Changes to My SCEA agreement?

moycon, on Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:23 PM, said:

xg4bx, on Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:01 AM, said:

i see no problem with any of this. i'm quite sure the 360 has similar user agreements.

Seriously? So you have no problem with all the recent BS that's been going on. First this then the whole Capcom deal? So like if one of the many updates screwed up your PS3 you'd just be like. " My console I paid $100s for is bricked? Oh that's cool. That was probably my bad. Besides I'll bet other companies kick consumers in the nuts like this."

Heck no, you be pissed and even more pissed if they told you they weren't going to fix it.

Here is the MS user agreement BTW which seems to me it says you can make a claim and be compensated for crappy maintenance that effects your system, and it looks like you can file a complaint and be compensated for 3rd parties ripping you off as well. (I could be misreading it though seems like they make this stuff hard to read on purpose)

19. LIABILITY LIMITATION.

You can recover from the Microsoft parties for all claims only direct damages up to a total, aggregate amount equal to your Service fee for one month. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect, incidental, or punitive damages.

This limitation applies to anything related to:

* the Service;
* third party content (including code), third party programs, or third party conduct;
* viruses or other disabling features that affect your access to or use of the Service;
* incompatibility between the Service and other services, software, and hardware;
* delays or failures you may have in initiating, conducting, or completing any transmissions or transactions in connection with the Service in an accurate or timely manner; and
* claims for breach of contract; breach of warranty, guarantee, or condition; strict liability; negligence; or other tort.

so are 360 consumers entitled to refunds for banned/bricked systems due to their use of things like non-proprietary hard drives? i don't think so. can i sue ms for knowingly releasing a ticking time bomb? their warranty doesn't satisfy me.

i'd take up problems with final fight up with capcom, not sony.

as for ps3 updates bricking systems i've never seen it actually happen nor have i heard a legit source say it actually happens. it's never happened to me nor to any ps3 owners i know so this tos doesn't bother me.

the enjoyment i get from the console far, far outweighs any complaints i have. i don't spend the countless millions of dollars developing these things, i'm just a user. i can vote with my $ and choose not to support it but i don't begrudge sony protecting their investment by any means necessary.anybody with a brain would do the exact same thing with something they created.

if people weren't infected with the mental illness known as piracy, things like drm wouldn't be necessary. but we don't live in a perfect world. blame the cheap fucks whose whole argument for things like music piracy was "i don't want to buy the whole album"...ok heres 99 cent itunes. yet they still pirate. things like gamefly and netflix exist, play/watch anything you want at dirt cheap prices.....yet they still pirate. blame the sick, entitlement mentality of the public for things like drm or linux removal, not the friggin companies who provide countless jobs who just want to protect their investment.

Edited by xg4bx, Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:03 AM.

xg4bx, on Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:52 AM, said:

not the friggin companies who provide countless jobs who just want to protect their investment.

Yeah I understand what you are saying. To be honest the Other OS thing doesn't really bother me. I don't recall Sony ever touting that as a feature and a reason to buy the pS3. Did they? The Final Fight thing, that bothers me. Even if it isn't a Sony product, it is in their store. They should refund anyone's money who wants a refund if they purchased the game without a disclaimer they couldn't play it at all offline. Then let Capcom know how many people requested one. This BS that gamers should just assume a game can't be played without an internet connection is just that, BS. If people were only allowed to make assumptions about products, and they didn't disclose certain important info about the product.. you might see something like folks putting KY jelly on toast in the morning!

They just really need to come up with a decent deterrent that doesn't punish or make it difficult for the honest users.
Maybe like you can play this game on any system anywhere in the world, but only after a retina scan and a DNA test? :cool: