Its not just me, games used to be better

[Albuquerque]

The difference between us is I apportion blame to both sides while you (and I see this attitude coming mainly from Americans) blame the victim (so to speak)

Are the victims the one buying the games? Who MADE them spend that money? Who forced those dollars out of their hands? What forces a game buyer to buy said game before viewing any one of dozens of reviews on YouTube which come out on the same day as the game's general public release? What exactly are gamers victims of?

I mean, if we're gonna go down the road of shitty licensing and "you don't own what you buy" then I'm onboard for some torches and pitchforks. But if you bought a shitty game, and you had lots of ways to know it was shitty before you bought it, then who victimized you when you bought a known-bad product?

"Oh I'm so tired of NBA 2kwhatever, I should go ahead and preorder NBA 2k25 for $89 just to see if it's different!!!"

 

[Davros]

Who forced those dollars out of their hands?

and who forced the company to make a shit game
I'm sure scammers the world over will be thanking you for that legal defence "My client never forced anyone to hand over money ladies and gentlemen of the jury therefore you should find them not guilty"

 

[Albuquerque]

and who forced the company to make a shit game

Why is "force" any sort of requirement to this question? Howabout this: why does any one person make a shit decision on any given day? They decided to leave the house but locked themselves out -- a clearly shit decision. Who forced that decision? Or was it lack of knowledge? Lack of awareness? Lack of motivation? Lack of foresight? Lack of hindsight?

Is the game shit because it doesn't even run? Or it runs but it deletes your entire hard drive? Or it runs, doesn't delete your data, but instead opens a directly accessible port on your home firewall so remote attackers can hop straight in and hax0r all your stuff? All of these seem like qualities where lawsuits would solve the problem quite easily. Legal protections from defective products or product malfeasance is pretty well known at this point; I have to assume we aren't talking about these particular types of shit games.

So then, whose definition are we using for "shit" in this scenario? What is the metric we're using to measure "shittiness"? Is there a singular authority who declares one game to be shit and everyone sorta nods their heads and agrees? How does cost come into play for determination of shit-level?

Unequivocally, there are shit games in this world, and there are good games in this world. Your definition of shit, and my definition of shit, and Nesh's definition of shit, may be closely aligned on most topics, but I wager there's a few games you like that I don't -- just like there's a few games I like that you don't -- and the same probably goes for Nesh's taste in games too.

Nevertheless, we agree there are shit games. However, unlike you, I don't believe someone sets out to purposefully create a shit game.(*) There's no force which makes a company create a shit game, exactly like there's no force which requires any person to purchase any game.

You'll need to explain to me why anyone, corporate or personal, is "forced" to do anything with a game. Either a company sells it, or they don't. Either a person buys it, or they don't.

I'm sure scammers the world over will be thanking you for that legal defence "My client never forced anyone to hand over money ladies and gentlemen of the jury therefore you should find them not guilty"

I think you've strawmanned something here. If the game is truly defective, like one of the contrived examples I gave above, then the legal precident is quite clear and your strawman never applies. This has been repeatedly proven in court, and for you to bring it up reeks of bad faith argument. If you're truly worried about such things, then buy the game on a platform which supports returns (thanks, Valve!) or with a payment method that supports revoking the charge. Yeah, I get it, not everyone on the planet has one of these two abilities and that sucks -- I bet those people are a little more careful about who they give money to.

Alas, never in this entire topic has a truly defective game been a conversation point, until you decided to bring it up. So far, this entire conversation has been about "bad" games, ones with weak or no narrative, repetitive or reductive gameplay mechanics, without clear delineation from one prequel to the successor sequel.

And until someone can define "shittiness" in quantitative terms, we're not going to find a way to return a game on the premises of "well the story was weak and the controls are sloppy."

You know what's really interesting about all of us old folks, sitting on this forum, talking about shitty games? There's a few hundred thousand (millions?) of younger people on this planet who are liking -- nay, loving -- those things we are decrying as shitty. Call of Modern Brotherly Metal Dooty Ops Remaster 7? OH HELL YES GIMMIE GIMMIE. /them, probably.

Who are we to say it's shitty?

(*) I am aware there exist scam examples of those ripoff, pay-to-play-to-win games online which are certainly scummy even scammy. There have been SO MANY LAWSUITS against those types of scam games, and at this point the knowledge is absolutely out there. If you can't be bothered to learn, then you're destined to get taken advantage of. Fortunately nearly all of those are paid for via credit card, and credit cards are pretty damned good at revoking fraudulent charges. And it wouldn't be the first time a bank sued a scam company after enough revocations because the scam was costing the bank money.

 

[Nesh]

Being able to control your impulses and, instead, use higher brain functions to foster a thought is (ostensibly) what separates us from primates and other random animals. If a person is unable to disentangle themselves from their knee-jerk reactions, then how conscious are they really? I doubt we're ready to take this thread into the psychology of consciousness, however suffice it to say "I just followed my impulses" has never been an acceptable defense for bad actions in a court of law. There's a reason for that.

If people cannot control themselves (due to unwillingness or inabilithy) then they get what they ultimately deserve. And if enough people are unable to control themselves to form some sort of majority, then all of society gets to abide by the bad decisions. And at that point, what are you going to do? Sure, we can all complain on the internet, but it doesn't get far when a majority of society decides they want the impulsive decisions (however disingenuous or even harmful to themselves it might be) to win. This topic has some interesting parallels to the recent US elections, if I may say so.

The point remains: no matter if they're impulsive animals or just want to spend too much money on a shit game, gamers continue to spend too much money on shit games. There's literally zero incentive for those companies crapping out those shit games to change when the money continues to be made. And it's not like there's some other external mechanism (government, parliament, alien invasion, mobsters, cronies, whatever) to force those game manufacturers to change either.

Until the consumer changes behavior, the companies will continue to cater to the decisions of the masses. Companies follow the money, or they cease to exist.

Blaming solely the individual and "voting with your money" has been a great propaganda by politicians and companies to avoid accountability of their actions. The fact that you are using it shows that even you, yourself have no full agency and you are not fully aware, even if you think otherwise. We are all in many ways programmed and unaware.

Humans are not Gods that could simply switch to full awareness and rational beings. If that was the case we would have been Buddhas or perfect versions of ourselves because ultimately that's what people would want by simply pressing a button. You are living in a society that promotes constantly the opposite and bombards your impulses, wants you to be unaware, bets on the sense of insecurities and weaknesses. It culturally wants you to be in a state of frivolous consumption because that's where the money is and that's how the economy maintains itself. It cannibalizes those that are living from it. There are more negative influences starting from young age to keep you in that state than there a culture that wants to create the best version of you. Most people barely have a guide in life to know where they are heading and before they know it they are lost in shit

Some people think they found a good role model because they have nothing to compare it with. This is what gave rise to scummers like Andrew Tate.

Companies know for example that the sooner you get a person consuming your Junk food (i.e babies or toddlers) the more programmed they are to be consumers forever and the harder it will be to avoid their poisons. Hence why at sone point they invented the idea to print refreshment drink brands on baby bottles. Guess what happened. Before, no parent would ever think of feeding Fanta or 7up or Pepsi or Cola their babies and toddlers. After that it became engraved as normal and kids were fed sugar poison from baby and toddler ages. That became a solution for poorer families too who had less money for baby formulas and that appeared as a "normal" way to pacify their kids. These kids became the sugary consumers of the future,with a brain of a cocaine addict.

You are a programmable organism, whose more than 90% of its brain processes are in the unconscious and subconscious, with impulses, traumas, socially programmable experiences, socially programmable information (or lack of information), socially programmable education etc. That's where companies and politicians are betting their money. The whole concept of social media, junk food and entertainment is built around this. You become their consumer without even realizing it.

To gain agency you first have to be aware that you are unaware, you need to see or experience something that contrasts what you think is the "normal" and it needs unbelievable effort to gradually gain control, which is harder the more and longer the person has been lost in the negative situations.

It's time we stop throwing the blame 100% on the individual.

Even the addicts that realized their state and made the decisions to change found tremendous challenge and easier to succumb to older habits the more they were lost in them previously, with many failing despite how much they wanted it.

 

[Albuquerque]

Blaming solely the individual and "voting with your money" has been a great propaganda by politicians and companies to avoid accountability of their actions. The fact that you are using it shows that even you, yourself have no full agency and you are not fully aware, even if you think otherwise. We are all in many ways programmed and unaware.

I mean, it's literally the cornerstone of capitalism. But sure, I guess I have no "agency" because a guy on the internet told me so.

Humans are not Gods that could simply switch to full awareness and rational beings. If that was the case we would have been Buddhas or perfect versions of ourselves because ultimately that's what people would want by simply pressing a button.

And now you're straw-manning it like Davros does. Nobody turns into a god, or into buddha, by controlling their impulses. It makes you a polite member of society when you don't just reach over and slap the shit out of someone who you think deserves it. it also makes you a polite member of society when you don't deficate in the subway just because you had to go. This is one of the core, fundamental things we teach our children as parents -- just because you WANT to do a thing, doesn't mean you should.

Nobody in this thread, including me, was talking about god(s). Stop with the strawmen if you want to make a reasonable argument.

Some people think they found a good role model because they have nothing to compare it with. This is what gave rise to scummers like Andrew Tate.

Are we gonna talk about shit games, or bad role models? By the way, if it helps, we agree on the topic of Andrew Tate. Funny enough, what makes him a shit person is acting on his dumbass impulses and not acting like a member of society. That still makes him accountable for his dumbass actions, and those people who follow him are also just as accountable. You can't blame it on X for giving him a platform (and, if we're on this side-tangent, X and Elon can also die in a fire, but I digress...)

Companies know for example that the sooner you get a person consuming your Junk food (i.e babies or toddlers) the more programmed they are to be consumers forever and the harder it will be to avoid their poisons.

I get that people "become addicted" to various things in various ways, but that's not the topic. The topic, again, is someone's perception that video games have become shit. The topic is not chronic electronic addictions. If we're going to talk about addicts, then ultimately users don't give a shit if they are consuming horrible or wonderful products -- they just need to consume to get their high in whatever method. And yet, at the very VERY beginning of that addiction, came a decision by that person to do some dumb shit.

You know what's great about so many of the Nordic countries? When addicts become addicted, who do they treat? The dealers? Nope, they treat the individuals and help them identify and resolve the root cause of their addiction. It turns out those countries have amazingly low recidivism rates, because they're not out trying to solve all the other dumb shit - they're solving the actual root cause which is the individual person who made the bad decision.

You are a programmable organism, whose more than 90% of its brain processes are in the unconscious and subconscious...

Ok, so we're way off track here.

The topic is Shit games. Empirically provable outcome: as long as people buy them, more will be made. This is inarguable.

In your next reply, suggest a solution that you think might solve this "shit games" problem. Or don't, I suppose, and just jump on the bandwagon of bitching that will solve literally nothing and shit games will forever continue to be made.

For the record, I've repeatedly said there are a TON of non-shit games in the world. The original post was complaining about remasters and the umpteenth version of a series, to which I feel I correctly pointed out: STOP BUYING THE SAME DUMB SHIT. Do you disagree? And if so, why?

 

[Davros]

Why is "force" any sort of requirement to this question?

I dont know have you considered asking the person who introduced "force" into the discussion

Who forced those dollars out of their hands?

then the legal precident is quite clear and your strawman never applies.

Ah, your doing the same thing as johhny awesome did when he claimed it was my fault ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew "it's the victims fault not the perpetrators, wait dont strawman me of course if it's a crime then it's the perpetrators fault but if it's not illegal then it's the victims fault"
I'm not straw manning you, you absolutely are trying to make the argument that it's ok because they never forced the money out of peoples hands

Alas, never in this entire topic has a truly defective game been a conversation point, until you decided to bring it up.

Are you confusing me with someone else? can you provide a quote where I brought it up ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This thread turned serious real quick!

 

[see colon]

This thread turned serious real quick!

It's not just me, threads used to be a lot less serious.

 

[cheapchips]

With Half-Life 2's 20th anniversary, it raises the spectre that every first person shooter has to compete with both the nostalgia and the fact that it's still really good.

Production design, game design and the technology were all approached with a level of care most titles don't even reach for.

If you've read/listened to anything about it's production, the power of play testing is called out again and again.

 

[Davros]

If by some kind of miracle you dont own Half Life 2 it's so cheap it's more or less free on steam until the 22nd of Nov

Save 90% on Half-Life 2 on Steam

1998. HALF-LIFE sends a shock through the game industry with its combination of pounding action and continuous, immersive storytelling. Valve's debut title wins more than 50 game-of-the-year awards on its way to being named "Best PC Game Ever" by PC Gamer, and launches a franchise with more than...

store.steampowered.com

 

[Albuquerque]

I dont know have you considered asking the person who introduced "force" into the discussion

You kept talking about people being victimized, which is near-always the result of someone being forced into a position. You can tell me a different version of "victimization" if you like...

Ah, your doing the same thing as johhny awesome did when he claimed it was my fault ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew "it's the victims fault not the perpetrators, wait dont strawman me of course if it's a crime then it's the perpetrators fault but if it's not illegal then it's the victims fault"

Again, we're very far off from where the topic began. I went back through this thread and found no chat about fully disabling games, or games which stop working, until you wanted to use it as a retort to me. The original topic was "shit games" in the context of games which apparently the OP doesn't find fun, either because of bland gameplay, or lack of story, or a boring "shitty" story, or lack of novelty in design or method or approach or whatever.

If you'd like to create a new topic about games being turned off after being purchased, which follows a lot of the same lines as some of the shitty licensing practices we've all railed against, then please create a new threads for that topic and stop conflating that problem with this one.

I'm not straw manning you, you absolutely are trying to make the argument that it's ok because they never forced the money out of peoples hands

No, I've not said that taking money for a truly defective game that was turned off was "ok". Yet again I have to remind you: this topic was never about games literally stopping functionality, and you were the first and only one to bring up this topic only after some sort of "oooooh I'm going to make sure Albuquerque is WRRROOOONNNG" attempt which has since failed. If you want to talk about games being turned off after purchase, then post it in a new thread.

Are you confusing me with someone else? can you provide a quote where I brought it up ?

You brought up this hypothetical situation right here:

I'm sure scammers the world over will be thanking you for that legal defence "My client never forced anyone to hand over money ladies and gentlemen of the jury therefore you should find them not guilty"

Literally the only way your contrived example shows up in court is if the software is actually defective, which is (again) not what this thread is about. The thread is about "shitty games", in the context of a number of very general complaints the original poster made, and none of the OP's complaints have any sway in a legal proceeding. "Oh I don't like this story" isn't something you can sue over. If you want to talk about the very grey area of being able to return an electronic purchase, I'd suggest opening a new thread for that too (as it is directly related to licensing issues.)

I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Nesh: In your next reply, suggest a solution that you think might solve this "shit games" problem. Or don't, I suppose, and just jump on the bandwagon of bitching that will solve literally nothing and shit games will forever continue to be made.

 

[Davros]

You kept talking about people being victimized, which is near-always the result of someone being forced into a position. You can tell me a different version of "victimization" if you like...

I will. I use the word victim because it's easier to type than "person who was wronged" also people who buy a fake/faulty product or fell victim to a scam are you claiming those people are not victims or are you claiming they were forced to buy the fake product or fall for the scam ect because if your doing neither of them then your assertion that victims are nearly always forced is just wrong.

No, I've not said that taking money for a truly defective game that was turned off was "ok".

I dont know why you posted that all I did was claim it was you who introduced the word "forced" into the conversation after you asked me why i used the word "forced"

Literally the only way your contrived example shows up in court is if the software is actually defective, which is (again) not what this thread is about.

you took the position it's ok because nobody forced the money out of peoples hands I just gave an example showing how ridiculous the position is I think i later pointed out when you objected that you are now taking a similar position to someone I was arguing with about the Crew with, that it's ok as long as it doesnt involve the law. Games companies didnt force the money out of anybody's hands so it's ok but people in a court that who also didnt force the money out of anybody's hands are not ok so you switched from its ok to it's only ok if its not a crime. just like the person from the crew argument whos position was it's the victims fault except when its a crime.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Nesh: In your next reply,

Challenge accepted :
Ban eula's, make software a product that you own , enforce the sale of goods act and apply it to software
specifically
For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
*note: not all will apply to software
also the trading standards website says you should contact them if : (among other things)
a company tried to stop you using your legal rights - for example, they said you can’t return faulty goods (should i report valve for trying to stop me suing them ?)

There you go Albuqerque - job done

ps: Albuqerque is really un natural to type so I have declared that from now on you shall be known as "New Mexico"

 

[Albuquerque]

I will. I use the word victim because it's easier to type than "person who was wronged" also people who buy a fake/faulty product or fell victim to a scam are you claiming those people are not victims or are you claiming they were forced to buy the fake product or fall for the scam ect because if your doing neither of them then your assertion that victims are nearly always forced is just wrong.

Ok, let's use this version of victim.

Do you remember the original post? Did you read it? Let me help you with a bunch of random quotes to set the context (none of these quotes are you nor I nor Nesh

My guess is that as technology and tools has gotten better, you dont have to rely as much on artistical skill and technical know how to get something to look good. To get something to look decent is pretty easy. In the old days you had to rely on technical and artist skill and hence older stuff in many ways look way better. Arkham knights vs gotham knights, halo 1 och 3 vs halo infinite etc. Maybe most people think someling looks better if its shiny so they cant tell the difference.

Yeah, thats what Im seeing also. The talented ones, the passionate nerds (meant in a good way), who created these IPs have started working on other stuff, and the new developers lack the insight/talent/understanding of what made the originals great in the first place.

There's just something about newer games that I just don't like, like they've lost that special thing that makes them games.

I think games are better but its harder to show something new/groundbreaking

I could never understand people saying that there is no change. It would be same if you said that the music and movies are of the same quality as 80s and 90s stuff, it's just your age. I couldn't disagree more. We really did have a golden age of console AND pc gaming...

It was the hardware limitations that lead developers to come up with creative solutions to solving hardware limitations, and this positively affected game design choices and meant they had to place more emphasis on story telling and gameplay mechanics.

Look at all of those quotes -- actually look at them! In what part of the original post, or even the entire first page of this topic, was anyone EVER talking about "scam" games? They're talking about artistic quality, and gameplay mechanics, and whatever sort of "magic" captures our attention and our imaginations and our hearts.

You've become so dead-set on this vendetta against scams, and yet this thread was never about scams. It was about shitty games, and the OP was reasonably specific in defining their thoughts around what they were talking about -- and they weren't talking about scams. And a whole lot of participants in this thread figured out that context, but somehow not you? Yup, I introduced "Forced" into the conversation as a rebuttal against your misplaced claim of "victimization", and you've introduced "Scams" into the conversation based on -- what exactly? We weren't talking about that.

The entire rest of your post was about scams and somehow straw-manning me into defending them. I'm not defending anything, and very certainly not scams, because that's not what we were talking about. I am saying that shitty games (NOT scams) will continue to persist until people stop buying them. At the same time, I also said I think there's a ton of great games in the world today, and even some of the ones many of us probably think might be shitty are also likely favorites of another set of consumers.

So, back to the magic of games, and not scams: what's your recommendation for the gaming industry to get past "shitty" games? Several of your thoughts could apply to shitty games I suppose, but then we get into the paradox of "is a purchased thing allowed to be returned when you can make a flawless digital copy of it without affecting the original?" Which really gets back to licensing issues, rather than fixing the crux of "shitty" games.

Also, LOL at New Mexico I think in the past you've called me Alby, and that works too.

 

[Davros]

what's your recommendation for the gaming industry to get past "shitty" games?

I told you ban eula's make games a product you own and enforce the sale of goods act

I think in the past you've called me Alby,

I've also decided Orangelupa shall now be known as "Loopy" - much easier to spell, and it's fitting because he's as nutty as a fruit cake

 

[Albuquerque]

Alright, let's talk about the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 (I'm gonna refer to this as SoGA.) Which, by the way, was superceded by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 (and I"m gonna refer to this as CRA.) Which, also by the way, already covers digital content. In fact, if you click that link, the very first example of digital content which is covered by the CRA is Video Games! Even better, the second example of digital content which is covered by the CRA is virtual items purchased within video games! I didn't know about either of these acts until you mentioned it, so I had about 30 minutes of Google time to read through a bunch (mostly the CRA as digital things weren't even around for the original SoGA.)

The CRA calls out areas where consumers are covered: the goods must be of satisfactory quality, the goods are fit for particular purpose, and are as described. The UK and US both appear to use the same legal concept of "Would a reasonable person..." when trying to qualify those three items. When qualifying quality, they focus on the actual delivered item matching a given description, some amount of "reasonable" weight to the price paid for the item, and what they call "relevant circumstances" related to how the item was marketed and labeled.

A few excerpts I found interesting:

Quality does not include the consumer's subjective judgements, such as whether they liked a downloaded piece of music or not.

Most computer systems' software, games and apps have minor defects that are corrected over time with fixes or upgrades. Therefore a 'reasonable person' might expect the defects to be present and judge any items containing them to be of satisfactory quality.

These two items seem to fly in the face of the CRA / SoGA helping us fight "shitty games", as those complaints would undoubtedly be categorized as the customer's subjective judgements about artistic value, or gameplay mechanics, or novel storytelling. Of course, the CRA / SoGA absolutely protects against scamware, however scamware isn't something we were talking about in this thread.

Another interesting tidbit: the CRA considers future updates as part of the original media, so if a game (whether shitty or not) worked fine until an update totally b0rks it, then you're still covered (*):

If the original contract for the supply of digital content allows the trader or a third party to modify that content (for example, software upgrades, fixing minor glitches, etc) then the contract's terms regarding quality, fitness for a particular purpose and description apply equally to the modified digital content as they did to that supplied after the original contract.

(*) There are time limits to that coverage, and the CRA says it's six years.

It is important to note that any claim as to statutory requirements not being met (for example, an upgrade that was not of satisfactory quality) would be treated as having occurred at the date of the original contract for supply and not the modification date. The importance of this is in relation to the six-year time limit that applies for breach of contract claims to be made (see 'Time limits for court action' below).

In summary: the SoGA was superceded (not replaced) by the CRA, and the CRA already covers video games from the essential "scam" perspectives. However, neither appear to have any meaningful impact on avoiding "shitty games" in the context of this thread topic.

Do you disagree? What were the specific parts of the CRA you thought didn't apply? Or do you think more provisions should be made, and how would those additional provisions help avoid shitty games?

 

[Davros]

First off my definition of "shitty games" isnt based on I dont like the gameplay, it's based on bugs.
I dont think that the following clauses are being enforced

• fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied
• freedom from minor defects

Also this not being enforced
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 also covers the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. For more information please see 'Unfair contract terms'. (wouldnt be an issue if eula's were banned)
Also eula's should be banned and software should be considered as a product that you own

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not really enforced. If you have issue with Sony selling a bugged game online, you have to plead your case for a refund, and they'll drag their feet. Needs some court action on digital content because sellers have managed to skirt around Digital Goods on copyright grounds for too long.

 

[see colon]

It's not really enforced. If you have issue with Sony selling a bugged game online, you have to plead your case for a refund, and they'll drag their feet. Needs some court action on digital content because sellers have managed to skirt around Digital Goods on copyright grounds for too long.

Is it worse that Sony sold an online game that, by all accounts, wasn't very buggy by modern terms, and then forcefully removed it from everyone's digital library who bought it and returned their money?

 

[Albuquerque]

I dont think that the following clauses are being enforced

• fitness for all the purposes for which digital content of that kind is usually supplied
• freedom from minor defects

Cool. Let's start withi fitness for purpose -- how do you feel that clause applies specifically to video games? What examples can we think about when discussing how games may not be fit for purpose?

The freedom from minor defects does get interesting. Just starting with the language "minor defects" means we're now into the legal concept of "Would a reasonable person..." which means, if it goes all the way to trial, a jury would have to make that decision. I do agree corporations seem to get away with a lot of bullshit in this space, mostly because they can pay the necessary money to stymie legal proceedings. At the same time, the UK and EU have been pivotal in a number of these sorts of cases, moreso than the even worse legal situation which exists in the US. Do you have any top of mind examples where this "minor defects" clause was brought up by consumers but slapped down by a court?

Also this not being enforced

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 also covers the use of unfair terms in consumer contracts. For more information please see 'Unfair contract terms'. (wouldnt be an issue if eula's were banned)
Also eula's should be banned and software should be considered as a product that you own

At a very base level, I agree EULAs usually contain a lot of bullshit. At the same time, physical assets are fundamentally not the same as digital assets and the people who legally and rightfully create the content deserve to be protected accordingly.

If you buy a physical thing, you cannot make an exact copy of that thing and then either return the original or resell the copies. Creators, manufacturers and even resellers of physical items (to include yourself if you're on a marketplace website) can generally depend on physical scarcity to ensure their items aren't being copied and resold. However, if you buy a digital thing, you CAN make a perfect copy of it, and you CAN (potentially) return the original for your money back and/or resell the copies. This is a very real difference between physical and digital assets, and it's not contestable. There's no scarcity in equipment or materials or labor in copying a digital thing, you just... do. And now there's as many of them as you want.

I get that none of us like EULA shit, but we also have to A: admit that digital assets very much are different than physical assets, and B: have to figure out how to fairly protect digital asset creation in the same way we protect physical asset creation. Any thoughts there?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A major issue with software is it isn't bug free and can't be as it's too complex. If the law only allowed for bug-free software, nothing would get released. As such it might violate the word of the law but I don't think any judge would enforce a zero tolerance on any and all bugs. A such, the 'minor defects' clause would be dependent on a subjective rating on the degree of defects, and really only leant on when somewhat major, I expect.