XXXXXX

324 results
1
...
3
4
5
6
7

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Black_Knight_00

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#251 Black_Knight_00

Member since 2007 • 78 Posts

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]
GAF reported an anonymous MS employee and CBOAT are saying that their 'game sharing program' just allowed the people you were sharing with to play for an hour before being prompted to buy. There had to be a catch. F*cking hilarious that anyone thought it would be more than that.
S0lidSnake

LMAO. I f*cking knew it. It's hilarious so many people fell for it.

On the contrary: it's depressing to see how many people don't stop and think about things. A monkey could have seen that sharing thing was an oxymoron.

11 years ago

1392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#252 MonoSilver

Member since 2013 • 1392 Posts

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]
GAF reported an anonymous MS employee and CBOAT are saying that their 'game sharing program' just allowed the people you were sharing with to play for an hour before being prompted to buy. There had to be a catch. F*cking hilarious that anyone thought it would be more than that.
Black_Knight_00

LMAO. I f*cking knew it. It's hilarious so many people fell for it.

On the contrary: it's depressing to see how many people don't stop and think about things. A monkey could have seen that sharing thing was an oxymoron.

Watchtower seemed to think it was the second coming. :)

11 years ago

18316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#253 CarnageHeart

Member since 2002 • 18316 Posts

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]
GAF reported an anonymous MS employee and CBOAT are saying that their 'game sharing program' just allowed the people you were sharing with to play for an hour before being prompted to buy. There had to be a catch. F*cking hilarious that anyone thought it would be more than that.
Black_Knight_00

LMAO. I f*cking knew it. It's hilarious so many people fell for it.

On the contrary: it's depressing to see how many people don't stop and think about things. A monkey could have seen that sharing thing was an oxymoron.

What, MS wouldn't allow me to share a full game with ten people? Shocking!

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#254 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Metamania"]
You pretty much summed it up for me.
Microsoft isn't doing all this for the gamers - they are only doing this to win consumers over and GET THEIR MONEY. This is all nothing but business to them and once the "uneducated masses" and even a few smart, intelligent gamers buy the system, they'll pretty much revert back to their old ways and go "Got you, motherf***ers! You fell for it and we are going back to what WE WANT, not what YOU WANT!"
The damage has already been done. Getting a PS4, at this point in time, seems to be the best way to go. It's more of a gaming machine than something else entirely.
Metamania

Glad to know I'll be seeing you on the PS4 someday.

Knowing you, I'd figured you would go MS all the way.

Hell no! I've been up in arms ever since all this DRM bullsh!t was announced, and I was creeped out about the camera when I added the PRISM scandal(where MS was specifically listed) to an always on, always connected Kinect. I was particularly upset about it after the e3 briefing, since I am almost actually dying to play Ryse.

11 years ago

Black_Knight_00

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#255 Black_Knight_00

Member since 2007 • 78 Posts

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]
LMAO. I f*cking knew it. It's hilarious so many people fell for it.
MonoSilver

On the contrary: it's depressing to see how many people don't stop and think about things. A monkey could have seen that sharing thing was an oxymoron.

Watchtower seemed to think it was the second coming. :)

His problem is that he looked at all these things (sharing, DRM, cloud) though fanboy goggles, which make even the biggest pile of cack look like something awesome. I think he knows that it was all BS, but just couldn't admit it.

11 years ago

1392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#256 MonoSilver

Member since 2013 • 1392 Posts

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="MonoSilver"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] On the contrary: it's depressing to see how many people don't stop and think about things. A monkey could have seen that sharing thing was an oxymoron.

Watchtower seemed to think it was the second coming. :)

His problem is that he looked at all these things (sharing, DRM, cloud) though fanboy goggles, which make even the biggest pile of cack look like something awesome. I think he knows that it was all BS, but just couldn't admit it.

Isn't that how MS behave? Fingers in ears, eyes closed screaming "I can't hear you, I can't see you! La la la la la!" :) On topic, I'm happy to see some common sense in here and not everyone being reeled in by MS after this announcement. We should all be cautious.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] False. You've purchased ONE COPY of that movie. You can do anything you want with that ONE COPY short of starting your own movie theatre or your own R of the J dvd distribution center.

Like I said. Public screenings are off limits, because the license isn't for 500 people. Obviously you're not gonna get in trouble for showing it to 20 people in your own house, but if you make a large enough public screening you're gonna get fined. If you make a "distribution center" and start giving out hundreds of copies of the movie, you're gonna be in trouble, but you're also breaking the licensing agreement if you make ONE copy to give to your best friend. The fact that you're not gonna get busted for it doesn't mean it's legal for you to do it, it's just a matter of practicality: there's no way to enforce this kind of stuff unless the person is doing it a lot.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]If someone owns the copyright, and that person is not you, then you don't own it. I can buy Return of the Jedi on DVD, and I own that DVD, but the CONTENT of the DVD is not "my property" when the copyright belongs to...whoever (I think it's disney now). What have I purchased? I've purchased a license to watch the movie. It is not my property. It's not just copying either. I also can't gather a thousand people together and have a public showing off of one disc. Not without paying more money. If you own a restaurant, try bringing in a copy of the latest CD that you bought, play it over the speakers for all of your customers, and then watch how much trouble you get in. If you buy a game on disc, you own the physical disc. You do NOT own the content on that disc. That is NOT your property, and I am not sure that it ever was.gamingqueen

if you lose access to it once you resell it then you have every right to resell.

And the company does not have to facilitate reselling it. They are under no obligation to make it so that it works for anyone other than the first buyer. In any case, people were jumping all over Microsoft because "OMG, they're blocking used games", but that's nothing new. Whether you get it via a digital download or a disc, the worth of that product is entirely in the data and the license to use it, NOT in the physical product. And customers have already happily agreed to pay for a license that they cannot transfer. That's nothing new. Usually when you buy a digital product, it's tied to your account, you can't transfer it, and used sales are already blocked. If people had a problem with that, then they should have been raising a fuss a LONG time ago because now it's pretty much already become the norm.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#259 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]If someone owns the copyright, and that person is not you, then you don't own it. I can buy Return of the Jedi on DVD, and I own that DVD, but the CONTENT of the DVD is not "my property" when the copyright belongs to...whoever (I think it's disney now). What have I purchased? I've purchased a license to watch the movie. It is not my property. It's not just copying either. I also can't gather a thousand people together and have a public showing off of one disc. Not without paying more money. If you own a restaurant, try bringing in a copy of the latest CD that you bought, play it over the speakers for all of your customers, and then watch how much trouble you get in. If you buy a game on disc, you own the physical disc. You do NOT own the content on that disc. That is NOT your property, and I am not sure that it ever was.MrGeezer

if you lose access to it once you resell it then you have every right to resell.

And the company does not have to facilitate reselling it. They are under no obligation to make it so that it works for anyone other than the first buyer. In any case, people were jumping all over Microsoft because "OMG, they're blocking used games", but that's nothing new. Whether you get it via a digital download or a disc, the worth of that product is entirely in the data and the license to use it, NOT in the physical product. And customers have already happily agreed to pay for a license that they cannot transfer. That's nothing new. Usually when you buy a digital product, it's tied to your account, you can't transfer it, and used sales are already blocked. If people had a problem with that, then they should have been raising a fuss a LONG time ago because now it's pretty much already become the norm.

Which is why I don't game on PC and I only buy Games on Demand for old games that are so dirt cheap I wouldn't get any return on them worth trading them in for. You're bent on this licensing nonsense. People with the same bent are exactly the reason why this needs an official ruling. What a company writes on a piece of paper is meaningless when it goes up against established law. Since there isn't anything definitive on the topic of EULAs vs First Sale Doctrine, a ruling is sorely needed before the EULAs take precedent by default.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] Which is why I don't game on PC and I only buy Games on Demand for old games that are so dirt cheap I wouldn't get any return on them worth trading them in for. You're bent on this licensing nonsense. People with the same bent are exactly the reason why this needs an official ruling. What a company writes on a piece of paper is meaningless when it goes up against established law. Since there isn't anything definitive on the topic of EULAs vs First Sale Doctrine, a ruling is sorely needed before the EULAs take precedent by default.

First sale doctrine already takes precedence over EULA. Go into a store right now and buy a new game disc. The EULA probably says that the license is nontransferable. Can you then trade that game into Gamestop after finishing it? YES, first sale doctrine says you can, and that trumps the EULA. However, EULA does not mean that the publisher and/or console manufacturer is required to make that game work on any machine other than yours. First sale doctrine says you can resell it, so you can resell it, but no one is obligated to make it so that it works after being resold. I'm bent on the license thing because realistically that's all anyone cares about. Regardless of how restrictive the X1 was going to be, you'd still be able to sell off the discs. No one cares about that though, they want to transfer the license because a disc that you can't play is 100% worthless. You're NEVER going to get the courts declaring that user licenses MUST be transferable. That'd have too drastic of an effect on companies that already rely heavily on digital sales, and it'd also be pointless when customers have already come to accept purchasing a license which is nontransferable. The most we're gonna get now is an X1 situation, where what the company is doing is completely 100% legal but they are forced to change because of customer dissatisfaction.

11 years ago

2835

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 2835 Posts

For the most part, it is understood that you are purchasing a license to one specific copy of a game (one that has a specific identifier, like a serial number). Historically, you have been able to sell that license to that copy.

This is what MS was looking to change. They are not saying that each disk contains one license to one serial number. The disk, to them, is only a delivery method of downloading the game from the MS server to the X1 console. So apparently, the X1 disks did not have that individual serial number to identify each disk as it's own copy (license), which is why you'd have to be connected online and register. At that point, you'd get a serial number from MS's server which would then tie it to your console/gamertag.

I think it would have been easier for them and the public if they eliminiated the physical media altogether - but who knows what kind of reaction that would have created!

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#262 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

The question is whether or not first sale doctrine can be used to prevent publishers and console makers from sabotaging the product. What other product in the world can get away with allowing you to sell the product, but also claims the right to render the product useless? None. What if your smartphone was bricked the instant it was disconnected from your cellular service provider? Would that be acceptable? Also, you never addressed this: [QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] 3. I bought it, played it almost nonstop for a year, didn't care for it as thoroughly as I ought to have, and one day the disc became permanently unreadable. I was no longer able to play the incorruptable, unaging digital content that I supposedly licensed.

3) I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. "My new copy failed." What, do you mean it didn't work when you got it? That it failed to work some time after buying it? I don't know what you're saying.

3. I bought it, played it almost nonstop for a year, didn't care for it as thoroughly as I ought to have, and one day the disc became permanently unreadable. I was no longer able to play the incorruptible, unaging digital content that I supposedly licensed.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#263 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

Also, if EULAs were legally binding, why hasn't Gamestop been sued out of existence? The next question is if publishers and console makers refuse to defend their EULAs against Gamestop and other secondhand retailers, what right do they have to thrust it upon the consumer directly while stripping away their options to choose otherwise?

11 years ago

31076

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 2

#264 gamingqueen

Member since 2004 • 31076 Posts

Also, if EULAs were legally binding, why hasn't Gamestop been sued out of existence? The next question is if publishers and console makers refuse to defend their EULAs against Gamestop and other secondhand retailers, what right do they have to thrust it upon the consumer directly while stripping away their options to choose otherwise?El_Zo1212o

Well they have a license to sell videogames. They're authorized distributors. Should any company impose DRM code, Gamestop will start selling the code along with the used copy.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

The product has not been sabotaged. The product is the license for the first buyer to play the game, and that still is in effect. Secondly, I'm not sure what an unreadable disc has to do with anything. If it was unreadable when you got it then you should be entitled to a refund or a replacement, but after that it's on you to make sure that it lasts. What, just because your disc gets scratched now you're entitled to a replacement? Thirdly, Gamestop can sell used games because of the first sale doctrine. However, if Microsoft (or some other company) were to make those games usable to only the first buyer, then they're worthless to Gamestop. Again, Gamestop CAN still buy back the discs if they want to, they just WON'T because then they'd be buying something that has literally no value to it whatsoever.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#266 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Also, if EULAs were legally binding, why hasn't Gamestop been sued out of existence? The next question is if publishers and console makers refuse to defend their EULAs against Gamestop and other secondhand retailers, what right do they have to thrust it upon the consumer directly while stripping away their options to choose otherwise?gamingqueen

Well they have a license to sell videogames. They're authorized distributors. Should any company impose DRM code, Gamestop will start selling the code along with the used copy.

That isn't exactly the point. Publishers cry about used game sales. Microsoft tried to force the issue and got beat back solely because Sony provided an alternative with which to fight the move. Q: So between "Gamestop is EVILL!" and "No used games for anybody!", why wasn't there an attempt to stop Gamestop? A: Because Gamestop moves more new software in this country than any other retailer. Crushing Gamestop isn't an option. Can't beat 'em? Join 'em! Or more accurately, have them join you.

11 years ago

2835

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 2835 Posts

What, just because your disc gets scratched now you're entitled to a replacement? MrGeezer

Based on the thought that he paid for a license, then yes. He can no longer use his license he paid for.

As an i.t. worker I can tell you that we buy many licenses. Anything that changes the use of any license goes right to corporate for adjustment from the vendor.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#268 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

The product has not been sabotaged. The product is the license for the first buyer to play the game, and that still is in effect. Secondly, I'm not sure what an unreadable disc has to do with anything. If it was unreadable when you got it then you should be entitled to a refund or a replacement, but after that it's on you to make sure that it lasts. What, just because your disc gets scratched now you're entitled to a replacement? Thirdly, Gamestop can sell used games because of the first sale doctrine. However, if Microsoft (or some other company) were to make those games usable to only the first buyer, then they're worthless to Gamestop. Again, Gamestop CAN still buy back the discs if they want to, they just WON'T because then they'd be buying something that has literally no value to it whatsoever.MrGeezer

1. The product which I paid good money for is not useable once I sell it on. The console maker made it so. That's sabotaging the product. 2. If, as you claim, I'm not buying the information on the disc, then when the disc fails(regardless of whether it's my fault or not) I'm still entitled to continue playing the software. Since I paid for the license and not the disc with the game on it, then there is no logical reason for them to deny me the use of the software when the "delivery system" fails. My disc being damaged to the point where I can't access the data that I licensed by paying full price absolutely should be replaced if what I own by making that purchase isn't a single copy of the game data. EA should either have sent me a new disc or a code for a digital download. Instead, I got a terse reply which basically amounted to "tough sh!t." So either I own one copy of the game(meaning I'm sh!t outta luck when the disc fails), or I purchased one license to use the software(meaning my license is still valid after the disc fails). The publishers can't have it both ways. 3. This argument is based on your view of ownership vs licensing. Our stances on this are so contrary that there's no reasonable argument to be made on this point.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] 1. The product which I paid good money for is not useable once I sell it on. The console maker made it so. That's sabotaging the product. 2. If, as you claim, I'm not buying the information on the disc, then when the disc fails(regardless of whether it's my fault or not) I'm still entitled to continue playing the software. Since I paid for the license and not the disc with the game on it, then there is no logical reason for them to deny me the use of the software when the "delivery system" fails. My disc being damaged to the point where I can't access the data that I licensed by paying full price absolutely should be replaced if what I own by making that purchase isn't a single copy of the game data. EA should either have sent me a new disc or a code for a digital download. Instead, I got a terse reply which basically amounted to "tough sh!t." So either I own one copy of the game(meaning I'm sh!t outta luck when the disc fails), or I purchased one license to use the software(meaning my license is still valid after the disc fails). The publishers can't have it both ways. 3. This argument is based on your view of ownership vs licensing. Our stances on this are so contrary that there's no reasonable argument to be made on this point.

Does the language in the EULA state that it's an unlimited license? You can tie a license to an account, you can tie a license to a disc, you can tie a license to a console, you can have that license expire or be revoked. You are still paying for the license to use that content, you do not own it, and you absolutely cannot do whatever you want with it. In fact, the X1 (as originally envisioned) was actually setting out to SOLVE this problem. By requiring mandatory full installations, you don't need the disc. You can take that disc and set it on fire, and you still have full use of that game once you've activated it and registered it to your account. In essence it's EXACTLY like a digital sale, the physical disc is ONLY the delivery method. But never mind that...show me any legal ruling that the content of a game disc, movie disc, or music CD is your property, that you own it. You're not gonna find such a ruling. And if there was ever a chance of such a ruling ever being made, customers threw that down the toilet the second that they allowed the standard practice of digital sales that don't function as owned property. Consumers allowed the concept of digital sales as just a license to become standard.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#270 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] 1. The product which I paid good money for is not useable once I sell it on. The console maker made it so. That's sabotaging the product. 2. If, as you claim, I'm not buying the information on the disc, then when the disc fails(regardless of whether it's my fault or not) I'm still entitled to continue playing the software. Since I paid for the license and not the disc with the game on it, then there is no logical reason for them to deny me the use of the software when the "delivery system" fails. My disc being damaged to the point where I can't access the data that I licensed by paying full price absolutely should be replaced if what I own by making that purchase isn't a single copy of the game data. EA should either have sent me a new disc or a code for a digital download. Instead, I got a terse reply which basically amounted to "tough sh!t." So either I own one copy of the game(meaning I'm sh!t outta luck when the disc fails), or I purchased one license to use the software(meaning my license is still valid after the disc fails). The publishers can't have it both ways. 3. This argument is based on your view of ownership vs licensing. Our stances on this are so contrary that there's no reasonable argument to be made on this point.

Does the language in the EULA state that it's an unlimited license? You can tie a license to an account, you can tie a license to a disc, you can tie a license to a console, you can have that license expire or be revoked. You are still paying for the license to use that content, you do not own it, and you absolutely cannot do whatever you want with it. In fact, the X1 (as originally envisioned) was actually setting out to SOLVE this problem. By requiring mandatory full installations, you don't need the disc. You can take that disc and set it on fire, and you still have full use of that game once you've activated it and registered it to your account. In essence it's EXACTLY like a digital sale, the physical disc is ONLY the delivery method. But never mind that...show me any legal ruling that the content of a game disc, movie disc, or music CD is your property, that you own it. You're not gonna find such a ruling. And if there was ever a chance of such a ruling ever being made, customers threw that down the toilet the second that they allowed the standard practice of digital sales that don't function as owned property. Consumers allowed the concept of digital sales as just a license to become standard.

And this conversation has officially gone full circle- I was saying we needed that ruling in the first place. That's how we got into this mess to begin with..

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#271 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

The publishers cannot just write on a piece of paper- "this game disc functions exactly as if it were you own property, except when you want to sell it" and expect it to be binding. That would be like me writing into the fine print on a rental agreement for an apartment that if the tenant is ten days late paying the rent they have to sign over their car to me. What's more, a rental agreement requires a signature stating that the would-be tenant has read and agreed to this. It's such nonsense that even arguing 'but they signed it' would be laughed right out of court. An EULA it a piece of paper that you do not sign your agreement to, and that you aren't allowed to inspect beforehand. It's a piece of paper in a sealed product that basically says, "SURPRISE! This is what you agreed to by buying this disc!" If an EULA for a videogame were ever challenged in court, I would expect the same response. I wouldn't believe it could be so simple as that and I'd worry about it until it were decided, but I would expect nothing else.

11 years ago

1551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#272 ThaneKrios28

Member since 2013 • 1551 Posts

i caught a video about this on youtube and the guy who did it made a good point. apparently this will be a patch so what makes you think ms wont patch it again later and than follow through with the original thought of blocking used titles?

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#273 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

i caught a video about this on youtube and the guy who did it made a good point. apparently this will be a patch so what makes you think ms wont patch it again later and than follow through with the original thought of blocking used titles?

ThaneKrios28

Especially when you consider all the iterations the Xbox Live dashboard went through.

11 years ago

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts

Since Microsoft will be disabling certain features of the Xbox One on the day of its release via patch, I wonder if there will be a solution for buyers without an internet connection to download that data. This is something I notice is not getting addressed here, so I am curious about it.

11 years ago

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

Since Microsoft will be disabling certain features of the Xbox One on the day of its release via patch, I wonder if there will be a solution for buyers without an internet connection to download that data. This is something I notice is not getting addressed here, so I am curious about it.BranKetra

They'll just need to wait for later batches of consoles, in all likelihood.

11 years ago

1551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#276 ThaneKrios28

Member since 2013 • 1551 Posts

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Since Microsoft will be disabling certain features of the Xbox One on the day of its release via patch, I wonder if there will be a solution for buyers without an internet connection to download that data. This is something I notice is not getting addressed here, so I am curious about it.Randolph

They'll just need to wait for later batches of consoles, in all likelihood.

i still think its a bs pr statement to kill off the backlash lets be honest i myself and alot of xbox fans have decided to jump ship. it has nothing to do about fanboyism or console wars ,its about where the games are. i dont need a cable box hell i dont need twitter facebook skype ect because i already have all that. sony was smart by sticking with the just gaming console and not go the become a fat ass and use voice commands like xbox one i mean holy shit man im lazy to an extent but not that lazy to walk 2 feet to turn on my console. whats next xbox 3 gona have a robot hand to whipe peoples asses now?

11 years ago

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts

If the only action individuals actually wanting to buy a Microsoft Xbox One can do is wait for a new version of that console, the Sony PlayStion 4, computer gaming, and even the Nintendo Wii U will be quicker alternatives to play new video games. I ask why wait.

11 years ago

1551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#278 ThaneKrios28

Member since 2013 • 1551 Posts

If the only action individuals actually wanting to buy a Microsoft Xbox One can do is wait for a new version of that console, the Sony PlayStion 4, computer gaming, and even the Nintendo Wii U will be quicker alternatives to play new video games. I ask why wait. BranKetra

i was just thinking about that the other day. if i remember correctly from the leaks last year werent there 2 versions? even if true damage is already done seeing as ms is insisting on pushing this p.o.s cable box

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]The publishers cannot just write on a piece of paper- "this game disc functions exactly as if it were you own property, except when you want to sell it" and expect it to be binding. That would be like me writing into the fine print on a rental agreement for an apartment that if the tenant is ten days late paying the rent they have to sign over their car to me. What's more, a rental agreement requires a signature stating that the would-be tenant has read and agreed to this. It's such nonsense that even arguing 'but they signed it' would be laughed right out of court. An EULA it a piece of paper that you do not sign your agreement to, and that you aren't allowed to inspect beforehand. It's a piece of paper in a sealed product that basically says, "SURPRISE! This is what you agreed to by buying this disc!" If an EULA for a videogame were ever challenged in court, I would expect the same response. I wouldn't believe it could be so simple as that and I'd worry about it until it were decided, but I would expect nothing else.

See, the thing is, the disc DOES function exactly as if it were your own property. It's the CONTENT on that disc that doesn't. You absolutely CAN go sell that disc. This was never about the disc or the cartridge or the cassette. This was about the data on that physical medium. And as much as people are complaining about the X1 taking away our "consumer rights", they are misguided as $hit. We already lost that battle the second that digital sales became commonplace and consumers were willing to give up their "consumer rights" on digital sales so long as they got convenient service or discounted prices. Again, this was never about the disc. It was about the CONTENT on that disc. Once companies started REMOVING the physical disc entirely and selling ONLY the product, that's where we get to see how this would play out. And how it played out is that consumers EMBRACED their "consumer rights" being taken away. That's why the X1 backlash and the "support consumer rights" movement rings pretty f***ing hollow. Literally the ONLY reason that people are complaining is because those games can still be sold on a disc. But it was never about the disc. Companies got rid of discs entirely and consumers embraced that model. We spoke with our dollars and said that we're FINE with these products being just a license to use. Then the X1 comes along, people start screaming about their "consumer rights", despite ignoring that Microsoft was only following the model which had already been readily accepted of treating digital products as just a license. We TOLD Microsoft that what they were doing is okay, then threw stones at them because they happened to use discs as a delivery method for the digital content. Don't get me wrong, the X1 is still $hit (though less $hitty after they changed their policy). But this isn't the big stand for consumer rights. We already lost that battle. Microsoft was only following a model which has already proven successful and become widely embraced. Once digital sales became a thing, and we stripped away the physical medium to see how willing consumers are to give up ownership of the CONTENT, we found that the answer was "very willing". We already lost that battle with most people seemingly not even realizing that a battle was taking place.

11 years ago

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]The publishers cannot just write on a piece of paper- "this game disc functions exactly as if it were you own property, except when you want to sell it" and expect it to be binding. That would be like me writing into the fine print on a rental agreement for an apartment that if the tenant is ten days late paying the rent they have to sign over their car to me. What's more, a rental agreement requires a signature stating that the would-be tenant has read and agreed to this. It's such nonsense that even arguing 'but they signed it' would be laughed right out of court. An EULA it a piece of paper that you do not sign your agreement to, and that you aren't allowed to inspect beforehand. It's a piece of paper in a sealed product that basically says, "SURPRISE! This is what you agreed to by buying this disc!" If an EULA for a videogame were ever challenged in court, I would expect the same response. I wouldn't believe it could be so simple as that and I'd worry about it until it were decided, but I would expect nothing else.

See, the thing is, the disc DOES function exactly as if it were your own property. It's the CONTENT on that disc that doesn't. You absolutely CAN go sell that disc. This was never about the disc or the cartridge or the cassette. This was about the data on that physical medium. And as much as people are complaining about the X1 taking away our "consumer rights", they are misguided as $hit. We already lost that battle the second that digital sales became commonplace and consumers were willing to give up their "consumer rights" on digital sales so long as they got convenient service or discounted prices. Again, this was never about the disc. It was about the CONTENT on that disc. Once companies started REMOVING the physical disc entirely and selling ONLY the product, that's where we get to see how this would play out. And how it played out is that consumers EMBRACED their "consumer rights" being taken away. That's why the X1 backlash and the "support consumer rights" movement rings pretty f***ing hollow. Literally the ONLY reason that people are complaining is because those games can still be sold on a disc. But it was never about the disc. Companies got rid of discs entirely and consumers embraced that model. We spoke with our dollars and said that we're FINE with these products being just a license to use. Then the X1 comes along, people start screaming about their "consumer rights", despite ignoring that Microsoft was only following the model which had already been readily accepted of treating digital products as just a license. We TOLD Microsoft that what they were doing is okay, then threw stones at them because they happened to use discs as a delivery method for the digital content. Don't get me wrong, the X1 is still $hit (though less $hitty after they changed their policy). But this isn't the big stand for consumer rights. We already lost that battle. Microsoft was only following a model which has already proven successful and become widely embraced. Once digital sales became a thing, and we stripped away the physical medium to see how willing consumers are to give up ownership of the CONTENT, we found that the answer was "very willing". We already lost that battle with most people seemingly not even realizing that a battle was taking place.

The argument about content on a physical medium as you said is not an important issue with the Microsoft Xbox One. I have not observed or discussed that as part of any talking about it. One of the issues with the digital rights management of the Microsoft Xbox One is it is meant for a closed platform, so there are no alternative ways to play video games with it operating. Computers are different because they are open platforms with the option to purchase data beyond digital rights management restrictions.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#281 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]The publishers cannot just write on a piece of paper- "this game disc functions exactly as if it were you own property, except when you want to sell it" and expect it to be binding. That would be like me writing into the fine print on a rental agreement for an apartment that if the tenant is ten days late paying the rent they have to sign over their car to me. What's more, a rental agreement requires a signature stating that the would-be tenant has read and agreed to this. It's such nonsense that even arguing 'but they signed it' would be laughed right out of court. An EULA it a piece of paper that you do not sign your agreement to, and that you aren't allowed to inspect beforehand. It's a piece of paper in a sealed product that basically says, "SURPRISE! This is what you agreed to by buying this disc!" If an EULA for a videogame were ever challenged in court, I would expect the same response. I wouldn't believe it could be so simple as that and I'd worry about it until it were decided, but I would expect nothing else.

See, the thing is, the disc DOES function exactly as if it were your own property. It's the CONTENT on that disc that doesn't.

You just told me that the CONTENT on the disc functions also as if it were my own property in the same way as the disc itself is by suggesting that my license expires when my disc fails. Face it- your argument is too flip floppy to be taken seriously- either I own the single copy of the game which means when it fails it's on me to replace it, or I purchase a license to play the game which means that when my disc fails, the publisher is obligated to provide me some method to continue playing it. These are the only two options and how the publisher deals with complaints like this one show how much water their licensing agreement scheme holds when filled. If they don't have to abide by their supposed "agreement," then neither do I.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#282 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]The publishers cannot just write on a piece of paper- "this game disc functions exactly as if it were you own property, except when you want to sell it" and expect it to be binding. That would be like me writing into the fine print on a rental agreement for an apartment that if the tenant is ten days late paying the rent they have to sign over their car to me. What's more, a rental agreement requires a signature stating that the would-be tenant has read and agreed to this. It's such nonsense that even arguing 'but they signed it' would be laughed right out of court. An EULA it a piece of paper that you do not sign your agreement to, and that you aren't allowed to inspect beforehand. It's a piece of paper in a sealed product that basically says, "SURPRISE! This is what you agreed to by buying this disc!" If an EULA for a videogame were ever challenged in court, I would expect the same response. I wouldn't believe it could be so simple as that and I'd worry about it until it were decided, but I would expect nothing else.

See, the thing is, the disc DOES function exactly as if it were your own property. It's the CONTENT on that disc that doesn't. You absolutely CAN go sell that disc. This was never about the disc or the cartridge or the cassette. This was about the data on that physical medium. And as much as people are complaining about the X1 taking away our "consumer rights", they are misguided as $hit. We already lost that battle the second that digital sales became commonplace and consumers were willing to give up their "consumer rights" on digital sales so long as they got convenient service or discounted prices. Again, this was never about the disc. It was about the CONTENT on that disc. Once companies started REMOVING the physical disc entirely and selling ONLY the product, that's where we get to see how this would play out. And how it played out is that consumers EMBRACED their "consumer rights" being taken away. That's why the X1 backlash and the "support consumer rights" movement rings pretty f***ing hollow. Literally the ONLY reason that people are complaining is because those games can still be sold on a disc. But it was never about the disc. Companies got rid of discs entirely and consumers embraced that model. We spoke with our dollars and said that we're FINE with these products being just a license to use. Then the X1 comes along, people start screaming about their "consumer rights", despite ignoring that Microsoft was only following the model which had already been readily accepted of treating digital products as just a license. We TOLD Microsoft that what they were doing is okay, then threw stones at them because they happened to use discs as a delivery method for the digital content. Don't get me wrong, the X1 is still $hit (though less $hitty after they changed their policy). But this isn't the big stand for consumer rights. We already lost that battle. Microsoft was only following a model which has already proven successful and become widely embraced. Once digital sales became a thing, and we stripped away the physical medium to see how willing consumers are to give up ownership of the CONTENT, we found that the answer was "very willing". We already lost that battle with most people seemingly not even realizing that a battle was taking place.

You just don't get it. Commonplace does NOT equal "legal." Until someone gets so sick of it that they decide it's worth going into court over, EULAs are as binding as a birthday wish. Digital content is the only place where these rules can be taken with any modicum of seriousness- that is the only time when you pay real money for a product that is stictly vapor. That's the only time when what you're laying down your money for is an idea. If it comes attached to physical media, then you own one copy of the software- of the CONTENT- until such time as the media fails. And unless I misread this entire situation, so many people agreed to this that it not only stopped the juggernaut in it's tracks, but turned it around and forced it back a few very large paces.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#283 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

Answer me this, Mr Geezer: in what other industry is a supposed agreement valid when the one party has no knowledge of what the agreement contains until after they've agreed to it?

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] You just don't get it. Commonplace does NOT equal "legal." Until someone gets so sick of it that they decide it's worth going into court over, EULAs are as binding as a birthday wish. Digital content is the only place where these rules can be taken with any modicum of seriousness- that is the only time when you pay real money for a product that is stictly vapor. That's the only time when what you're laying down your money for is an idea. If it comes attached to physical media, then you own one copy of the software- of the CONTENT- until such time as the media fails. And unless I misread this entire situation, so many people agreed to this that it not only stopped the juggernaut in it's tracks, but turned it around and forced it back a few very large paces.

I don't think you get it. It IS legal until someone says otherwise. And the more businesses thrive off of it, the more customers are happy with it, the more it becomes just plain commonplace accepted practice, the less likely that anyone's gonna rule that it's illegal. I don't think you appreciate the ramifications of making digital sales property of the buyer, with it also being mandatory that they can use it as they please. If that comes to pass, it's gonna cost a lot of companies a f***ton of money, it's gonna drive many companies into the ground, it's gonna hurt gaming, and it's gonna become less and less likely to ever happen the more common that digital sales are with customer satisfaction remaining high.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Answer me this, Mr Geezer: in what other industry is a supposed agreement valid when the one party has no knowledge of what the agreement contains until after they've agreed to it?El_Zo1212o

Until after you've agreed to it? What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that the EULA text shows up BEFORE instalation occurs. Shows up on literally every single game that I buy, and I don't get to play until AFTER I've agreed to the terms.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#286 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Answer me this, Mr Geezer: in what other industry is a supposed agreement valid when the one party has no knowledge of what the agreement contains until after they've agreed to it?MrGeezer

Until after you've agreed to it? What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that the EULA text shows up BEFORE instalation occurs. Shows up on literally every single game that I buy, and I don't get to play until AFTER I've agreed to the terms.

So if you refuse to agree to the EULA the publisher will refund your money? You don't get to see the EULA until after you've forked over the dough. Either in the paperwork in the game case, or in a prompt on screen, but in both cases AFTER you've been parted from your money. How could anyone rule that this is in anyway enforceable? EDIT: I've been going through EULAs in my game cases. EULA policies: Take Two Int(RDR): takes effect upon "installing, copying or using" the software. Activision(Xmen Origins): Takes effect upon "opening this package." Sega(Aliens:CM): Not included on paper- you're directed to a website for the EULA. 2k Games(Borderlands 2): Takes effect upon "opening, installing and/or using" the software. WB Int(LotR: WitN): takes effect upon "installing, accessing, playing or otherwise using" the software. No EULA mentioned or referenced: EA Square-Enix Bethesda Softworks Ubisoft Valve Microsoft Studios Konami Notable exception: THQ(WH40K: Space Marine): THQ actually(and expressly) granted you the right to do ANYTHING with the software, including to "use, copy, modify... publish, distribute... and/or sell" the software. What's more, they furnished the recipients of your distributions the same rights. Now, can anyone turn up EULA info on those publishers I listed in the second section? If so, that means with at least two juggernaut publishers, you aren't even furnished with a copy of what you're "agreeing" to. All the rest of them state that you are agreeing to their terms before you ever see them- You lay down the money and open the case(making the game "used" in the eyes of every game retailer everywhere) to find this agreement, and if you DON't agree, you have ZERO recourse to get your money back.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] So if you refuse to agree to the EULA the publisher will refund your money? You don't get to see the EULA until after you've forked over the dough. Either in the paperwork in the game case, or in a prompt on screen, but in both cases AFTER you've been parted from your money. How could anyone rule that this is in anyway enforceable?

I've actually wondered about that myself. Obviously the retailer can't take it back since it's now opened and "used", but I'm sure there must be a system for acquiring a refund if one doesn't agree to the terms of the licensing agreement. If not, then that's something that obviously needs to be changed. Yes, I'll agree that people who don't agree to the licensing agreement should absolutely be able to get a refund. That still has nothing to do with the people who DO agree to the licensing agreement, which is approximately 100% of the people buying games.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#288 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] So if you refuse to agree to the EULA the publisher will refund your money? You don't get to see the EULA until after you've forked over the dough. Either in the paperwork in the game case, or in a prompt on screen, but in both cases AFTER you've been parted from your money. How could anyone rule that this is in anyway enforceable?

I've actually wondered about that myself. Obviously the retailer can't take it back since it's now opened and "used", but I'm sure there must be a system for acquiring a refund if one doesn't agree to the terms of the licensing agreement. If not, then that's something that obviously needs to be changed. Yes, I'll agree that people who don't agree to the licensing agreement should absolutely be able to get a refund. That still has nothing to do with the people who DO agree to the licensing agreement, which is approximately 100% of the people buying games.

edited the above post with some interesting info. Is it really an agreement if there is no free choice? Your money is gone. You have no way to get it back. So the choice is either write off the $60 you just paid, or play the game. That isn't a choice- it's a scam.

11 years ago

12035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 12035 Posts

[QUOTE="Metamania"]
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] Glad to know I'll be seeing you on the PS4 someday.El_Zo1212o

Knowing you, I'd figured you would go MS all the way.

Hell no! I've been up in arms ever since all this DRM bullsh!t was announced, and I was creeped out about the camera when I added the PRISM scandal(where MS was specifically listed) to an always on, always connected Kinect. I was particularly upset about it after the e3 briefing, since I am almost actually dying to play Ryse.

Ah, well, I'm glad I'm going to be seeing you on the PS4 too, man. :) That being said, Ryse was definitely one of the games that looked very tempting to play. Maybe sometime down the road, I'll have to give the new system a shot, along with that game.

And I'm with you - the E3 briefing from Microsoft did nothing for me, except for the games that looked decent enough (how much of a lie that turned out to be when we all found out that all of those games were running on MS Windows 7, which is a freaking shame).

11 years ago

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#290 WhiteKnight77

Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Answer me this, Mr Geezer: in what other industry is a supposed agreement valid when the one party has no knowledge of what the agreement contains until after they've agreed to it?El_Zo1212o

Until after you've agreed to it? What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that the EULA text shows up BEFORE instalation occurs. Shows up on literally every single game that I buy, and I don't get to play until AFTER I've agreed to the terms.

So if you refuse to agree to the EULA the publisher will refund your money? You don't get to see the EULA until after you've forked over the dough. Either in the paperwork in the game case, or in a prompt on screen, but in both cases AFTER you've been parted from your money. How could anyone rule that this is in anyway enforceable? EDIT: I've been going through EULAs in my game cases. EULA policies: Take Two Int(RDR): takes effect upon "installing, copying or using" the software. Activision(Xmen Origins): Takes effect upon "opening this package." Sega(Aliens:CM): Not included on paper- you're directed to a website for the EULA. 2k Games(Borderlands 2): Takes effect upon "opening, installing and/or using" the software. WB Int(LotR: WitN): takes effect upon "installing, accessing, playing or otherwise using" the software. No EULA mentioned or referenced: EA Square-Enix Bethesda Softworks Ubisoft Valve Microsoft Studios Konami Notable exception: THQ(WH40K: Space Marine): THQ actually(and expressly) granted you the right to do ANYTHING with the software, including to "use, copy, modify... publish, distribute... and/or sell" the software. What's more, they furnished the recipients of your distributions the same rights. Now, can anyone turn up EULA info on those publishers I listed in the second section? If so, that means with at least two juggernaut publishers, you aren't even furnished with a copy of what you're "agreeing" to. All the rest of them state that you are agreeing to their terms before you ever see them- You lay down the money and open the case(making the game "used" in the eyes of every game retailer everywhere) to find this agreement, and if you DON't agree, you have ZERO recourse to get your money back.

Valve (at least with Steam) has a EULA that you agree to before installing. It is safe to say that they also have a very similar one for their games too.

Ubisoft has a EULA that has to be agreed to.

Microsoft also has a EULA too.

I think it would be safe to say that all software, and yes, games are software no matter what platform it is played on, has a EULA, even if they are open source. Everyone should know that there is a EULA before purchasing and if one does not want to agree to such, then do not buy it, you will not be stuck with an open package that you cannot return. With all the complaints of open boxes at Gamestop, especially for new games, I just do not see why people buy a new product from a company that is already opened. No, you dont own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale shows that you do not own software and courts are upholding EULAs.

11 years ago

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#291 WhiteKnight77

Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Metamania"]
Knowing you, I'd figured you would go MS all the way.
Metamania

Hell no! I've been up in arms ever since all this DRM bullsh!t was announced, and I was creeped out about the camera when I added the PRISM scandal(where MS was specifically listed) to an always on, always connected Kinect. I was particularly upset about it after the e3 briefing, since I am almost actually dying to play Ryse.

Ah, well, I'm glad I'm going to be seeing you on the PS4 too, man. :) That being said, Ryse was definitely one of the games that looked very tempting to play. Maybe sometime down the road, I'll have to give the new system a shot, along with that game.

And I'm with you - the E3 briefing from Microsoft did nothing for me, except for the games that looked decent enough (how much of a lie that turned out to be when we all found out that all of those games were running on MS Windows 7, which is a freaking shame).

Not all of the games were running on PCs, there were some XOnes running (though they were dev kits which has more memory and such in them compared to a retail unit). But yes, there were some running on PCs with a top end graphics card.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#292 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Until after you've agreed to it? What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure that the EULA text shows up BEFORE instalation occurs. Shows up on literally every single game that I buy, and I don't get to play until AFTER I've agreed to the terms.WhiteKnight77

So if you refuse to agree to the EULA the publisher will refund your money? You don't get to see the EULA until after you've forked over the dough. Either in the paperwork in the game case, or in a prompt on screen, but in both cases AFTER you've been parted from your money. How could anyone rule that this is in anyway enforceable? EDIT: I've been going through EULAs in my game cases. EULA policies: Take Two Int(RDR): takes effect upon "installing, copying or using" the software. Activision(Xmen Origins): Takes effect upon "opening this package." Sega(Aliens:CM): Not included on paper- you're directed to a website for the EULA. 2k Games(Borderlands 2): Takes effect upon "opening, installing and/or using" the software. WB Int(LotR: WitN): takes effect upon "installing, accessing, playing or otherwise using" the software. No EULA mentioned or referenced: EA Square-Enix Bethesda Softworks Ubisoft Valve Microsoft Studios Konami Notable exception: THQ(WH40K: Space Marine): THQ actually(and expressly) granted you the right to do ANYTHING with the software, including to "use, copy, modify... publish, distribute... and/or sell" the software. What's more, they furnished the recipients of your distributions the same rights. Now, can anyone turn up EULA info on those publishers I listed in the second section? If so, that means with at least two juggernaut publishers, you aren't even furnished with a copy of what you're "agreeing" to. All the rest of them state that you are agreeing to their terms before you ever see them- You lay down the money and open the case(making the game "used" in the eyes of every game retailer everywhere) to find this agreement, and if you DON't agree, you have ZERO recourse to get your money back.

Valve (at least with Steam) has a EULA that you agree to before installing. It is safe to say that they also have a very similar one for their games too.

Ubisoft has a EULA that has to be agreed to.

Microsoft also has a EULA too.

I think it would be safe to say that all software, and yes, games are software no matter what platform it is played on, has a EULA, even if they are open source. Everyone should know that there is a EULA before purchasing and if one does not want to agree to such, then do not buy it, you will not be stuck with an open package that you cannot return. With all the complaints of open boxes at Gamestop, especially for new games, I just do not see why people buy a new product from a company that is already opened. No, you dont own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale shows that you do not own software and courts are upholding EULAs.

I'll have to read that last link you posted, but you've just listed three of the publishers who make absolutely no mention of an EULA even after you've purchased the game. How can it be called an agreement if one party still isn't aware that they've agreed to anything??

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#293 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

@WhiteKnight: That's ridiculous! How can any agreement be binding if the user is denied access to the terms of the agreement until after they've already invested their money in the product??

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@WhiteKnight: That's ridiculous! How can any agreement be binding if the user is denied access to the terms of the agreement until after they've already invested their money in the product??El_Zo1212o

I've gotta agree here. Everyone knows there's an EULA, but they don't know the terms of that agreement without actually seeing it. That's some bull$hit right there.

11 years ago

73863

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 73863 Posts

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]@WhiteKnight: That's ridiculous! How can any agreement be binding if the user is denied access to the terms of the agreement until after they've already invested their money in the product??MrGeezer

I've gotta agree here. Everyone knows there's an EULA, but they don't know the terms of that agreement without actually seeing it. That's some bull$hit right there.

Anyone can "accept" the EULA even if they are not at legal age to accept it.

11 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]@WhiteKnight: That's ridiculous! How can any agreement be binding if the user is denied access to the terms of the agreement until after they've already invested their money in the product??Pedro

I've gotta agree here. Everyone knows there's an EULA, but they don't know the terms of that agreement without actually seeing it. That's some bull$hit right there.

Anyone can "accept" the EULA even if they are not at legal age to accept it.

I'm not really sure what that comment has to do with anything.

11 years ago

413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#297 SniperFire17

Member since 2007 • 413 Posts

Supposedly the 360 was a weaker console than the PS3 also But was saw what happened.

11 years ago

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#298 El_Zo1212o

Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

[QUOTE="Pedro"]
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] I've gotta agree here. Everyone knows there's an EULA, but they don't know the terms of that agreement without actually seeing it. That's some bull$hit right there.MrGeezer

Anyone can "accept" the EULA even if they are not at legal age to accept it.

I'm not really sure what that comment has to do with anything.

I'm also left blinking stupidly at that remark.

11 years ago

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#299 Suitcaseman

Member since 2013 • 43 Posts

Seems way to good to be true. Didn't they say the policies were final?
speedfreak48t5p

They said they were still working with publishers so no.

11 years ago

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#300 WhiteKnight77

Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Valve (at least with Steam) has a EULA that you agree to before installing. It is safe to say that they also have a very similar one for their games too.
Ubisoft has a EULA that has to be agreed to.
Microsoft also has a EULA too.
I think it would be safe to say that all software, and yes, games are software no matter what platform it is played on, has a EULA, even if they are open source. Everyone should know that there is a EULA before purchasing and if one does not want to agree to such, then do not buy it, you will not be stuck with an open package that you cannot return. With all the complaints of open boxes at Gamestop, especially for new games, I just do not see why people buy a new product from a company that is already opened. No, you dont own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale shows that you do not own software and courts are upholding EULAs.
El_Zo1212o

I'll have to read that last link you posted, but you've just listed three of the publishers who make absolutely no mention of an EULA even after you've purchased the game. How can it be called an agreement if one party still isn't aware that they've agreed to anything??

Are you really serious? I can understand that you might not know about a EULA if you just started gaming or using a PC or other game system yesterday, but if you have been gaming, or using any other sort of software, for any length of time, you are fully aware that there are end user license agreements attached to said software that you will have to agree to, even before you purchase it. One thing that those three agreements, as well as others say, is:

Steam:

Valve hereby grants, and by installing the Program you thereby accept, a limited, non-exclusive license and right to install one (1) copy of the Program on a computer. snip The Program is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Program or copies thereof.

Ubisoft:

Ubisoft grants the User a non-exclusive and non-transferable Licence to use the Multimedia Product, but remains the owner of all the rights relating thereto.

Microsoft:

6. COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and applets incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content.

11 years ago

324 results
1
...
3
4
5
6
7

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment