Should there be official regulation of game updates?

[novcze]

Let's retread the steps. novcze raised Singstar but didn't explain what his issue was. I was aware Singstar had slotted itself in the PS3 games list because I've seen it there but I wasn't aware of the apparent controversy surrounding it. Certainly based on my experience, and that's I'm ever going to post on, it is non-intrusive. You can see my typical experience in the video I posted. I'm not getting it be the default icon on startup, nor quitting from a game/app back to the XMB. For me, it's not intrusive. I didn't say he or anybody else was lying. novcze getting a different experience to me is certainly interesting, but doesn't change my perspective, nor does it mean I'm suggesting others are not being truthful.

I'm sure I explained what is my issue with Singstar, at least I linked to 81 page Singstar forum thread full of issues.

I also posted video where you can see two things:
- booting into default Games list icon, which is Singstar
- Singstar icon being displayed after removing disc from the tray (I wasn't precise when I wrote that is displayed after you exit the game back to XMB)

If you have no game disk in, ordinary behaviour for PS3 is to boot to the game list with Singstar selected. Your boot video didn't default to game which is surprising, but Network. I guess that's something to do with PS+ and the updates listed on start?

Nothing to do with PS+, if you want "What's New" section to be displayed after boot you can set this in System Settings



As for solution, I would keep things simple for legislation, custumers and producer.

For example PS4, now is after release in some functional state with some features on board (play games, blu-ray/dvd, party chat, etc.) and that's it. Features and UI and overall user experience should not change without user agreement and right to go back to original experience. Even if you buy console two years after launch, you should get same base experience as day 1 after launch of the console.

Firmware updates should be here only for security or bug fixes, not to add new features that can change user experience. For that producer can introduce new category in their Online Store. You want mp3 playback? ...here, download this software module from our Store is here for free (or maybe some microtransaction?), don't like its price? ... don't download, don't like its functionality? ... just uninstall this module from your console, plain and simple.
Shouldn't be difficult for government to mandate this through legislation.

 

[-tkf-]

Don't know if this is the right thread, but gt5 is losing online may 2014, crazy shit if the seasonal challenges goes away that's what kept the game alive to me. Not to mention online racing of course..

I wonder if they will pull back all the gt5 games on shelves that promotes online features..

Along with a bunch of other games getting killed..
http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/support/games/detail/item97821/Support-for-online-game-features/

 

[LeeC22]

Quite strange that I have come across this thread, as I have just raised something very similar to my MP. The issue isn't game related, it is related to the Sony Xperia Tablet Z, and the update to Android 4.3... which is in line with the Smart TV thing mentioned.

When the update appears on your screen, they give you very little info about what the update is going to do. Instead, they tell you to go to this page for more info http://sonymobile.com/update For the tablet I own, this is the relevant page you end up on http://www.sonymobile.com/gb/software/tablets/xperia-tablet-z-wifi/

Notice it says "There are many new features etc..." and list 5 vague features. What they don't mention, is the things they have taken out, which for my money, left me with a lesser device than I purchased... much like the PS3 Linux issue. They removed the ability to do a hardware based screengrab, something I use a lot. They also removed the quick launch icons on the home page. They mention this improved Battery mode, yet a couple of nights after the update, I put my tablet on charge. At 2:30 am, it was on 30%, at 9:30am, it was on 92%. That's 60% of charge, in seven hours. That isn't what I had a hands on demo of in John Lewis. That isn't what I made my decision to purchase based on, but that's what I have now got.

The basis of my letter was that this kind of updating, is essentially undermining consumer rights. How can you deem a product "fit for purpose" at the point of purchase, when you have no idea that it can be negatively changed from that down the line? When I contacted consumer advice when the PS3 issue happened, their reply was basically "You signed the agreement, so tough". But how can it be accepted, that you agreed to terms and conditions, that in the case of this tablet update, were never fully disclosed? Would a contract in any other fashion stand up, if it said "we've made some changes that we're not telling you about, so sign here to agree"? What good is a lengthy EULA, if it mentions nothing about what is changing?

I am sure the retailer will argue, that the product I now own, is not the one they sold me. I personally think they have every right to do that, they didn't change the product. You can't even roll back the firmware, because Sony make it almost impossible to do so, without warranty voiding action. So from what I can see, agreeing to that agreement, takes away our right to a product that is "fit for purpose", and I think we should have some protection against that. These are £400 devices after all. I have had a reply from my MP, thanking me for bringing it to his attention, and telling me that he will look into it. He usually keeps his word, so it will be interesting to see what he comes back with.

Sorry for the vast post, but I think it is relevant to the matter under discussion.

 

[tuna]

They also changed the keyboard. It is much crappier now!

 

[menmau]

I boot into "What's New" section, but prior Singstar update I always booted into the Games list part of the XMB where SingStar is now default icon.

Also if you remove blu-ray disc from the tray, you will end up with Singstar icon on your screen, I made quick worst case scenario video (sorry for quality it's made with phone).

I´ve just got a new SS, and I confirm this annoying issue.
At first I looked how could I disable it, but it seems there is no way to do it.

 

[LeeC22]

Just wanted to post a quick update on this, as I had something sent to me that is relevant.

After sending my MP a letter, he in turn sent a letter to the Rt Hon Vince Cable... who actually replied. Apparently, numerous changes are in the process of going through the motions, in the Consumer Rights Bill. Rather than me detail things , I'll just post a link to the bill in question.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/consumerrights.html

 

[Davros]

"You signed the agreement, so tough"

Did you actually sign an agreement ? or was it a bit of text that said youve entered one
I think that should be illegal,
example: I sell radios and in the box is a piece of paper saying "by using this radio you agree I own your house" do I own your house ?
this idea that because a piece of paper or text says something its legal needs to die

A similar thing is now happening in the real world, liverpool airport carpark there is a sign saying "by using this carpark you are entering a contract. it was in my local paper someone stopped for 34 seconds to read the sign was was sent a bill for £100
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/fury-liverpool-john-lennon-airport-6737717

He said: “They had some little signs up on the lamp posts saying you are entering into a contract. But if you slow down to read them you get fined.”

The consumer website MoneySavingExpert.com said when a parking ticket from a private organisation lands on your doorstep you should not confuse it with an official fine.

They advise: “Don’t ever think of private parking tickets as ‘fines’. They’re not. These companies have no official right to fine you, though they may try to make you think they do.”

 

[pcchen]

Did you actually sign an agreement ? or was it a bit of text that said youve entered one
I think that should be illegal,
example: I sell radios and in the box is a piece of paper saying "by using this radio you agree I own your house" do I own your house ?
this idea that because a piece of paper or text says something its legal needs to die

Do you mean contracts need to die?
IANAL, but I believe something like your example has already been discussed to death by lawyers. Your example would be unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Do you mean contracts need to die?
IANAL, but I believe something like your example has already been discussed to death by lawyers. Your example would be unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

Davros's issue isn't with contracts, but with uninformed 'terms and agreements' that assume acceptance, where at time the second party involved hasn't even had a chance to read the T&C to decide if they want to sign up to the contract or not. As for unenforceable terms, although it's true that a contract doesn't give one limitless powers, the fact that companies keep trying to squeeze unfair terms in there shows they'll happily push the law and get whatever they can. If someone's too naive to know they're protected, the company will happily take their house as part of an unfair, unenforceable contract.

IMO the contract should be described within the limits of the law, rather than the "you sign away everything to us. This contract is legal and binding except where any point isn't, and in such cases, only that point is nullified and the rest of the contract still stands." If you're paying lawyers to do legal work, they should be able to draw up a contract within the legal limits.

Although ultimately I'd like to see a consumer contract, wherein the companies are held just as the consumers are. Defective work will be recompensed and fixed; there'll be no more falsely represented products with incomplete features charging people on a hope that one day the product will serve as advertised.

 

[pcchen]

Davros's issue isn't with contracts, but with uninformed 'terms and agreements' that assume acceptance, where at time the second party involved hasn't even had a chance to read the T&C to decide if they want to sign up to the contract or not. As for unenforceable terms, although it's true that a contract doesn't give one limitless powers, the fact that companies keep trying to squeeze unfair terms in there shows they'll happily push the law and get whatever they can. If someone's too naive to know they're protected, the company will happily take their house as part of an unfair, unenforceable contract.

But this is not a problem of law, it's a problem of the justice system. Right now the justice system is too expensive for normal people thus large businesses have a unfair advantage. If everyone have the same access to the justice system (which it should be), bad contracts wouldn't be a problem.

IMO the contract should be described within the limits of the law, rather than the "you sign away everything to us. This contract is legal and binding except where any point isn't, and in such cases, only that point is nullified and the rest of the contract still stands." If you're paying lawyers to do legal work, they should be able to draw up a contract within the legal limits.

Again, IANAL but AFAIK contracts already have to be within the limits of the law. You can't make a contract that's illegal (e.g. if you murder someone then I'll forfeit your debts). Normally things are more complicated than that, of course, but again that's why we have a justice system, and why the law is not a fixed thing.

Although ultimately I'd like to see a consumer contract, wherein the companies are held just as the consumers are. Defective work will be recompensed and fixed; there'll be no more falsely represented products with incomplete features charging people on a hope that one day the product will serve as advertised.

I think this is more a problem of perception rather than a problem of the law. People like to compare games with other products such as cars, but the matter of fact is that most games are much cheaper than a car, and it's really not that reasonable to expect the same level of assurance when you are not really paying that much money for something, and the situation is not improving as more games are going the free to play route. Not to mention that games are generally much more complex than normal electrical appliances such as a electrical fan.

Personally I don't like to see laws to be more complicate than necessary. Sometimes people see something bad and want change right away, in many case it just makes things worse. For example, if you put more limitation on EULA for games, it'd be more difficult and more expensive for independent game developers to adhere to these rules, and the results could very well be that only large game developers can afford making games. That wouldn't be good for gamers.

For example, some countries require all games to be rated by a certified rating agency. Since it can be expensive and time consuming for a game to be rated, smaller game developers just opt to pass on these markets. This is ultimately bad for gamers in these countries, although such laws was supposedly for protecting consumers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Again, IANAL but AFAIK contracts already have to be within the limits of the law. You can't make a contract that's illegal

You can draft a contract for anything, but a court may decide it's not legally enforceable. So a company can state in the T&Cs, "opening this box to read these instructions is considered acceptance of this contract, and you agree to sign over all IP that you use our software with to us in perpetuity yada yada," which is of course unlawful and unenforcible, but there's nothing to stop companies using such terms to try and spook ordinary Joes into compliance.

If you look at any T&Cs, often enough you'll find a clause something like "where one or more of these terms are not legally enforceable, only that clause is to be ignored," which is an outright admission that, "our contract might not be at all legally enforceable and we're just crapping out a wishlist of everything we want; we'll leave it to the judges to decide if we're being unfair or not." IMO the contract should be drafted with a clear understanding of the statutory regulations of contract law and not ask anything that said contract law does not allow, such as unfair claims.

I think this is more a problem of perception rather than a problem of the law. People like to compare games with other products such as cars, but the matter of fact is that most games are much cheaper than a car, and it's really not that reasonable to expect the same level of assurance when you are not really paying that much money for something, and the situation is not improving as more games are going the free to play route.

I was thinking more about productivity software. But game or not, if you pay for it, it should do what it was advertised to do. Free to play games of course don't need to offer any assurances as no contract of commerce has been entered into. Consumer law is pretty strong in the EU though, and, as long as you stick to your guns, you can probably take a defective game back for a refund. Where things get tricky is this thread's topic, where a product is no longer the same as the one you bought. You don't have recourse to take a game back to the shop after two months for a refund when its changed into a game you no longer enjoy, for example.

 

[pcchen]

You can draft a contract for anything, but a court may decide it's not legally enforceable. So a company can state in the T&Cs, "opening this box to read these instructions is considered acceptance of this contract, and you agree to sign over all IP that you use our software with to us in perpetuity yada yada," which is of course unlawful and unenforcible, but there's nothing to stop companies using such terms to try and spook ordinary Joes into compliance.

If you look at any T&Cs, often enough you'll find a clause something like "where one or more of these terms are not legally enforceable, only that clause is to be ignored," which is an outright admission that, "our contract might not be at all legally enforceable and we're just crapping out a wishlist of everything we want; we'll leave it to the judges to decide if we're being unfair or not." IMO the contract should be drafted with a clear understanding of the statutory regulations of contract law and not ask anything that said contract law does not allow, such as unfair claims.

Well, that's just the standard legal protection, because laws are different in different territories, and laws change. A clause legal in one country could be illegal in another, or in the future. It'd be impractical that if a clause is somehow invalidated by some new laws, invalidates the entire contract (you'd have to stop using the product, seek refunds, or sign a new contract). This does not imply that there must be something sinister in the contract.

I was thinking more about productivity software. But game or not, if you pay for it, it should do what it was advertised to do. Free to play games of course don't need to offer any assurances as no contract of commerce has been entered into. Consumer law is pretty strong in the EU though, and, as long as you stick to your guns, you can probably take a defective game back for a refund. Where things get tricky is this thread's topic, where a product is no longer the same as the one you bought. You don't have recourse to take a game back to the shop after two months for a refund when its changed into a game you no longer enjoy, for example.

But this really has nothing to do with contracts. Actually, contract could protect you from it (e.g. a standard form contract for software with focus on consumer protection, maybe).

Of course, the problem of software updates is a very difficult one. For example, supposed that a software with a certain feature which becomes illegal in a country, should the software publisher be able to force an update taking out that feature?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, that's just the standard legal protection,...

But it's not used as such. That is, T&Cs are drafted with unlawful clauses, on the day of their creation, and not just are rendered unlawful over time thanks to changing legislation. It's those obvious unlawful T&Cs ("all your IP are belong to us") that shouldn't be put in in the first place, and show lawyers trying trick people rather than protect themselves legitimately and fairly.

Of course, the problem of software updates is a very difficult one. For example, supposed that a software with a certain feature which becomes illegal in a country, should the software publisher be able to force an update taking out that feature?

That's a very special case, but in the case where a new law invalidates some people's stuff, the State can decide what should be done. Often it's nothing and 'tough luck' to the consumer (speed camera radar guns, banned after their invention). We're talking about general cases here in the every day-to-day transaction, and not the cases where a rare law ("today, government determined these various video composition effects illegal, and so video editing software that supports these features will be updated to remove those composition effects...") is going to need some special consideration.

 

[pcchen]

But it's not used as such. That is, T&Cs are drafted with unlawful clauses, on the day of their creation, and not just are rendered unlawful over time thanks to changing legislation. It's those obvious unlawful T&Cs ("all your IP are belong to us") that shouldn't be put in in the first place, and show lawyers trying trick people rather than protect themselves legitimately and fairly.

But my point is such case (unlawful intent) should be pursued in court, not by changing the law. Contract laws are not perfect, but they are not that bad either.

 

[Davros]

Why hasnt a consumer body eg: the E.F.F gone after eula's