Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[Gradthrawn]

Let the buyer beware - there is no excuse for ignorance or stupidity. In the link above the buyers said they had no clue about the fee. So the question is. Did they read it before they signed? Did they understand what they signed? Or....is this so new that the people who went over the loan docs just skimmed over it and missed it - or didn't cover it. Who knows.

That's touched upon in the article:

In the Dupaix contract, the clause was in a separate 13-page document — called the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions — that wasn’t even included in the closing papers and did not require a signature.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

At which point is it legal? Does US law allow hidden contracts?

 

[eastmen]

At which point is it legal? Does US law allow hidden contracts?

Its certianly shady, I just don't know if its illegal. There are tons of shady things that go on like for instance if you buy a house and there is a home owner association your on the hook for any past fees or fines the old owners didn't pay.

 

[wco81]

At which point is it legal? Does US law allow hidden contracts?

As we found out, it depends on who's in charge of the regulatory agencies.

 

[AzBat]

I work in my county assessor's real estate office and from what I can tell is that it's not part of the sale contract. So they wouldn't be required to sign it. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is part of the platted sub-division. Taking the raw vacant land and splitting it up into tracts or lots. There are always restrictions placed on those tracts like what kind of home, how many square feet the home needs, how expensive the house, what kind outbuildings are allowed, etc, etc. These determine quality of the houses such that nobody can come in and build a crap house & bring down the value of the rest of the properties in the sub-division. These restrictions or covenants are always filed in court separately from the actual plat and they are legal and valid for every home built in that sub-division. If I was that home owner I would sue their realtor in civil court for not knowing. That's really amateurish and they deserve loosing their realtor license.

Tommy McClain

 

[saf1]

That's touched upon in the article:

Yeah, I see that now. I wonder if they had to sign it or if it was just assumed. I also wonder how that will hold up in a court of law if they decide to take action.

From re-reading the article it sounds like more builders oppose it than support it. And that some government agencies are thinking it is a bad idea. I would have to say it is a bad idea in my mind. When they talk about the roads or other infrastructure there are other things in play that cover that. Melrose or other homeowners dues abound when you buy in a new development. Lets say you buy 20 acres in Montana it is assumed that you pay for roads, land lines, etc. Yes, you get great looking land for cheap. But it typically is the home owners responsibility to do the roads and phone lines if you so choose. Not all developments out in areas like that are the same - I just know for one example whereas I was looking it is what they did. Same with the melrose dues - it covered the parks, schools, and bike trail, etc.

What is the world coming to...

 

[Zaphod]

What is the world coming to...

Yeah. That was really my point in linking it. More so than starting an actual discussion about home sales kickbacks in this particular thread. Sorry about that...

I think we'll see more of this kind of stuff. Some of which will be good innovations and evolved business models in response to changing market conditions and consumer behavior. While others will be attempts at parasitic practices or altering the playing field through subterfuge, legal idiosyncrasies, market might, or whatever; to the detriment of both consumers and businesses in general.

As evidenced in this thread, there may not always be a readily apparent consensus on which is which.

 

[patsu]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/30380/EA_CFO_Brown_Defends_Online_Pass_System_Talks_3D_Facebook.php

Speaking at a Deutsche Bank 2010 Technology Conference presentation listened in on by Gamasutra, Brown said their Online Pass system hasn't led to any massive revolts from the company's customer base.

"There’s been no significant pushback from the user," Brown said. "People know bandwidth isn't free, so the fact that we’re diffusing online costs isn’t seen as unreasonable."

Brown said he saw charging used purchasers for online access partially as a way to combat used game sales and partially as a way to recoup costs associated with operating gameplay servers. "At least we know we’re being paid for the access to those servers," Brown said.

"To the extent people purchase [the Online Pass], it is found revenue in the secondary market that we and other publishers have not traditionally participated in."

While saying it was too early to tell whether the Online Pass system had helped buoy new retail sales of EA Sports titles, he did note that comparable sales of NCAA Football 2011 and Madden 11 were up eight percent and six percent, respectively, from last year's versions.

...