Actually, a lot of nations do have laws against obscenity and the like. But, in the US, people tend to argue "Freedom of speech". And honestly, I am glad for that.
Originally Posted by deano2099
But so far, in the cases of banning, it seems to be fairly well defined. People can bitch and say they hate a game, no problem. People start dropping profanity and hatespeech, they go bye bye.
And I can only think of maybe two users here who dislike me enough to want to act on it if given power, and they dislike a LOT of people enough that they would never be able to GET a community manager gig.
Well, the problem is that a Steam or Origin ban is banning you from using their servers, which is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, that also bans you from accessing your games. But considering that we generally only "lease" software anyway, it probably works.
Which I also think is a violation of consumer rights to be honest (they can terminate any time, you can't, it's close to unfair contracts territory). Although an ISP can't terminate without refunding your money. If that's what you're proposing for games then I'm totally behind you on that. I think that'd be the ideal scenario to be honest.
Essentially, Valve/EA aren't stealing your games. They are saying "We don't want to let you on our matchmaking servers, so no multiplayer. We also don't want to let you use our download servers, so good luck with that. And those are tied to our activation servers".
I doubt it, actually. Because to let you keep "all your games" will mean that they have to let you keep using their service. Their content servers. So it almost falls into a "No tresspassing" law area.
Yup, quite right. It took a long time to get consumer protection laws for physical goods where they are now. Digital distribution is new. The law-makers barely understand it. But believe me, it will happen. Scenarios where digital content providers can just take away access to all your games with no compensation will be illegal in 30 years' time. But getting there will take effort. And lobbying. The consumer rights groups are only just getting their heads around this stuff, but they are getting there. And if the laws for physical goods are any indication, things will improve, at least in Europe anyways. Unless...
What does screaming "No no no, I don't want any of this, you suck!" accomplish? Nothing
...consumers just don't bother standing up for better rights and just give up, and aggressively argue that other people should shut up and live with it too.
People have been screaming that about DRM for the past decade. Let's just think about what happened:
People screamed how they hated disc-based activation: So an emphasis was put on key-based activation
People screamed that online activation was pure evil. So the publishers scaled back on Securom... and shifted to Steam and Origin :p
Like it or not, the publishers are smart and understand PR. They WILL bend us over a table and give Brando some butter. We need to work with them to try and find a middle ground.
Yes. In fact, I got a refund from Gamersgate a year or two back
Have you ever returned something to a shop or online store because it didn't work?
Ah, so I am an enemy of all mankind now :p. Sweet.
Did you know you didn't always have that right? Did you know that right had to be argued for and fought for in law by people like me? And that there were people like you going "oh companies won't sell faulty goods or no-one will buy from them, it's fine, shut up and live with it." And we ignored you, and pushed on anyway. And once we were done, you happily benefited from it.
But you are running into the same problem we both think the legal system has: You are pretending there is no distinction. Let's compare the situations a bit more
Returning a faulty product for a refund is good. It is a much greyer area when you have already eaten half of it/opened and accessed the serial. In fact, many stores have a policy to not accept open/used goods in many cases or to only allow for exchanges/store credit. Why? Because the stores shouldn't be reamed up the ass by the consumers either. And, in the case of a game or software, the next customer gets screwed if the serial doesn't work.
Being refunded for your theatre ticket if you are thrown out of the theatre is good. Except that a lot of theatres (or, at least, my friend's girlfriend's former place of employment) won't give you a refund if the movie is already half over. By the argument you are proposing, either you should get a refund no matter what (meaning that throwing a chair during the credits is a great way to save money) or that the theatre shouldn't be able to throw you out (which affects everyone else's experience).
Same with DD. Let's say that Steam were obligated to give you a refund on EVERYTHING if you started talking about exterminating the Canadians everywhere they went and hacked everything. That is a LOT of money out of Steam's pocket, and it just encourages people to act like assholes if they need some quick cash (because IP bans don't really work and everyone has a spare email address).
That's the problem. Focusing only on the consumers is just as bad as only the producers. People will take advantage of a 30-day return policy to essentially turn Walmart into an electronics rental store (I've seen it...). People will try to claim that their big mac was unsatisfactory and that they want a refund... after they have eaten most of it.
But focusing only on the producer is also bad. They'll intentionally sell shoddy merchandise and hope that no competitors show up. They'll not bother to cook the big mac to save money on using a griddle.
You are right, fighting the system IS how we make it better. Refusing to work with it and just saying "Fuck you system" is not.
Originally Posted by Nalano