Legion Quinn Mar 1, 2013 @ 3:05pm
Feature creep introduces altered minimum requirements
Short Version: When a game is "upgraded" to a point that it can't be run on the hardware that used to be minimum requirements, do people deserve a refund?

Detailed Version:
This is a hypothetical but also a serious discussion I had with a friend.
As games add more "features", dlc, and the like, there is the possibility for minimum requirements to change, making a system that was once able to handle a game, incapable of doing so.
Not everyone is capable of upgrading their machines, so when that happens, a game that used to be playable, is not anymore and is uninstalled and gains digital dust in the Library.
Words like refund, entitlement, normal gamers, normal upgrades, et got thrown around and so I'm wondering how people feel about this.

Edit: Another term that came up was "legacy hardware and drivers" if anyone feels that matters.
Last edited by Legion Quinn; Mar 1, 2013 @ 4:16pm
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
< >
Frosty Mar 1, 2013 @ 3:10pm 
No. Usually the minimum requirements are better than the bare minimal for running a game. I could run cs with a crap pc my dad had. But if you went to look at min reqs. His PC was wayyyy worst.
Gus the Crocodile Mar 1, 2013 @ 3:21pm 
Developers should be updating their store page any time their game's system requirements change. If your system meets the stated minimums and you can't play the game, then I absolutely think you should get your money back.

However, I'm not sure it's very common for games to upgrade in such a way that people who could previously play suddenly can't. That would have to be a situation like, I dunno, they suddenly start using fancy shaders that rule out old cards, and they don't make it an optional feature. I've never experienced that happening to me, at least.

What's more common is games starting to run a bit worse. But they still run - you can still play the game. If the minimum requirement means, in part, that the game "runs okay", then you have to realise that's a subjective judgement. As such I don't think it's a good thing to make a legal claim over. Companies should still update their official requirements to their own subjective standards, of course, but I don't really think they should be forced to give you your money back if you get 15fps and you were hoping you'd get 30.
Spawn of Totoro Mar 1, 2013 @ 4:08pm 
With each game there is a agreement that states the game is subject to change and that they are not responsible if an update makes the game unplayable. May want to start reading those agreements.
Frosty Mar 1, 2013 @ 4:15pm 
Originally posted by Spawn of Totoro:
With each game there is a agreement that states the game is subject to change and that they are not responsible if an update makes the game unplayable. May want to start reading those agreements.
They take too longggggg... el oh el.
Legion Quinn Mar 1, 2013 @ 4:26pm 
@Gus the Crocodile Good points. There are some games. TF2 and Killing Floor are examples of games that have increasingly become harder to play on legacy equipment.

@Spawn of Totoro The agreements are very clear on this. The reality is obviously no. But I'm trying to gather peoples opinions. Like I said, "hypothetical" and "peoples feelings". For someone that read agreements, it sure seems like my post was too long for you to read.
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Mar 1, 2013 @ 3:05pm
Posts: 5