It's a very bad design pattern, and developers/game designers following this pattern are just plain showing dispespect for us players. This is getting rather extreme now - more and more references in-game, including main menu buttons that are actually just "buy me" and "buy this" links (link to save converter for EU4). This has started with Conclaive DLC (descriptions of kingrom rules referencing contant from Conclave which is not installed). It's short, its immediately skippable and so on - but it is both disturbing and confusing. Then suddenly when you are accessing, say, videos that would be blocked by parental control, you realize those videos are prepended by a short 5 second "hey, this could be filtered by our parental control feature" ad. Your ISP had a paid option for parental control, but you don't need it and you didn't pay for it. Imagine you paid for an internet connection. And it's perfectly valid, in my opinion.Īnother analogy. Yes, they "didn't spend money on this particular product (DLC)", but the conclusion should be not "so I want you to put in _extra_ work", as you stated, but instead something like "so they extra work you, as a developer, choose to put in to gain more monetization options (sell more DLCs), should not affect my purchased product". Customers who paid for the product - selecting and paying only for DLCs they want, probably for 0 DLCs - must be able to use the product they paid for.
GENIUS ONLY YOU CHEAT CODES FREE
Of course they would do everything to make you pay more, as you never paid for the product per se in the first place.ĬK2, however, is neither free nor pay-to-win. Designing the UI and game model in general in such a way that end user is constantly pushed towards buying something is a well known and rather common concept - for "free" pay-to-win games. My initial post was about ethics, not about legal stuff. It would be rather hard and time consuming to push it on and enfoce it. If you apply it to all the games sold through steam, this means any game you purchase must remain playable witnin 10 years from the purchase date, and for 10 years Steam (being the supplier) is obliged to provide free support and fix bugs - including bugs such is "this game references concepts and terms not present in the game". If the usage period not stated by the supplier, then according to the law it is set to 10 years. If the supplier wants to argue the reason of the fault (as in consumer doing something wrong, in supplier's opinion), and it happens within the warranty period, its supplier's obligation to prove his point. If any fault is found by the consumer with the product, the supplier MUST fix it. I my country consumer law states that any product or service (this includes digital products) must explicitly declare its warranty period and usage period - a period of time where supplier/seller guarantees its good condition, consumer's ability to use and so on. Your "agreement" doesn't matter either.įor example. So basically it doesn't matter what nonsense they have put into the EULA, if that nonsens contradicts your local laws. And in most countries those laws state that no "customer service agreement" may diminish any rights granted to the consumer by the law. While this might be true, THEIR biggest problem is that they failed to comply to various consumer laws that exist in different countries. "The biggest problem with your concern is that you failed to read the terms and conditions before using the product.
0 kommentar(er)
