mezzoprezzo
Content appreciator
Hmm. I wonder how well this will work?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/01/new-consumer-rights-act-gamers
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/01/new-consumer-rights-act-gamers
New UK laws - consumer rights for gamers
- Thread starter mezzoprezzo
- Start date
cascaderailroad
New member
Once you open a sealed game box, and register it, most of your rights become slim ... Someone with T:ANE, should see some improvements when they install SP's, and future SP's, that will surly make it better, with each SP release.
From screenshots I have seen ... T:ANE is improving
From screenshots I have seen ... T:ANE is improving
mezzoprezzo
Content appreciator
This isn't about T:ANE, or sealed boxes.
It concerns all games including digital downloads. Suggest you read the article which names several suppliers and different recent releases.
Having read it all, it won't make any difference to Software as there is no reference to licensed software anywhere in the blurb, just actual physical products. Digital media meaning actual music files or video which you own and are not licensed so are products. Software you don't own, only have licensed use of it. They had a golden opportunity to sort this out and yet again, unsurprisingly for the clowns running this country, failed to clearly address the licensed software issue.
Actual document http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted
mezzoprezzo
Content appreciator
I've not yet read it all. I'm also not a lawyer.
However Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 16 refers to "digital content which does not conform to the contract to supply". It refers specifically to digital content (not media).
The examples quoted in the Guardian article are Battlefield 4, Sim City and the PC version of Batman:Arkham Knight, which are neither music files or videos.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.
LNERlover5
Average Grad
Steams refund system where a product may be refunded if your logged playtime is under 2 hours is an example to look at for this. It saw great use with Batman: Arkham Knight as the release build of the game was borderline broken. Warner Brothers since pulled the title while fixes were prepared.
Trainz would be no different if N3V had to comply with refunds by law, the cost of the product would be refunded and the users license revoked. As for what CascadeRailroad said, revoking a license isn't hard. For physical copies maybe, but it's not the major distribution method anymore.
We needed something like this though. Software licensing with lack of legal consumer protection from unfit-for-purpose products had been going on for too long.
Jack
Trainz would be no different if N3V had to comply with refunds by law, the cost of the product would be refunded and the users license revoked. As for what CascadeRailroad said, revoking a license isn't hard. For physical copies maybe, but it's not the major distribution method anymore.
We needed something like this though. Software licensing with lack of legal consumer protection from unfit-for-purpose products had been going on for too long.
Jack
I agree. Software licensing is aimed always to protect the license holder without recourse for the consumer. Perhaps this law is a breaking point for these licenses and once and for all other companies, including Adobe and Microsoft may have to heed the warnings that will come out of this.
I have been the subject of software companies taking the law into their own hands! They have gone too far and way over the line! Software these days is a lending library, have a look but do not do anything with it. I am surprised that once you get bored with it, that they do not ask or demand the return of the disc and case, punishable by public flogging!
cascaderailroad
New member
That's kind of a radical way of looking at it.
Say you go out to a store and buy a MS WindowsX OS disc, or digital download key, and install it ... you don't actually own the MS OS ...you only open end leased their product, a EULA ... and you never owned the OS at all ... aside from the plastic disc that it came on, that is the only thing you own. If MS found that you were doing something illegally, they could turn off your OS.
If something was wrong with the disc, or the install did not work, or the product obviously did not work, then it would have to be replaced by the seller
Say you go out to a store and buy a MS WindowsX OS disc, or digital download key, and install it ... you don't actually own the MS OS ...you only open end leased their product, a EULA ... and you never owned the OS at all ... aside from the plastic disc that it came on, that is the only thing you own. If MS found that you were doing something illegally, they could turn off your OS.
If something was wrong with the disc, or the install did not work, or the product obviously did not work, then it would have to be replaced by the seller
Last edited:
Which is exactly what Amazon and other content distributors have been doing in the area of digital books. I cannot recall the details but there was an "issue" a few years ago where users of one digital book system suddenly discovered that a "book" they had paid for and downloaded to their device was suddenly and remotely deleted by the distributor - I believe it may have been the result of a legal dispute over the ownership of the work.
Welcome to the new digital age.
Well, N3V would have been in the poo if this act was released 6 months ago.
And TANE still doesn't deliver what it said it would. Maybe they should have described what they delivered more accurately. "We will deliver you a game that looks like TS12 that crashes often without reason, doesn't include some of the very basic features included in previous versions, and does not include some new or existing features that we have said it will".
Anyone seen Railyard for example? Enuf said really ah.
And TANE still doesn't deliver what it said it would. Maybe they should have described what they delivered more accurately. "We will deliver you a game that looks like TS12 that crashes often without reason, doesn't include some of the very basic features included in previous versions, and does not include some new or existing features that we have said it will".
Anyone seen Railyard for example? Enuf said really ah.
If that was the reality then no software products (not just games) would ever be released. I believe that it is now possible to mathematically prove that a given piece of software is free of "bugs" but only for trivial examples (i.e. upto a few hundred lines of code).
But I am certain that the legal dept of any competent software developer/distributor would be able to find a "form of words", probably in an EULA of epic "War and Peace" size, that would completely "cover their asses" in the event of a bug being discovered.
On a similar matter, I have noticed a few fast food outlets (not that I frequent those establishments) have started putting up signs along the lines that "food will not always look like the examples shown in the images above" - as if anyone would ever think that!
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
I bought a box of Beef Stroganoff, that had a delicious picture on the box ... I opened it up, and it was all powder and noodles ... "Where's the Beef" !
Last edited:
There is a big difference between releasing software that you believe to be bug free and that which is knowingly by the developers full of bugs (such as TANE). Or that which is advertised and not delivered (such as TANE). Or knowingly having bits of the game missing (such as TANE).
There is another aspect to this law that has not yet been mentioned in the thread. The purchase of a license by a citizen of the UK to use any version of Trainz is an international purchase, and may not be covered under the act, as this is law in the UK, and presumably applies to companies domiciled there3, and their transactions with UK citizens. However, N3V is an Australian company, and the law may not apply to them.
ns
ns
All that ....for only 50c??? Do you deliver?
Say you go out to a store and buy a car which just happens to include software. Now imagine that the software makes the car behave in a way which isn't in line with the advertised performance. Would you expect the car maker to be able to avoid his responsibilities by claiming that the purchaser has no rights to the intellectual property contained in the software and is just making use of a license. Wouldn't that be convenient for Volkswagen?
The 'license' argument is just a cloud that software houses hide behind in order to try to limit their liabilities to consumers. This legislation always intended to cut through that particular piece of crap. The only question is whether or not it will be practical for the consumer to enforce.