Youtuber launches campaign against publishers for sake of game preservation.

[Scustin Bieburr]

Full version


It's wild to me that these companies are allowed to sell a product and then make it unusable. The same tactics that have been pioneered in gaming and software are being applied to other things. The concept of ownership itself is being questioned by these companies.

If you buy a game, it should be considered your personal property. When I boot up a copy of an online only game, I should have the option to connect to a private server or play with bots. Otherwise, if EA or whomever decides to shut down their servers then I now have a worthless game that I can't play.

If they can take my money and stop offering the service I paid for, I should be entitled to a refund. They hide this shyt in the EULA because they know that you won't read all that shyt. But if that's the case all store fronts should offer refunds. If I buy a game and there's a sentence basically saying "do you accept that we can shut down the game at any point and you can no longer play it, and we will not give you your money back?" I should be able to reject the EULA and get my money back. My use of the product was contingent on my accepting of the agreement, and my purchase of the product was contingent on me getting to use the product and own it.

I've kept up my end of the deal buying the product, if the publisher and developer have added new terms, then I should be able to opt out and return to the financial position I was in before the purchase.

 

[winb83]

Full version


It's wild to me that these companies are allowed to sell a product and then make it unusable. The same tactics that have been pioneered in gaming and software are being applied to other things. The concept of ownership itself is being questioned by these companies.

If you buy a game, it should be considered your personal property. When I boot up a copy of an online only game, I should have the option to connect to a private server or play with bots. Otherwise, if EA or whomever decides to shut down their servers then I now have a worthless game that I can't play.

If they can take my money and stop offering the service I paid for, I should be entitled to a refund. They hide this shyt in the EULA because they know that you won't read all that shyt. But if that's the case all store fronts should offer refunds. If I buy a game and there's a sentence basically saying "do you accept that we can shut down the game at any point and you can no longer play it, and we will not give you your money back?" I should be able to reject the EULA and get my money back. My use of the product was contingent on my accepting of the agreement, and my purchase of the product was contingent on me getting to use the product and own it.

I've kept up my end of the deal buying the product, if the publisher and developer have added new terms, then I should be able to opt out and return to the financial position I was in before the purchase.

At some point as a consumer you have to accept a level of accountability for what you purchase. If you buy an online only game and decide to skip out on reading the EULA you decided to do that stuff.

I think we all know that these online only games have a shelf life to their servers. I choose not to buy them but that's me. If you choose to buy them and eventually the servers get shut down you got what you paid for.

You don't own the game to begin with really. You bought a license to use a company's software as it is available. If part of you ability to use that software depends on online servers you should factor that into your purchase decision. I say you should only make purchases you can maintain the distribution method of and access to long term if you value that.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

It's spreading

 

[MajesticLion]

 

[ORDER_66]

Is this referring to what EA just fid with the digital copies of the crew??? that was grimy but its not getting any media attention