shspvr
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 735
I demand a Refund if not I do Charge back how like that you Edios
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope.
Look up "fraudulent non-disclosure".
1.Making a "first-person shooter" implies that you can shoot. Edios does not need to directly state this claim; merely using the term first person shooter, or FPS, or showing videos or screenshots of guns being shot is enough.
2.Edios failed to disclose those facts to the buyer.
3.The facts were material. This means that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the buyer (e.g. using a jailbroken device) would have altered their buying decision had they known about the limitation.
4.A reasonable person in Edios place would know that, absent Edios telling potential buyers, that potential buyers would have no way of easily discovering this fact on their own prior to it being publicly revealed.
5.By failing to disclose this fact, Edios induced buyers to commit to a purchase of the product that they otherwise wouldn't have because of the limitations.
6.A reasonable person would have an expectation that any limitations such as this would be disclosed. As such, they relied on Edios non-disclosure.
7.Because the person has spent their money and are now out the cost of the game, they have been harmed.
You could make that argument if it was a simple unintentional incompatibility.
You cannot however, use that argument when it is an intentional act.
damicatz is totally correct, and it would be really nice if he became a lawyer to start raising legal hell over this and practically everything else going on in this country.
Are there Android games that do the same thing with Root?
AFAIK an app cannot even tell if rooted unless it requests root privileges.
Worrying about DRM at all on a $6.99 game on a platform where a very small percentage of users even have the option to pirate software is completely silly. What Square Enix did is just nonsensically and unjustifiably stupid, and they're paying the price for it.I'm one of the "sheeple" who is willing to go along with most forms of DRM but this one is over the line.
Except that the jailbreak didn't break anything.
It did. It broke the Deus Ex game, along with several others.
You could make that argument if it was a simple unintentional incompatibility.
You cannot however, use that argument when it is an intentional act.
It did. It broke the Deus Ex game, along with several others.
No, jailbreaking didn't break the Deus Ex game for any technical reason. Eidos CHECKED for jailbreaking and broke it on purpose. There's a difference.
lol, the cracked version will probably have guns enabled.
I SMELL A LAWSUIT
My steam library is proof I'm willing to pay reasonable prices for good software, treat me like a criminal and see how much I spend on your software, LOL
Please NO ... that is the problem with the US that the first response to anything is "I'll Sue" ... there are some valid situations where severe harm is caused and financial reparations or damages are appropriate (Medical malpractice, willful physical or mental harm, grossly defective merchandise, breach of contract, etc) ... however, some of the hardware and software problems people are suing over are laughable ... let's just leave the scum sucking lawyers out of this one, shall we
Lawyers are indeed scum-sucking, and all class action lawsuits ever seem to do is feed them...but in the general sense, how do you seriously propose to hold corporations accountable for defrauding for example thousands of people in this case, or millions in other cases? This particular case involves petty damage done to each customer, and it's such a PR bust that they're probably going to have to give refunds or reverse their policy, but the general problem still applies:
Corporations get away with doing things on a MASSIVE scale that no one else could ever get away with, and there's never any real accountability or restitution. The market can put them out of business after consumers have gotten outraged enough, but by itself it can't hold people accountable to specifically repay damages done. Even when corporations do something flagrantly criminal, it's all, "Oops, it was a mistake. My bad," and they just keep on going with business as usual like nothing ever happened. The courts can railroad some "hacker" into hard time if he put a hidden address into his browser's URL field and told a journalist about the private information that came up, but they don't send corporations to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for daily abuses, and almost nothing ever happens to the executives or leading shareholders either. All of the culpability just disappears into a black hole, every time, and it adds up.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if your bar for getting the courts involved is waiting for severe harm to be done to a single party, it lets corporations get away scot-free with committing smaller abuses to a lot of customers on a regular basis. Multiply each abuse worth a few cents or a few dollars by a few thousand or a few million customers hurt or inconvenienced each time, and it really adds up...always in favor of corporations. That simply wouldn't fly if some individual "inconvenienced" several thousand or several million people at once; they'd likely be sent to prison for a decade, ESPECIALLY if they inconvenienced a corporation or institution specifically.
We're stuck in a lopsided situation where we're walked over day in and day out, but the minor harm or inconvenience done to each of us individually isn't worth the expense, hassle, and drama of making a court case out of each incident. Corporations know this, so they go as far as they can get away with, and we're expected to just lie down and take it, every time. Class action lawsuits don't directly help anyone but the scum-sucking lawyers themselves, and they generally lead to higher prices overall...but they also disadvantage more abusive companies relative to their competitors, and that's a good thing at least. There's something to say for making it more of a pain in the ass for corporations to just "do as they please" without regard for the law or their contractual obligations (which includes not defrauding customers in petty ways or skirting the terms of their contracts because it's not worth the expense of holding them accountable).
To summarize: "Yes, it's okay for corporations to screw people for $5 or $10 at a time."Again, I think it is where we set the bar ... people sued Apple when they lowered the price a few months after they bought their phone ... this problem was one game that had a negative feature that only affected a small group of people (and that they are removing) ... sometimes you get a bad purchase, that is life, you suck it up and move on ... if you feel the corporation was negligent then perhaps you give them tons of negative publicity (how many people crapped all over Blizzard publicly for the online feature they disliked, even when they refused to buy the game because of it)
I think people are getting very up in arms over $5 and $10 problems (or less) ... if we were talking about software that bricked your phone or caused hundreds or thousands of dollars of damages then I think that is a relevant lawsuit ... I think people's skins have become too thin when every bad purchase justifies a lawsuit
To summarize: "Yes, it's okay for corporations to screw people for $5 or $10 at a time."
To summarize: "Yes, it's okay for corporations to screw people for $5 or $10 at a time."
you should never resolve a criminal problem with civil damages
However, there are several problems here:That's something that should have been written into the US Constitution. It would have stopped the RIAA and MPAA cold. Too bad the founding fathers didn't see that one coming.
That's something that should have been written into the US Constitution. It would have stopped the RIAA and MPAA cold. Too bad the founding fathers didn't see that one coming.
You talk about tying up the courts with all of these class action lawsuits, but that pretty much concedes the point that corporations screwing people has become a ubiquitous phenomenon, doesn't it? Are you saying that corporations are so out of control that it would be prohibitively expensive to rein them in without serious changes to the legal system? If we were in a position to actually change the legal system, we could make room for all of these cases by summarily throwing out every case regarding software patents.
I am saying that if given the opportunity then people will sue for anything, including product delays and software bugs ... there is a very strong anti-corporate sentiment in people ... I am not as anti corporation as my entire working career has been for corporations (as a peon but still in the corporate environment) ... I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because of that ... I have also seen some ridiculous lawsuits come out which will only get worse if we make it easier
Not if the plaintiff lawyers have to foot the entire bill for class action lawsuits where the jury decides the corporation has 0% culpability.