Forza 3. I was skeptical, as I saw that many others had the problems but they were trivial. However, when investigating further, these were that the game would point baln refuse to load after a certain stage, if you'd played through the career in a certain sequence. Your only option was to start again from the beginning and hope that you'd remembered the route you'd took before and avoided it. Now THAT'S a true problem, and one that the Sale of Goods Act fits precisely.

In this case, from what I've witnessed of the MP (and the others) who operate Gamers' Voice, they do know what they're talking about. You might note they were asked about others such as Fallout NV, to which they responded they'll get to them, but Black Ops created the most, legitimate responses. As these people who run the site play games themselves, I have every faith in what they say is correct.

Even so, if they were pretty clueless, or had ulterior motives, I still wouldn't be surprised if they still won their case, as the law is a very tried and tested law and is very specific. Let's face it also, despite games being around a good while now, many developers do not exude professionalism in many ways, as they do make some very amateur mistakes.

[MADDOGGE]

The only result of this will be region blocks where they refuse to sell to certain counties. People still insist on confusing software with real property and thinking they are entitled to the same rights. I'm not giving you a refund on software you have installed and may have already finished using already and now want a refund claiming bugs or it was un-runnable. No one in their right mind would. This is why Valve doesn't have a physical presence in foreign countries. The internet is owned by no one certainly not the EU or UK. The only people hurt will be the retail stores who will have to suffer the loss financially.

[real4xor]

Well, I wonder what the target is going to be tho...

I mean, when I look at Magicka, at least the developers try to fix up stuff ASAP. People can be unreasonable about it, but at the least the company`s trying to fix things. I would hope the smaller developers that actually try to work on it will stay out of shot.

Whereas of Black ops, I only heard that they seem to blame every consumer of the product not working right, rather than starting off with fixing it.
It`s not like the company`s lack of resources is holding them back.
(I don`t like the COD games after MW anyway, went too "generic shooter", so I wouldn`t know all the facts, just the stuff I read or heard abt it.)

[crunchyfrog555]

The only result of this will be region blocks where they refuse to sell to certain counties. People still insist on confusing software with real property and thinking they are entitled to the same rights. I'm not giving you a refund on software you have installed and may have already finished using already and now want a refund claiming bugs or it was un-runnable. No one in their right mind would. This is why Valve doesn't have a physical presence in foreign countries. The internet is owned by no one certainly not the EU or UK. The only people hurt will be the retail stores who will have to suffer the loss financially.

Despite agreeing with what you said elsewhere about the emphemeral nature of games, certainly in the case of UK law, I can wholeheartedly say that is NOT the case. The Sale of Goods Act is VERY clear on this point, if it's broken in some way (and I add stress to that word) the seller MUST refund, pure and simple. Steam even do this for the digitally distributed stuff.

I've stated before all different products have weird marketing foibles themselves, but none are above the basic consumer laws. Even car sales, which were big bones of contention for a number of years must abide by this.

Of course, many frontline store staff aren't trained even in basic legal stuff, so you invariably have a wrangle with them (and I suspect this is contributory to where some of the gamers are misinformed), but of all the many, many people who have come to me and said "this game's broken, and/or the store won't refund", I haven't had a single one that I have not had a full refund for and in a very quick time too.

Of course, the other thing is for those things and instances where thing do fall into a muddier area, such as your example where things aren't quite physical goods, the Provision of Goods and Services Act covers this too. Basically, in our country, there's no getting out of shirking your consumers' protection.

This is one thing I am thankful for in this country.

[MADDOGGE]

Believe what you want Crunchy but this will end bad for the UK. The US have lost so much of our industry do to liberals over regulating businesses into running overseas to escape and still be able to make profit. The same will happen there when it comes to providing games. When it becomes too much trouble to do business in any particular country you pull out. It's not worth the headaches.


You have people on these forum claiming all the time that Steam or a game won't work but it does for the majority. That is operator error. They don't know what they are doing. Who is going to decide when a game has one of them unfixable errors or the player is an idiot. Who is going to decide when a developer hasn't done enough. What will be enough ? when they go bankrupt? That is what will happen people like this never stop. They love to sue. I personally wouldn't have anything todo with the UK if I were a developer and they try to pull this.

[crunchyfrog555]

Believe what you want Crunchy but this will end bad for the UK. The US have lost so much of our industry do to liberals over regulating businesses into running overseas to escape and still be able to make profit. The same will happen there when it comes to providing games. When it becomes too much trouble to do business in any particular country you pull out. It's not worth the headaches.


You have people on these forum claiming all the time that Steam or a game won't work but it does for the majority. That is operator error. They don't know what they are doing. Who is going to decide when a game has one of them unfixable errors or the player is an idiot. Who is going to decide when a developer hasn't done enough. What will be enough ? when they go bankrupt? That is what will happen people like this never stop. They love to sue. I personally wouldn't have anything todo with the UK if I were a developer and they try to pull this.

Aha, well thankfully, this is where our laws work both ways.

If, for example, I claimed I had a game that was faulty (in whatever way, and I couldn't play it. Now, the store can say "OK, here's your money back", or they could say "I'm sorry we're not going to refund" (for whatever reason).

In the latter case, they'd be quite within their rights to ask for some sort of proof - that's reasonable. In most cases, that would clearly sort the wheat from the chaff.

So, it does cut both ways. We're not talking about people trying to get refund on dubious claims. We're talking about real, legitimate problems. Certainly in the legal case here, Gamers' Voice had attempted several times to communicate with Treyarch and Activision with a view to correcting the problems (the legal option is not what anyone wished for at this point). Each time they've either treated Gamers' Voice and their clients with disdain, insults or just silence. So this is their only other option. They've paid for a game, they want it to work as it should (which is the point the Sale of Goods Act specifies). They're not really interested in refunds, they merely want to get what they paid for. Unfortunately, it seem because of Activision/Treyarch's behaviour they are left with no other option.

So, for most people who have clear problems and faults, the law makes it a simple matter to get your money back and walk away. But it also protects retailers from being fleeced by people who are trying it on.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable situation to be in. I see this as Activision have brought it upon themselves.

[Draek]

If you look through that interview, although he doesn't specify, he does say that they're really unreasonable things - play related, obviously.

Technically, under the law, it could be anything, however minor, as long as it affected your enjoyment of the game. But from what I see, the guy is being very balanced and reasonable about it.

You are aware you're just throwing the "reasonable" word around as well, right?

To paraphrase Yoda, subjectivity leads to loopholes, loopholes lead to abuses, and abuses lead to dying industries. Thank God I don't live in the UK and as such won't have to suffer this train wreck waiting to happen.

[Heavy Weapons]

Question...

Whats to stop people buying a game and copying the disk or keycode then returning it for a refund?

Since the EULA of each game (big block of incomprehensible legalese you have to click "Accept" on in order to install) generally provides that the game remains the property of the software company, and that the player has only paid for the right to install and play the software on his own system, perhaps it would be for the best all around if people actually did as your question suggests.

This would of course require the elimination of copy protection, which makes it necessary to keep the original game disk in the drive in order for the game to run. Maybe they could replace it with something that would write an encrypted hidden file on your copy that contains the hardware configuration of your system, so that you can play your game on your own system and no one elses. (Ie, can copy for your own purposes but can't mass produce and sell copies.) No more having to monopolize your CD-ROM drive with a game disk.

There would be wrinkles. Change your modem, or your game controller, or your graphics card? Your game stops working. Add a bigger hard drive as a slave to the original? Your game stops working. Replace your crunchy old analog mouse with an optical? Your game stops working. Go re-rent the software and reinstall.

If they did it this way, they'd probably want to also lower the rental cost of the software to something that was reasonable for the concept of renting as opposed to purchasing (since the EULA says the purchase is an illusion anyway). No more games costing an arm and a leg to "buy".

[MADDOGGE]

It's all fun and games until someone losses an eye!;)


I guess we will have to wait and see what really happens as opposed to what anyone myself included thinks might happen. "Hope for the best, expect the worst" is my motto when it comes to the government trying to help with anything.

[crunchyfrog555]

It's all fun and games until someone losses an eye!;)


I guess we will have to wait and see what really happens as opposed to what anyone myself included thinks might happen. "Hope for the best, expect the worst" is my motto when it comes to the government trying to help with anything.

Lol, I cannot fault that reasoning in any way, Maddogge.

[crunchyfrog555]

You are aware you're just throwing the "reasonable" word around as well, right?

To paraphrase Yoda, subjectivity leads to loopholes, loopholes lead to abuses, and abuses lead to dying industries. Thank God I don't live in the UK and as such won't have to suffer this train wreck waiting to happen.

This is is no way a train wreck (well, with some reservations, this is led by an MP after all ;) )

Read my latest response to Maddogge. It does work both ways, and quite frankly, the behaviour that Activision have shown, well, they've painted themselves into a corner.
Nobody wanted to go for the legal route, as they gave Activision/Treyarch plenty of opportunity to correct the serious errors.

The whole point is, it's not a new law (it's been there since gaming was invented), it works both ways, and quite frankly if you're a company that goes to a country without understanding or having the knowledge of the basic laws that relate to the business you're in, well, you deserve all you get.

[MADDOGGE]

Lol, I cannot fault that reasoning in any way, Maddogge.:D LOL, You know it's not so much that they want to try and help no matter what the current buzz issues is. Its the fact they almost always seem to screw it up and never actually solve the problem while creating new problems and raising your taxes to pay for the supposed fix for the first problem.:eek:



The problem with many publicly held Western corporation is there is little or no honor. It's all the bottom line and no thought for tomorrow. They are focused on quarterly earning and not looking at the long run. The share holders only care they get a dividend check. Big pay off's fast is what they want. Steady income over a long period seemingly not so profitable to them. If someone offers a better deal they cash out and move to the next stock. They neither know nor care about games and in most cases probably don't even know they own any cause it's probably part of some $401K.

These type people want the Booby-ies of Activison running things for them. Actual customer service can be expensive when you short change the original development cycle of a game and have to fix something your factory mentality messed up. Honor requires you give a person their monies worth. When you have none there is no obligation to do right by the customer.

[devilsrefugee]

The only result of this will be region blocks where they refuse to sell to certain counties. People still insist on confusing software with real property and thinking they are entitled to the same rights. I'm not giving you a refund on software you have installed and may have already finished using already and now want a refund claiming bugs or it was un-runnable. No one in their right mind would. This is why Valve doesn't have a physical presence in foreign countries. The internet is owned by no one certainly not the EU or UK. The only people hurt will be the retail stores who will have to suffer the loss financially.

My solution to that would be; if a game doesnt get such a "go for retail" approval, then quite simply the game should not be allowed to be released for people to buy.

With fundamentally flawed software, something has to be done. Yeah, it could be ripped/cracked/etc but its not like those games are not available else where on the net, illegally anyway.

Just because its software shouldn't mean it gets special treatment in regards to consumer rights. A faulty product is a faulty product.

[Gustave5436]

If this does come true as gamers voice wants, the UK games industry is a risk and the goverment must step in to protect it.

The UK is losing jobs right, left and centre and if companys like activison are saying they are going to pull out, the UK can ill afford to lose activision and other companys like that.

That's extortion, not protection.

Believe what you want Crunchy but this will end bad for the UK. The US have lost so much of our industry do to liberals over regulating businesses into running overseas to escape and still be able to make profit. The same will happen there when it comes to providing games. When it becomes too much trouble to do business in any particular country you pull out. It's not worth the headaches.

The reason labor is cheaper in China than in the US is because while China is a communist dictatorship, the US is a free country. As a result, we recognize basic working rights, like safety regulations and maximum regular working hours, that authoritarian regimes such as that of China do not. Unless we get a communist dictatorship of our own (something which, and I hope you will agree with me here, would be very bad) and completely roll back our political and social liberties to 19th century standards, it's just not possible for us to compete with them for basic manufacturing.

edit: more to the point, rejecting basic consumers rights, in this case the right to return a product of substandard quality, just in a vain attempt to compete with such oppressive countries is absurd.

[marie pavie]

Poor wittle corporation have a hard time with pinko laws.
Now I all sad :(

[crunchyfrog555]

Poor wittle corporation have a hard time with pinko laws.
Now I all sad :(

Lol, Marie.

[crunchyfrog555]

In regard to the concerns about how this event may hurt the developers (Maddogge, Draek), I'd like to draw your attention to a couple of similar matters which have happened in fairly recent years.

A few years ago, we introduced the minimum wage, because some people were being harshly exploited by unscrupulous employers relying on their strong position due to lack of jobs. Many employers (mostly major) were incensed at this. They said it would cause job losses, cause some companies to go under, and cause a sharp rise in the cost of goods. What happened? Nothing, except that more workers got a fair deal.

In the early 90s, the Sale of Goods Act was slightly different then. Also, car manufacturing was starting to go through a decline in quality (which parallels somewhat nicely with this case). Consumers at that time didn't have quite the same protection, as cars had slightly special treatment. In essence, if you bought a new car, and it was faulty, you couldn't return it for full refund (i.e. reject it). As this situation was becoming worse, it was changed so that you COULD reject a car if it was faulty and get such a refund. True, cars still do get slightly different treatment, but it's much closer to other goods. Anyway, manufacturers were up in arms. They said this would cost jobs, that some manufacturers would go under, prices would suffer, etc etc. What happened? Nothing noticeable, except car quality started to increase again.

Similarly when the Sale of Goods Act was brought up pto date in the mid 90s (the most major change being that goods had to be "satisfactory and fit for the purpose" and no longer "merchantable, or just fit to sell"). Guess what was said? And furthermore guess what happened? I guess you're beginning to see a pattern here.

True, some of the above examples aren't exactly straight analogies, but they fit the purpose in that they show that despite all the blustering and scaremongering, it all settles down quite nicely.

One reason that cannot be discounted is that which I've already touched upon. Companies always have contigency plans. Companies must always be able to diversify too, otherwise they don't last long. So, just to reiterate, if they can't abide by a law which they're now being reminded of, and suffer in result (despite recent history showing that's not what usually happens), then they have no place in business in the first place.

Although I will say that I quite agree with your concerns that it shouldn't be exploited by less than honest customers returning goods willy nilly. But, as I've said before, this is not the case in this instance, and the law is established already in it's protection of such a thing.

[Dirtman73]

Thank God I don't live in the UK and as such won't have to suffer this train wreck waiting to happen.

As opposed to living in a country where corporations control the political process and are allowed to do whatever they want?

[Heavy Weapons]

It sounds as though this is roughly akin to a generally-helpful bit of legislation here in the States, having to do with auto repair.

At one point, multiple states had their own "Lemon Law". Then a national statute was passed that covered the same basic points but applied to all states in the nation. It goes so far as to define exactly what is meant in this context by the ever-slippery "reasonable" term.

It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, either:

(1) the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times* by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity, or

(2) the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.

* = As of January 1, 2001, under California Lemon Law, a vehicle is considered a Lemon if it fails two attempts at repairing life-threatening defects.


Neither the automotive manufacturing, sales, nor repair industries have been noticably harmed by this law. I suspect the same would be true of any other industry that similar verbage might find itself applied to.

Now, I don't know how game software performance could be construed as "life threatening". But I'm sure it could be done, after sufficient contortions were performed.

[EliteTemptation]

RED FACTION GUERRILLA
RED FACTION GUERRILLA
RED FACTION GUERRILLA

[crunchyfrog555]

RED FACTION GUERRILLA
RED FACTION GUERRILLA
RED FACTION GUERRILLA

Please do explain to me what the hell you're on about?

[EliteTemptation]

Please do explain to me what the hell you're on about?

The game didn't run properly BEFORE patch and AFTER patch

I crush the game requirements, and it gets unplayable frames

also 0 players online, if it ran so good.. then why does nobody play it? :D

[crunchyfrog555]

The game didn't run properly BEFORE patch and AFTER patch

I crush the game requirements, and it gets unplayable frames

also 0 players online, if it ran so good.. then why does nobody play it? :D

OK, fair enough, but not really relevant to this subject, I'm afraid.

[skippy72294]

[russian accent] kill eet with fire.... [/russian accent]

I don't like Activision...

[crunchyfrog555]

[russian accent] kill eet with fire.... [/russian accent]

I don't like Activision...

Who does, to be brutally honest. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't love themselves!

On another note, I saw that they've announced that they're killing off Guitar Hero because "there isn't the demand for music-based games anymore".

Really? I would have thought that releasing 14 different releases of the Guitar Hero franchise over the years with short space between them, charging top dollar, and in a lot of cases, getting inferior product would have more to do with it.

I note further on they say the more appropriate "we cannot make them profitable anymore", which begs the question, how many hundreds of thousands of sales do you need to keep it profitable?

Has their greed really got that bad where they deem profitable as what everybody else would term "greedily profitable" or is they business so messed up that they NEED to sell these many units to make any money.

Either should be worrying for them. But I say simply "ha ha".