I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
In the real world it is the responsibility of both parties to understand what they're agreeing to, and deal with the consequences borne of lack of due diligence. The person clicking "OK, I agree", without understanding what they're clicking is doing so through their own failings. Any heartache is nobody's fault but their own.
Except, as mentioned, it makes no difference if you click "I Agree" or not. The agreement is automatic.
It should at least require good faith that the parties at least intend on reaching a real agreement, you haven't even got that. You've got one party trying their best to trick the other into saying they agree without knowing whats going on.
It's basically equivilent to talking really fast and saying that if the other party says "what" it means they agree to all your terms.
I think it's shitty these companies want to restrict games to your console/account only. I honestly believe this will end up hurting their sales and profits, and from the looks of it, Nintendo isn't pulling this stunt, which will make the rise above the next gen competition again.
This is why I have no interest in newer generation consoles. Just let me put the f-ing cartridge/disc in the machine! To hell with all this EULA garbage.
You're right, Nintendo is the only one not getting into this line of crap...yet. From the little I'm aware of this next go around with the WiiU there will be a full fledged network going finally from Nintendo somewhere along the lines of xbox live and psn, but without the pay scam to use it MS does. Given they're ditching friend codes more or less on the 3DS as seen with the Mario Kart 7 lobby system, and that they want to modernize and go the next step further with the WiiU we should be finally getting actual accounts. We'll just have to see come November if we have to agree to some crappy EULA or not when we click on the networking aspects of the hardware or if one pops up the first time you use it like the PS3/360 does.
I for one hope in Nintendo's slow to move and more thought out stodgy ways they just don't go there, and same thing with the used game shenanigans too. Though, if they don't get in on the game thing I could see bitchy third parties play another round of infantile denial of release games again.
Of course, i'm going with the last choice. I'm no fan of things going to solely digital download, regardless of the fact on if it will be more beneficial and economical for the companies. Regardless on if they do digital download, we will still have to pay $60.00 per new title, just like we already have to on the PSN (not too sure about XBL, don't own a 360). Look at how well the digital download only idea did for the PSP-Go. Now, granted, that was a system that already started off with the XMB's, the PSP fans didn't enjoy the fact that they couldn't play their physical games on a console, and had to buy another digital copy of the game just to play it. That's crap, and the sales numbers of the system showed it.
Also not a huge fan of the used game lock-out. It would completely kill the renting market that we all grew up to love! Even though, now that I have a job, I usually don't rent games, the next generation of kids will never know the aspect of going into a video store, picking out a game to rent, and giving it a few days trial. Although Netflix and Gamefly are raping Blockbuster dry, and have raped many other video stores anyway, places like Gamefly will no longer exist, and other places like Gamestop will have to cater to the retro community to have any chance of staying in business. I think that idea, is an all around bad idea, if it's even an idea in the first place. It would be a wrong turn for the gaming industry, and piss off alot of gamers in the long-run.
Maybe the gaming business should do a second thought on what they've been doing, and instead of cutting down on costs on where it doesn't matter, creating a more economical way of creating their systems, and publishers coming out with better quality games. Not saying we haven't seen some gems out in our current-gen market these days, but the quality of SNES games that came out for that system, blow what the 360 and PS3 have coming out on their systems out of the water any single day of the week! The Wii could very well be included in this rant as well, as from what i've seen, very rarely does a third-party company come out with a Wii game that is actually worth buying used, yet alone new.
No because not only can i NOT afford a new current gen system, I dont like the idea of paying for a subscription just to play a game that's what really turned me off to current gen consoles. I prefer the oldies, they are goodies!!
Although its TEMPTING to get the new NES console since NES makes the best games
Nintendo doesn't require a sub, neither does Sony. It's just MS that feels the need to make you pay full price for a game you can't enjoy all of unless you pay their $50/yr blackmail fee to use the online components of titles. Sony does have a pay tier, but it's optional and stops you in no way from enjoying your games.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
You buy your child said game for his XBOX 720 or PS4. Child is 12 years old. They cannot legally accept the terms to a EULA as no person under the age of 18 can be part of a "legal" contract without consent of the parents. 9 out of 10 parents aren't consenting because they have no clue. A kid can go buy just about any game they want without their parents involved.
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
And Tanooki - bash MS all you want about their paid subscription, but I'd rather pay the $50 a year to not have my credit card or paypal info leaked like Sony did... twice.
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
Really? Every store I've tried returning a disc based game to refused the return unless I made a huge fuss about it (which was only once when I got suckered into buying a really shitty Wii game). I know Best Buy will flat out refuse any returns if a game, dvd, or music cd is opened in any fashion. If this issue ever comes up again, I guess I'll have to research it a bit.
If Next Gen means no used/borrowed/rented games....no media (download only)....24/7 Internet Connectivity....more motion gaming.....more casual games....then I'm out. I have plenty of real consoles to complete collections for.
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
Really? Every store I've tried returning a disc based game to refused the return unless I made a huge fuss about it (which was only once when I got suckered into buying a really shitty Wii game). I know Best Buy will flat out refuse any returns if a game, dvd, or music cd is opened in any fashion. If this issue ever comes up again, I guess I'll have to research it a bit.
If there were any possible recourse like that in the law, anyone could return all their PS3 products every time an update came out.
Even if there were such a law, it makes no honest difference, it could have been a present, or you just don't have the receipts or for whatever returning isn't an option.
Actually in a way it kind of is, sorry if that bothers you. It's about the next gen systems and factors, paying extra so you can totally use your game on one system while the other just does is something to consider.
Well, now that they have figured out they get away with charging exorbitant rates for allowing people to use the online functionality in their own games they will probably all be doing it in the next gen anyway, like it or not I bet you they will all agree on what the price will be too.. hehe
Actually in a way it kind of is, sorry if that bothers you. It's about the next gen systems and factors, paying extra so you can totally use your game on one system while the other just does is something to consider.
How is it? Oh noes. Microsoft charges for online play, Sony doesn't. PS3 users who have also played on XBL have even stated that XBL is much better since Microsoft actually protects their customers information and secures their shit, while Sony allows their users information to be stolen... how many times in the span of a month? It's a moot point. You have to pay to play WoW and Final Fantasy XI. Also, you don't HAVE to pay for XBL, only if you WANT to PLAY online, otherwise you can still sign in on XBL Silver and talk to people and do just about everything else. So no, what you posted about it actually means jack shit for this thread.
Not to mention I gladly pay $60 a year for a party to chat with multiple people and to always keep me away from all those idiots in game chat that scream like monkeys all day. Even if I'm by myself, I'm in a party. Never game chat.
Yeah who's better, that's where it goes eh? Just because you in particular are willing to pay additional fees to use your game entirely as intended doesn't mean everyone else is just like you. There's a lot of people who do have PS3s and one of those reasons in fact is the free online with the optional pay into it choice with PS+. MS doesn't give you the choice to play online straight with a game, then call voice chat and other fluff for a fee. You do or you don't, it's a turn off to some, and things like this though small compared to who can do the biggest visuals or best exclusives do end up on a pro and con list with a next gen system. That's why I threw it out there.
Yes some have the pay the monthly so called 'server maintenance fee' to keep playing WoW and others, then you get stuff like the upcoming Guild Wars 2 which is designed in a world like WoW and you just pay the $50 for the boxed game and it works. Then you also get stuff you can complete, or do microtransactions to speed it along like D&D Eberron Unlimited where it's a choice (like PSN/PS+ vs XBL.) It's all about choice, and some will go one way or the other. So yeah, my comments are valid because as you just said, you can use crappy MS silver, but forget playing your buddy online at COD Black Ops, something you could do for free on PSN. So no, your weak argument really has jack shit of value for this thread, not mine. Just because you and 3Gen there will pay the added dough doesn't mean everyone will, and that ends up being a decision point for a PS3 or 360 for some, and Guild Wars, D&D or WoW to someone with a PC.
it's not just PS3, my whole gaming experience up to this point has basically ingrained in my that it is horribly stupid pay extra for the "right" to use the online capability of a game.. I'm also not keen on paying people to "protect" my personal info that I don't want to give them in the first place. If, as I suspect it will, consoles start charging more for "the online experience", I will probably move more to PC gaming in the future. Fortunately, I can still play neverwinter nights because it was designed well, allowing users to host their own servers, clients to verify integrity of the server, and no middlemen sitting around with their hand out.
personally i do think its relevant to whether or not i will be continuing to buy next gen consoles, since its just one more thing that is moving further away from companies actually doing things i believe are worth my money.
Well, now that they have figured out they get away with charging exorbitant rates for allowing people to use the online functionality in their own games they will probably all be doing it in the next gen anyway, like it or not I bet you they will all agree on what the price will be too.. hehe
Is $5/mo actually exhorbitant?
As for whether you bought the online functionality with the original purchase or not... clearly if the console has a subscription fee, or the game has some download pass, or whatever, you obviously didn't actually buy the online functionality with the original purchase price
Are they nickel-and-diming this stuff to hide how much things really cost? Sure.
But even with the added costs, games are cheaper today than they were in the hey-day of the NES in real terms, especially when you consider how many extra hours of content you're getting per dollar.
XBL is $10 a month if you do a monthly subscription, or $60 for the year if you pay it up front.
It's honestly sad and sickening to hear from people that this is such a big deal. Do you honestly expect people to do a shit ton of work for free? Give someone a paycheck to maintain servers and make sure your online gaming experience is the best it can be for a small fee, and that person (or team) will do a damn fine job. Expect a company to just give you the service for free, and you'll get sub par service and protection.
Nathan, I have to argue that you're getting more for your dollar than in the days of NES and SNES/Genesis, at least to a point. Some of the RPG's that come out, I ran through them in under 20 hours on the first play through, while on the NES and SNES it took me easily double that time, if not longer, on my first play through. Granted, other games, Lego Star Wars for example, may take 30 hours to complete (if you go for all the achievements/trophies), while other platformers back in the day may take 4 hours to beat. Then again, if you don't go for 100% completion, these games can take a few hours to run through.
Back to the whole "free online games like WoW", they won't be around nearly as long as WoW, nor will they get as many updates, or high server availability. Free games only last for so long. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to spend $10,000+ on a server, on top of a year, or longer, to code a game, just so people can play it for free, on top of hosting monthly costs that will be several hundred to several thousand dollars a month, and expect nothing in return.
And sure, maybe not everyone is like me and 3gen and are willing to pay $60/yr, or $10/monthly to play online, but there are millions who do, and don't mind that small fee. You want to bitch about nickle and diming, talk about gas prices. You want everything for free, you'll have what happened during the PS2 era when the game company hosted the servers, and they went down after X months. With the 360 and PS3, since everything runs through Sony and Microsofts servers, these games are still playable online until after they close down said servers and stop support on them.
Seriously, this thread isn't about "OMG they're raping us with online multiplayer monthly fees". It's about the stupid shit they're planning for the next generation, not what they've been doing for the last 2 generations (Microsoft, not Sony). That has little to nothing to do with what they're planning.
Comments
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
In the real world it is the responsibility of both parties to understand what they're agreeing to, and deal with the consequences borne of lack of due diligence. The person clicking "OK, I agree", without understanding what they're clicking is doing so through their own failings. Any heartache is nobody's fault but their own.
Except, as mentioned, it makes no difference if you click "I Agree" or not. The agreement is automatic.
It's basically equivilent to talking really fast and saying that if the other party says "what" it means they agree to all your terms.
I for one hope in Nintendo's slow to move and more thought out stodgy ways they just don't go there, and same thing with the used game shenanigans too. Though, if they don't get in on the game thing I could see bitchy third parties play another round of infantile denial of release games again.
Also not a huge fan of the used game lock-out. It would completely kill the renting market that we all grew up to love! Even though, now that I have a job, I usually don't rent games, the next generation of kids will never know the aspect of going into a video store, picking out a game to rent, and giving it a few days trial. Although Netflix and Gamefly are raping Blockbuster dry, and have raped many other video stores anyway, places like Gamefly will no longer exist, and other places like Gamestop will have to cater to the retro community to have any chance of staying in business. I think that idea, is an all around bad idea, if it's even an idea in the first place. It would be a wrong turn for the gaming industry, and piss off alot of gamers in the long-run.
Maybe the gaming business should do a second thought on what they've been doing, and instead of cutting down on costs on where it doesn't matter, creating a more economical way of creating their systems, and publishers coming out with better quality games. Not saying we haven't seen some gems out in our current-gen market these days, but the quality of SNES games that came out for that system, blow what the 360 and PS3 have coming out on their systems out of the water any single day of the week! The Wii could very well be included in this rant as well, as from what i've seen, very rarely does a third-party company come out with a Wii game that is actually worth buying used, yet alone new.
Although its TEMPTING to get the new NES console since NES makes the best games
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
Well said.
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
You buy your child said game for his XBOX 720 or PS4. Child is 12 years old. They cannot legally accept the terms to a EULA as no person under the age of 18 can be part of a "legal" contract without consent of the parents. 9 out of 10 parents aren't consenting because they have no clue. A kid can go buy just about any game they want without their parents involved.
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
And Tanooki - bash MS all you want about their paid subscription, but I'd rather pay the $50 a year to not have my credit card or paypal info leaked like Sony did... twice.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: cradelit
If they can say something as rediculous as having clicked X means I read, understand and agree...
What is ridiculous about that?
It's ridiculous because, in reality, the gesture that supposedly signifies agreement with them is meaningless, they are holding your purchase or possibly even many of your old purchases hostage, you are under duress, there are no witnesses and no one knows if you actually clicked X or not anyway and your agreement is completely automatic and not up to you at all regardless of whether you clicked X or not.
Edit:
IE: The courts will just assume your agreement if you have a PS3, they aren't going to care if you clicked X or not.
What mechanism would you propose for "official agreements" that you wouldn't find ridiculous?
Making the agreement at the retailer, before cash is payed. Signing your name there at the desk. I just don't get how companies can force you to make a legal agreement on something you have already purchased. Do you think a car company could get away with this? You bring your car home and the sales man shows up at your doorstep. "By the way you are not allowed to drive this car over 45 MPH. Even though you have already payed for your car and own it, you must sign this document agreeing to my terms". One week later.. "Hello again sir we have updated our rules, you can only use Shell gasoline, sign here or hand over the keys".
Sure you can take your console or game back to the store and get a refund, but you shouldn't have to have the burden and hassle. It should be in no way legal that you have to make agreements to use a device after it is brought home and unboxed.
I hate the way digital stuff can get away with things, that would never fly in the physical world.
They aren't forcing you to do anything. If you don't like the agreement, you can return the product. This goes for opened software, as well, irrespective of what some store policies state, it's the law that you can return the stuff if you object to the EULA (otherwise they WOULD be forcing you to sign or lose your money)
Originally posted by: dra600n
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
That being said, I don't care what the game companies do now.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: dra600n
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
Really? Every store I've tried returning a disc based game to refused the return unless I made a huge fuss about it (which was only once when I got suckered into buying a really shitty Wii game). I know Best Buy will flat out refuse any returns if a game, dvd, or music cd is opened in any fashion. If this issue ever comes up again, I guess I'll have to research it a bit.
Originally posted by: dra600n
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: dra600n
Also, ever pop in a game, deny the EULA, and try returning it? You can't. Stores only accept unopened games for return. If you return an opened game, you get.... the same game back. You can't bring it back to that store because the receipt (if you get one back) says it's been returned so you can't screw the system, and if you bring it to any other retail outlet, they'll do the same - swap it out for another copy, or if you're lucky, get store credit.
Actually, if software involves and EULA that you only are able to read and agree to after installing the software, then the law says you CAN return it for a full refund.
I'm sure it would be a hassle, since most stores are ignorant of many consumer rights (this isn't the only one they get wrong), but you could do it.
Really? Every store I've tried returning a disc based game to refused the return unless I made a huge fuss about it (which was only once when I got suckered into buying a really shitty Wii game). I know Best Buy will flat out refuse any returns if a game, dvd, or music cd is opened in any fashion. If this issue ever comes up again, I guess I'll have to research it a bit.
If there were any possible recourse like that in the law, anyone could return all their PS3 products every time an update came out.
Even if there were such a law, it makes no honest difference, it could have been a present, or you just don't have the receipts or for whatever returning isn't an option.
Originally posted by: Tanooki
Actually in a way it kind of is, sorry if that bothers you. It's about the next gen systems and factors, paying extra so you can totally use your game on one system while the other just does is something to consider.
How is it? Oh noes. Microsoft charges for online play, Sony doesn't. PS3 users who have also played on XBL have even stated that XBL is much better since Microsoft actually protects their customers information and secures their shit, while Sony allows their users information to be stolen... how many times in the span of a month? It's a moot point. You have to pay to play WoW and Final Fantasy XI. Also, you don't HAVE to pay for XBL, only if you WANT to PLAY online, otherwise you can still sign in on XBL Silver and talk to people and do just about everything else. So no, what you posted about it actually means jack shit for this thread.
Yes some have the pay the monthly so called 'server maintenance fee' to keep playing WoW and others, then you get stuff like the upcoming Guild Wars 2 which is designed in a world like WoW and you just pay the $50 for the boxed game and it works. Then you also get stuff you can complete, or do microtransactions to speed it along like D&D Eberron Unlimited where it's a choice (like PSN/PS+ vs XBL.) It's all about choice, and some will go one way or the other. So yeah, my comments are valid because as you just said, you can use crappy MS silver, but forget playing your buddy online at COD Black Ops, something you could do for free on PSN. So no, your weak argument really has jack shit of value for this thread, not mine. Just because you and 3Gen there will pay the added dough doesn't mean everyone will, and that ends up being a decision point for a PS3 or 360 for some, and Guild Wars, D&D or WoW to someone with a PC.
Originally posted by: cradelit
Well, now that they have figured out they get away with charging exorbitant rates for allowing people to use the online functionality in their own games they will probably all be doing it in the next gen anyway, like it or not I bet you they will all agree on what the price will be too.. hehe
Is $5/mo actually exhorbitant?
As for whether you bought the online functionality with the original purchase or not... clearly if the console has a subscription fee, or the game has some download pass, or whatever, you obviously didn't actually buy the online functionality with the original purchase price
Are they nickel-and-diming this stuff to hide how much things really cost? Sure.
But even with the added costs, games are cheaper today than they were in the hey-day of the NES in real terms, especially when you consider how many extra hours of content you're getting per dollar.
It's honestly sad and sickening to hear from people that this is such a big deal. Do you honestly expect people to do a shit ton of work for free? Give someone a paycheck to maintain servers and make sure your online gaming experience is the best it can be for a small fee, and that person (or team) will do a damn fine job. Expect a company to just give you the service for free, and you'll get sub par service and protection.
Nathan, I have to argue that you're getting more for your dollar than in the days of NES and SNES/Genesis, at least to a point. Some of the RPG's that come out, I ran through them in under 20 hours on the first play through, while on the NES and SNES it took me easily double that time, if not longer, on my first play through. Granted, other games, Lego Star Wars for example, may take 30 hours to complete (if you go for all the achievements/trophies), while other platformers back in the day may take 4 hours to beat. Then again, if you don't go for 100% completion, these games can take a few hours to run through.
Back to the whole "free online games like WoW", they won't be around nearly as long as WoW, nor will they get as many updates, or high server availability. Free games only last for so long. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to spend $10,000+ on a server, on top of a year, or longer, to code a game, just so people can play it for free, on top of hosting monthly costs that will be several hundred to several thousand dollars a month, and expect nothing in return.
And sure, maybe not everyone is like me and 3gen and are willing to pay $60/yr, or $10/monthly to play online, but there are millions who do, and don't mind that small fee. You want to bitch about nickle and diming, talk about gas prices. You want everything for free, you'll have what happened during the PS2 era when the game company hosted the servers, and they went down after X months. With the 360 and PS3, since everything runs through Sony and Microsofts servers, these games are still playable online until after they close down said servers and stop support on them.
Seriously, this thread isn't about "OMG they're raping us with online multiplayer monthly fees". It's about the stupid shit they're planning for the next generation, not what they've been doing for the last 2 generations (Microsoft, not Sony). That has little to nothing to do with what they're planning.