Then what you gathered is incorrect. Though it's in fine print (which IMO is pretty unfair on the customer), it definitely says
Bait & Switch
- Thread starter ezwip
- Start date
Then what you gathered is incorrect. Though it's in fine print (which IMO is pretty unfair on the customer), it definitely says
Sure. This thread discusses the podcast. The link should be in the first post.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392668
Fool Inc.
Back from the Dead
You can always get a refund from seller unless you live in a 3rd world consumer country where protections are for corporations rather than the little guy (looking at you US!).
From what I can gather the retail box omitted the requirement of Steam which is a pretty big no-no and voids the sale itself in any enlightened court (they had Steam mentioned in trademark blurp only I believe which is not enough in majority of cases).
If you bought it electronically it is technically (read: legally) akin to a mail-order transaction in that you have no way to inspect the goods prior to purchase, and even the US has protections for those I think.
Personally I consider the money I spent as tuition for the school of dark human behaviour knowing full well that I will make use of it when the modding community shows the money-grubbing Firaxis crew that balance, fun, challenge, complexity and bling are not mutually exclusive.
Kind of interesting statement considering how easy that "money-grubbing" Fraxis has made it for the modding community to mod it's product.
**Internet connection and acceptance of Steam(TM) Subscriber Agreement required for activation. See www.steampowered.com/agreement for details.
Which is kind of lame in its own right. If your going to expect a customer to accept an agreement to play a game they should lay it out on the product or during purchase not supply a web address for it.
Its like going to buy a car and they offer you financing but they tell you if you wanna know the details go home and check a website for your contractual obligations.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
You can always get a refund from seller unless you live in a 3rd world consumer country where protections are for corporations rather than the little guy (looking at you US!
From what I can gather the retail box omitted the requirement of Steam which is a pretty big no-no and voids the sale itself in any enlightened court (they had Steam mentioned in trademark blurp only I believe which is not enough in majority of cases).
.
It depends. What's the process. Do you put in the CD and EULA pops up before it starts downloading? Is there any info inside the box? Generally speaking, as long as they offer a chance for a refund before installation but after they make it clear that Steam is required, courts will uphold it. It's the price of business in the internet age.
Anyway, I don't see the "bait" here in a bait and switch. Leaving aside personal opinions (as in, plenty like the game), that shows this particular argument doesn't apply.
Polish
Warlord
No, I got exactly what I expected and paid for. I am not surprised by development issues or that we are essentially beta testing, nor am I upset. I have been playing Civ a LONG time and was ready for some fresh ideas. I am having fun and have already spent enough hours with it to make the entertainment cost pennies on the hour and I fully expect the developers to continue to work smoothing out the issues raised on this forum and expect to get MANY more hours of amusing ENTERTAINMENT out of it. Remember it is a game we are talking about, not a religion;-)
Psyringe
Scout
Which is kind of lame in its own right. If your going to expect a customer to accept an agreement to play a game they should lay it out on the product or during purchase not supply a web address for it.
It actually creates an interesting legal conundrum. In several countries (at least here in mine), the customer has the right to see anything he agrees to spelled out to him before he does the purchase. A link on the box is not sufficient in this case because it requires the user to have an active internet connection at the moment of purchase, which cannot be taken for granted. Hence, the user is not necessarily bound by the this license, because he couldn't see it before he purchased the product. Theoretically, the vendor must take the product back under these circumstances.
However, if the user already installed the game (clicking the Steam license away because he knows that it isn't valid under these circumstances), then he agreed to a contract under American right, concluded on an American server.
The customer could still bring the product back to his European vendor, claiming that he doesn't agree with the Steam license and that he couldn't view said license before the purchase. The vendor must then take the product back. However, the customer still has a contract with Steam, and Steam will not nullify the contract because from the perspective of Steam, under American right, the contract is still valid. This in turn means that the vendor can't resell the product since it can't be activated any more. Odd indeed.
Note: the above is just one possibility, there are others. It'll probably take a specialist lawyer for international licensing and customer rights to determine which one's correct. Actually I think there may be a gray area here.
Andvare
King
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 788
Thanks.
That should put a nail in the coffin of whether or not the game was simplified.
Going towards CivRev on purpose. *shudder*
Where is the cure for consolitis when you need it?
Psyringe
Scout
Must be nice to live in a country that still believes in consumer rights
It has its advantages - but customer rights are crumbling here too. Quite recently, the question whether it's in-line with business ethics that companies are switching to sell revokable licenses (like buying a game on Steam, which can revoke your license anytime) instead of products (like buying the same game without Steam in retail). The court acknowledged that this resulted in a loss of customer rights, but ruled that the business practice itself was okay, as long as customers are informed about it before the purchase. In the words of the judge, "customers will have to make a decision whether they want that".
On the other hand, there are countries where even the attempt of bringing such an issue to court would have been laughed at, so the standards in Europe in that regard are still pretty high.
ezwip
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 389
I heard a few people on the 2k forums say that on the box it stated that it only required an internet connection to activate. Yet it has locked them out of the game at times even when they were not in multiplayer. I'm not one of the people that bought the box game.
I've logged over 90 hours playing and I'm not looking for a refund. I have left the game running for long periods of time. I'm just curious what would happen if someone actually tried. People sue McDonalds because their coffee is too hot so it's not an insane topic.
I've logged over 90 hours playing and I'm not looking for a refund. I have left the game running for long periods of time. I'm just curious what would happen if someone actually tried. People sue McDonalds because their coffee is too hot so it's not an insane topic.
Charvel1
Chieftain
Seems like you're getting that quote wrong, it goes like this:
Fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again'
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
Charvel1
Chieftain
Yeeaahhh, I was just having a little fun. Whenever I see the 'Fool me once' stuff I just gotta quote the Bush.
That is pretty damning evidence all right.
Makes me feel old I guess. No longer part of the target demographic for Civ anymore.
milk steak
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 258
Nowadays they just call it Marketing.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
My guess is they logged out of Steam. You don't have to be online, but steam does have to be running.
I've logged over 90 hours playing and I'm not looking for a refund. I have left the game running for long periods of time. I'm just curious what would happen if someone actually tried. People sue McDonalds because their coffee is too hot so it's not an insane topic.
Gah, the McDonalds coffee was hot enough to instantly incinerate flesh, McDonalds knew this, and they intentionally chose to keep it that hot. People need to stop bringing up that case without knowing the facts.
There's no possible way this could be considered a bait and switch. The Steam thing was public knowledge months in advance and printed on the box itself. Maybe they should have printed the full EULA, but nobody does that, and if you're not comfortable with it you can always go look the damn thing up before you buy.
The other angle on it - that Civ 5 didn't deliver on its promised gameplay - is even sillier. The gameplay changes were trumpeted for months. Many of them are back-of-the-box features. Being let down is one thing. Bait and switch is something totally different. Bait and switch implies malicious intent - that they set out to get you to buy it using information they knew was false. I don't think you even remotely have a case that they did that.
The other angle on it - that Civ 5 didn't deliver on its promised gameplay - is even sillier. The gameplay changes were trumpeted for months. Many of them are back-of-the-box features. Being let down is one thing. Bait and switch is something totally different. Bait and switch implies malicious intent - that they set out to get you to buy it using information they knew was false. I don't think you even remotely have a case that they did that.
Similar threads
