Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Yleisvalvoja on merkinnyt tämän julkaisun vastaavan yläpuolen aiheeseen.
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
Ilmoita tämä viesti
And, you are "owning".... a License
So, the notice that you get now (when games are in your cart) that you don't own the game but a license, would that mean PSN/XBOX will put the notice for their digital games as well?
I mean, it's obvious to me that you can lose a game whenever the Dev or so decides to remove it but many people continue to buy games at full price, pre-order etc so, the people that have an issue are mainly ignored because of that.
If people are giving them money, which is something real and something the customer has worked very hard for, I feel like if a game or so is removed, they should get a full refund or whatever. People are paying for "Something" license or what not.
If people don't have that "Something" why should they lose their money? but it's whatever. People will continue to buy stuff and yell at the others that have an issue with losing stuff they paid money for.
But they aren't actually forced to just yet. Because the reason this went this way for Valve is due to a legal case, so they had to.
While the same laws apply here, Sony, MS et al WILL have to come round but it might take a few weeks.
Now, you can FEEL you should get some recompense, but I'm afraid the law does not work like that.
Under western consumer laws and sale of goods or services it generally goes like this:
With physical goods, there's certain factors for refunds. Of course if you just don't want the item or made a mistake about something on your end, it really varies where in the world you are as to what rights you have.
If you have a faulty item most places give you a certain time to return it. In the US there's warranties where you return to the manufacturer. Here in Britain, there are guidelines for certain goods (for example, electronics have about a 2 year window guaranteed). If there's a fault then you return it to the place you bought it and they either replace or refund accordingly.
Outside of warranty periods, there's "wear and tear" - for example, if you have a washing machine that has a 2 year guarantee window, and it fails 3 months outside that, it's quite reasonable for you to ask for them to help and come to an arrangement as it still shouldn't be expected to fail. If you take it to court, and you demand refund, you may find the court awards you the amount minus an amount on a sliding scale for wear and tear.
Now here's the problem with digital goods.
First off, the contract terms are NOT the same. Licences are not purchases in the same way. That's the point here. So you havea right to USE it. If they remove that right, you've already agreed that it is not permnanent. You have no leg to stand on to request ANY refund.
Furthermore, as there's no wear and tear then it also means you can't evaluate the thing anyway.
So no, you cannot expect this in any way. You have no standing for it.
The wording doesn't matter here.
Your come back isn't clever
They've sure jumped through hoops to make it look that way while burying the real story in an eula. That's why store has featured such statements as "buy this game", when you're not really buying the game. Not like the purchase button ever read "Buy a license to play this game".
But eh, queue a million more iterations of "actually..".
These terms are practically begging for pie crazy.
I love the fact some people make drama when they learn what licensing means despite it been sitting in their face for years even before signing up, or buying games. That why it's always with the TOO LAZY TO READ CRY ABOUT IT LATER, or WHO GOT TIME TO READ LOL.
Truth is ANY store you buy your digital games from yes this includes Gog too, you're buying a license that simple, reason why Gog CAN'T enforce anything because games are DRM free that meant once you download your game you have an OFFLINE game they can't do anything about it, they have no control over your device, but they still have control over your account, and access to downloading the game that what they can enforce if they wanted, or have to.
Steam has DRM free games as well, you can literally just download the game, and move game out of Steam folder there steam can't do anything either same as above about Gog, just google up a wiki for what game drm free on steam.
For hard copies of the game there two kind one that tied to DRM client, other is standalone the one that tied to DRM like Steam client, EA client, or etc those are same as buying digital license due to the fact it a code have to redeem for your account to access the game either way, can still sell your hard copy, but it be useless to anyone since they can't use the code once it been used already. Standalone copies don't have this issue, and Publishers been LONG gone moved away from standalone, even indie devs don't bother most of the time doing hard copies sells due to lack of sales, or lack of people wanting their game as it costs money to for hard copies. Now believe it, or not since may not even know it for almost 40 years even on hard copies have licenses on them, that meant as long you HOLD the actual copy of the game you're entitle access it content, otherwise you're not allow to hold any backups of the game, let alone access if no longer have the actual copy of the game hence the point of the license on hard copy. FYI piracy, and fraud the reason this happen why publishers went to invest in DRM, and making licensing terms.
Well here's the thing.
The terms have indeed changed, but again they make ZERO difference to us as consumers as because from our end NOTHING has changed.
It still remains that any digitally distributed games I have are indeed licences as they've always been. The same behaviour applies - I can play them, I can't sell them or my account, and in extreme cases, some can be removed.
With physical copies of games, I can also play them, but I can sell them if I wish.
If the sale of goods laws stated they need ed to be rturned it wouldn't be for example.
The fact is that the terms you AGREE TO on digital distribution means that they are not permanent licences and can under certain situations be LEGALLY removed.
Again if you didn't realise this, that's on you but you did agree to it.
What you are failing to understand is that you AGREE to those terms already.
Just because you didn't realise it until now doesn't change anything. You can't sudden;y turn round now and try and change the terms afterwards.
TYhat's not how laws or contracts work.
I mean yes, it's awful but as I said you should have realised this years ago and adjusted the price you'll pay for such games as I did.
NOne of those things however will affect a digital copy.
The only way to lose a digital copy is to llose access to the account or.....do something to breach the ToS/Eula.
You can do everything right and still lose access to a physical game...you have to actively do multiple wrong things to lose a digital game.
Do you not realize they have been slowly asking for more and more but also demanding consumers have less control over their purchases.
Subscription models exist for cars now, that should tell you something.
"BuT you AgrEed" well monopolies are a problem aren't they? For video games maybe you can live without, but these practices have been spreading elsewhere. Largely stemming from the entertainment industry first.