Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Eve Online axes Linux Port

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    Not in software. You do not have the right ( for any software ) that it runs correctly on your system. So you can not hold reliable a company if a software does not work for one reason or the other. I don't think you can uphold such a claim in court especially since EULAs tend to explicitly state this circumstance although not explicitly required.
    Kindly point out a legal decision that upholds this.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    I don't have URLs around right now but as mentioned before EULAs got shot down in court. It's known that buying software you are mostly on your own. Not only does support most of the time suck horribly but especially in the end if it does not work the excuse is always "special system config... not our fault" and then they are out of trouble since you can not predict what config a user uses your software with. Especially in games I've never ever seen anybody taking back a game if it didn't work on my system for some reason.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,721

    Default

    ? I've seen that happen quite often - the returning of PC games back to the store because they didn't run on the customer's comp.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    848

    Default

    As have I, I'm still waiting for links to either legal decisions or summaries that show that consumers have no rights when it comes to software.

    To the best of my knowledge when Transgaming claims that a game works out of the box with Cedega and clearly doesn't, as they have in the past, they are violating truth in advertising laws. While we may not have a problem with changing configurations, that is most certainly not an "Out of the Box" experience.

    False claims in advertising can't be thrown out by an EULA as it hasn't been agreed to yet, the advertising leads to the consumer making the purchase and no amount of legalese in a bad license agreement can get around that fact.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    False claims in advertising can't be thrown out by an EULA as it hasn't been agreed to yet, the advertising leads to the consumer making the purchase and no amount of legalese in a bad license agreement can get around that fact.
    Rather than bitching about it, why don't you sue them over it?

    I concur that it's bogus what they've been doing and that they screwed several different companies over time (EA and CCP being two on that list...) and LOADS of individual consumers with their provably false claims- but the statement I made earlier stands. You've no standing with regards to CCP because they believed in the crap Transgaming was shovelling at the time they announced a "Linux Port" and they are still supporting any Linux customer playing on their MMOG even though they've jettisoned Transgaming. For them to be out of hot water, that's all THEY need, really in most jurisdictions.

    If you're one of CCP's customers that got screwed by this, you have standing with regards to taking Transgaming's lies on (right along with CCP, EA and others...) as does any of Transgaming's customers.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    ? I've seen that happen quite often - the returning of PC games back to the store because they didn't run on the customer's comp.
    Many stores won't take stuff back under those conditions. You can get an in-kind exchange but you can't return it. (Quite in violation of the law in most jurisdictions, really...) The main reason they've taken to putting up resistance to accepting it back when it doesn't work on a machine is because the "pirate" crowd would go and buy the game rip it off into a form usable for propagation via IRC, USENET, or Bittorrent and then return the title in question, having obtained the 0-Day for themselves and everyone else.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Rather than bitching about it, why don't you sue them over it?
    Because I'm not a Canadian citizen, US and State consumer protection laws won't apply until they start operating out of the US. Businesses are well protected against extraterritorial false advertising under US law, but not consumers.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Because I'm not a Canadian citizen, US and State consumer protection laws won't apply until they start operating out of the US. Businesses are well protected against extraterritorial false advertising under US law, but not consumers.
    Since they operate within your country, the Canadian Consumer protection laws apply to them. Now, having said this, it'll be...fun...getting the suit filed, etc. if they're not resident in your country.

    If you can't sue because of logistics or laws, perhaps a better answer than gritching might be a capital suggestion, no?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    The best solution is anyways to not use their product. No sales = more punishment than getting sued

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    The best solution is anyways to not use their product. No sales = more punishment than getting sued
    Heh...I was alluding to something like that...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •