Today's reason. Online passes that don't work:

Hmm. Seems like I put the code in correctly...

This is why I experience so much calm when I put in a Wii, PS2 or original Xbox game. I know that everything is on the disc, there are no patches, no online codes etcetera.  I paid $55 for Saints Row: The Third and I cannot access the online play.  Nice.  Thanks internet. And yes, okay, I understand the inherent irony of a man complaining he cannot enjoy online gaming because he cannot redeem a code made possible by an online connection.

Posted by aspro Fri, 04 May 2012 06:38:47 (comments: 6)
 
Fri, 04 May 2012 19:00:17
I won't buy any game new that requires a one-time use online pass.  It's a gross disregard for the right of first sale.
 
Sat, 05 May 2012 02:21:41
That sucks...
 
Sat, 05 May 2012 02:38:45

Don't hate the player hate the game.

Uh, I mean don't hate the game hate the player.

 
Sat, 05 May 2012 22:42:28
Yodariquo said:
I won't buy any game new that requires a one-time use online pass.  It's a gross disregard for the right of first sale.



Absolutely. Also, I don't understand how software companies get away with EULAs. There is established case law now in the States, so it is not going to go away, but I honestly don't know how they got away with it becoming the standard (and now it's applied even to consumer hardware like our consoles).

How would it go down if you went to the hardware store and bought a hammer and the clerk pulled out a EULA for you to sign (after you have paid), agreeing to waive rights and responsibilities? Agreeing not to sell the hammer at a garage sale at a future date, or transfer the hammer to a neighbor for occasional use?

Online passes would be like buying a hammer, only getting the handle and then submitting a form to have the hammer head mailed to you. C-WORDS!

 
Sun, 06 May 2012 01:00:08
They "got away with it" because it's not equivalent to a hammer, because material goods were always typically a matter of sale by default, as the seller isn't dependent on maintaining ownership over the material good for future sales.  The problem is that because software isn't material, by default you licensed software, not bought; the original creator maintains the right over the original; just because you bought a license to use Photoshop doesn't mean that Abode loses the ability to sell Photoshop to anyone else.

So since it's licensed, there's a license agreement.  All of this is fine, and necessary.  My own projects are licensed.  I like using the simplified BSD license.

There are two issues with EULAs as they are commonly used.  One is that they are shrink-wrap licenses, meaning you don't get to read and agree or disagree with the agreement until after you've bought and opened the product.

The second is that the licenses often encroach on basic consumer rights, such as the right of first-sale, and fair-use.

Shrink-wrap licenses in the US are ambiguous in legality, with decisions going both ways.  Eliminating consumer rights through contract is already unenforceable, but it will depend on the particular clause whether or not it applies.
 
Sun, 06 May 2012 02:17:26

The bullshit detector license? Sounds like a no BS solution, Yoda.

Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?