Petition urges Canadian government to mandate end-of-life protections for video games

[Endymio]

Indeed. The end to standard form contracts (EULAs and the like that don't require your signature, and you often aren't presented a copy with until post-purchase), would also go a long way.

The level of public ignorance on this subject is astounding. A EULA -- like any other contract -- requires both parties to agree. The legal term is a "meeting of the minds".

In every jurisdiction I know, shrink-wrap EULAs are either NOT legally enforceable, or they're enforceable only if you're presented with the option to return said product for a full refund if you don't agree to the terms of the contract. The idea that additional government involvement is required here is a slippery slope off a dismal cliff.

 

[magisys]

Downside is a lot of games do require a connection. If all your friends are playing, then you will be to. So it's never that simple as never buy a game that's online only.

gaming with friends is not mandatory.
you can still change friends with someone that play other games, or simply wait for other games to play with your friends.
it seems like that the gamer life is bound to other people life and decisions. if the only goal is to play with friends, the game doesn't matter and so doesn't matter if that game disappear, you can still play plenty of other games with friends, and "rent everything" like most gamers rent the access to the subscription model of console closed game network.

also there is all the single player offline market to play with, and let those greedy always online corps to drown in their eula and questionable decisions.

as for many other things, the users are the first to blame when they fully accept and let grow those always online crap. if nobody play it, nobody want to sell it.

 

[Nelson28]

This petition for right-to-play in Canada is a good step! Being locked out of purchased games after servers shut down is ridiculous. Consumers deserve to keep access to what they paid for. Even if online features go away, single-player modes should always be playable. This is about digital ownership rights, and hopefully other countries will follow suit!

 

[human7]

The level of public ignorance on this subject is astounding. A EULA -- like any other contract -- requires both parties to agree. The legal term is a "meeting of the minds".

In every jurisdiction I know, shrink-wrap EULAs are either NOT legally enforceable, or they're enforceable only if you're presented with the option to return said product for a full refund if you don't agree to the terms of the contract. The idea that additional government involvement is required here is a slippery slope off a dismal cliff.

Even with that option they aren't always enforceable, but sadly in most jurisdictions they are. The Wikipedia article has a couple of examples. The logic that the Kansas court used is far more palatable in my opinion. New York's interpretation allows Vader-style "I am altering the deal" post purchase via the enclosure of previously undisclosed, unagreed to terms. Simply giving a "disagree, return, and refund" option does not compensate the purchaser for the trouble imposed to research and/or comply with the additional terms being tacked on post-purchase.

End-user license agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Endymio]

Simply giving a "disagree, return, and refund" option does not compensate the purchaser for the trouble imposed to research and/or comply with the additional terms being tacked on post-purchase.

Oops! There is no mandate to "comply" with any additional terms post-purchase. If you don't like the terms, don't agree to them -- but return the product for a full refund. That's how free societies operate.

And while you're correct that there is some degree of "burden" to actually read the terms you're agreeing too ... that's true of any of all contracts made since the beginning of time. If you can't understand the contract you're signing when you purchase a car, a home, or agree to a multi-year recording contract or term in the military -- you're going to have trouble functioning in life. Don't blame the rest of us for that.

 

[human7]

Oops! There is no mandate to "comply" with any additional terms post-purchase. If you don't like the terms, don't agree to them -- but return the product for a full refund. That's how free societies operate.

Ah, but there is. Not returning the product is considered an implicit agreement to the terms, at least in the case of Brower v. Gateway. As the terms themselves stipulated a 30 day return window, there is at least a constraint imposed by the contract without any agreement - the return window.

And while you're correct that there is some degree of "burden" to actually read the terms you're agreeing too ... that's true of any of all contracts made since the beginning of time. If you can't understand the contract you're signing when you purchase a car, a home, or agree to a multi-year recording contract or term in the military -- you're going to have trouble functioning in life. Don't blame the rest of us for that.

It's not just the burden of reading the contract. Suppose I drive to a store in order to purchase a product and, upon opening said product at home, decide the previously non-disclosed terms are disagreeable. I may be able to get a refund for the product, but what about for the return drive to the store and the hassle of dealing with the returns process? Such could have been avoided had the terms been disclosed up front.

Under your philosophy of how these contracts could work, I could enclose a contract in a box of candy with terms that require you to leave a positive review of the product, and if you fail to return the product in 24 hours, I could sue you for non-compliance if you do not leave said review. Neverminding the ridiculousness of the scenario, it would be entirely legal if these kinds of contracts were considered enforceable. It's unfortunate that several courts agree with the idea.

It's isn't too much to require that all terms of a contract are available before a purchase is made - anything after that should be invalid as there is no "meeting of the minds". It isn't just about purchases - the same can be said of clicking on a download link. At least in the second circuit such contracts are unenforceable (Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.).