No, I don't remember that at all. I remember DVDs coming out and not being $30. I remember laser discs being that expensive, but they were never that widely adopted and they were superceded by DVDs quickly.
I think your focused on the wrong part of the story
Their point is that it's always been that expensive so the comparison is irrelevant. But that isn't true. The discussion stemmed from the fact that publishers charge too much and must be regulated in how much they can charge through court action. I pointed out that would be a hornets nest because lots of entertainment costs have gone up (citing movie costs). Where does that end? Who is entitled to protection. What does that protection even mean? How would governments even approach legislation dictating how much can be charged?
I was just saying I'm not accepting the argument being dismissed because it was always that way for movies, but not for games.
fair enough price controls on entertainment makes communism look like childs play.
You underestimate just how brutal of an economic system communism was. Given a choice between communism or price controls on entertainment, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
No, I don't remember that at all. I remember DVDs coming out and not being $30. I remember laser discs being that expensive, but they were never that widely adopted and they were superceded by DVDs quickly.
I think your focused on the wrong part of the story
Their point is that it's always been that expensive so the comparison is irrelevant. But that isn't true. The discussion stemmed from the fact that publishers charge too much and must be regulated in how much they can charge through court action. I pointed out that would be a hornets nest because lots of entertainment costs have gone up (citing movie costs). Where does that end? Who is entitled to protection. What does that protection even mean? How would governments even approach legislation dictating how much can be charged?
I was just saying I'm not accepting the argument being dismissed because it was always that way for movies, but not for games.
fair enough price controls on entertainment makes communism look like childs play.
You underestimate just how brutal of an economic system communism was. Given a choice between communism or price controls on entertainment, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
trickle down price controls
do you really think one of the first areas of price control is going to be food and.....games?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you kids are gonna play on my lawn, yell, "death!", a few extra times! I'm getting so tired of your saving-throw-free, mana-efficient "lightning bolt!" spam!
No, I don't remember that at all. I remember DVDs coming out and not being $30. I remember laser discs being that expensive, but they were never that widely adopted and they were superceded by DVDs quickly.
I think your focused on the wrong part of the story
Their point is that it's always been that expensive so the comparison is irrelevant. But that isn't true. The discussion stemmed from the fact that publishers charge too much and must be regulated in how much they can charge through court action. I pointed out that would be a hornets nest because lots of entertainment costs have gone up (citing movie costs). Where does that end? Who is entitled to protection. What does that protection even mean? How would governments even approach legislation dictating how much can be charged?
I was just saying I'm not accepting the argument being dismissed because it was always that way for movies, but not for games.
fair enough price controls on entertainment makes communism look like childs play.
You underestimate just how brutal of an economic system communism was. Given a choice between communism or price controls on entertainment, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
trickle down price controls
do you really think one of the first areas of price control is going to be food and.....games?
Given a choice between communism or price controls on everything, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
Given a choice between communism or price controls on everything, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
let me ask you this then.
If there is price controls on most items there isnt any possible way they system is Capitalism. So what is it?
we were taught in school that communism is about many things but one of them was price controls on everything. if that is incorrect then what economic system would it be?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Given a choice between communism or price controls on everything, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
let me ask you this then.
If there is price controls on most items there isnt any possible way they system is Capitalism. So what is it?
we were taught in school that communism is about many things but one of them was price controls on everything. if that is incorrect then what economic system would it be?
When communism collapsed in a series of popular revolts around the start of the 1990s, do you really think that people were revolting against price controls, and that mass murder and police states had nothing to do with it?
The United States once had a bout with heavy price controls:
That sort of government meddling is what some in this thread are calling for. Historically, it contributed to the Great Depression being much worse than it otherwise could have been, but it's far shy of the mass murder (estimated 20th century death toll: 100 million) that pretty much always happened under communism.
Personally I would like to see some kind of public service site that gives detailed "unbiased" information about games and game companies. Forums are too toxic with either end of the spectrum providing 90% of the content. At this point YouTubers are the best place to get uncensored information. I hate to say it but I find AngryJoe gives more of an honest option of games than other sites I visit. Its just a shame I find him annoying but at least he gives both sides. You wont find much negative information coming from gaming site articles.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
People in the US demanding a stop to F2P... But decides to keep the guns... Now i understand that most of the US is a para-military wasteland of small rowing gangs... But perhaps there are more important places to ask for more regulations than the cash-shop and digital marketplacers of games.... just saying.
Please don't bring the liberal kool-aid into a video game discussion.
Well what do you know the first article I opened, was about people being charged for not delivering their product... Yet there's no accountability...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'm really confused here. Either there is a problem with crowdfunding scams or there isn't. Your initial response says it's not so cut and dry, but in this post you are saying it is? So, is there a problem with scamming off crowdfunding or isn't there? A few people being investigated for fraud does not mean "Problem solved".
Well what do you know the first article I opened, was about people being charged for not delivering their product... Yet there's no accountability...
What are you getting at? I'm really confused here. Either there is a problem with crowdfuding scams or there isn't. Your initial response says it's not so cut and dry, but in this post you are saying it is? So, is there a problem with scamming off crowdfunding or isn't there? A few people being investigated for fraud does not mean "Problem solved".
What I initially said was dictating what is regulated in regard to what folks donate toward is not cut and dry. WHat I said above was in reference to your Zero accountability comment.Not all that hard to follow.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well what do you know the first article I opened, was about people being charged for not delivering their product... Yet there's no accountability...
What are you getting at? I'm really confused here. Either there is a problem with crowdfuding scams or there isn't. Your initial response says it's not so cut and dry, but in this post you are saying it is? So, is there a problem with scamming off crowdfunding or isn't there? A few people being investigated for fraud does not mean "Problem solved".
What I initially said was dictating what is regulated in regard to what folks donate toward is not cut and dry. WHat I said above was in reference to your Zero accountability comment.Not all that hard to follow.
Maybe, But I was thinking more of the Kickstarters.
A very important protection against that is reputational loss. If you know that company X tends to launch games with business models you like, then convert the game to flagrant pay to win a year later, you're probably far more hesitant to play a game from company X.
The first time a company does something like that, sure, you had no warning. But the second time, or the third? Losing customers who would otherwise have bought your games is a pretty strong deterrent, which is why the only examples I can think of were desperate companies on their way to going out of business if they didn't shake things up.
What if every company does something you or most would consider unacceptable? It is pretty much the state of the industry now, and what's worse is companies blaming the state of the industry to justify their questionable practices with new titles. You are left with either leaving gaming to people who like being milked or abused in other ways, or somehow trying to change the situation.
If you can't find a single game developer that meets your expectations, then perhaps your expectations are unreasonable.
The idea is to make the product/game clear on start, if it will have paid add-ons, will it have gear related items in cash shop, and other ,prior to them releasing the game, so that players see what they give money for, and that they take all the risk only than. Simple and fair enough?
So you don't have a single example of for the first point? Not surprised...
Gaming is the most abused? What are you basing that on? Plenty of things are abused in such a way.. From ticket sales to hobby shops... Over-priced garbage sold in way that pushes one toward more pointless purchases. Better seats for a better price, foods are another example... some of the most pointless things are the most expensive, all feeding off some human flaw..
I guess you consider gaming as just a hobby when I consider it a more essential part of life. You don't need to collect model planes, but you need to exercise your imagination, social and mental skills by playing.
lol .. entertainment is an essential part of life? Now that is the poster child of an entitlement attitude.
You do not need to play video games to excise your imagination, social and mental skills. Heard of chess, card games, table top RPGs, or just talking to friends?
Gaming is the most abused? What are you basing that on? Plenty of things are abused in such a way.. From ticket sales to hobby shops... Over-priced garbage sold in way that pushes one toward more pointless purchases. Better seats for a better price, foods are another example... some of the most pointless things are the most expensive, all feeding off some human flaw..
I guess you consider gaming as just a hobby when I consider it a more essential part of life. You don't need to collect model planes, but you need to exercise your imagination, social and mental skills by playing.
lol .. entertainment is an essential part of life? Now that is the poster child of an entitlement attitude.
You do not need to play video games to excise your imagination, social and mental skills. Heard of chess, card games, table top RPGs, or just talking to friends?
Going to have to strongly agree with @nariusseldon here. Gaming is not an essential part of life. Eating and breathing are an essential part of life. If you think gaming is a essential part of life then you might need to make some lifestyle changes.
Given a choice between communism or price controls on everything, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
let me ask you this then.
If there is price controls on most items there isnt any possible way they system is Capitalism. So what is it?
we were taught in school that communism is about many things but one of them was price controls on everything. if that is incorrect then what economic system would it be?
Capitalist societies value the principles of individual rights, freedom, liberty (laissez faire) and rule of law. When you apply these values to production you get free markets and individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. All is regulated by the rule of law instead of the rule of man.
Here are some examples of price controls that happen in so called capitalist societies today:
Oil/Gasoline prices (always been regulated)
Essential food prices (Bread, Milk, Sugar etc.)
Rent
Price of labor (minimum wage)
The list goes on...
To answer your question: Up until the 1930's the US was pretty much an ideal free market capitalist system with minimum governmental involvement. Reality now is that about 1/3rd of spending is federal government which like i listed above does heavy price regulations, subsidies, responsibility to house, feed and educate its citizens. Bail outs and subsidies of companies and banks is the purest form of communism.
Let's look at the current state of affairs in most so called "capitalist democracies":
Centralized Economic Planning
Central Bank that controls the money supply/interest rates
Price and Wage Controls
Legal tender laws
Property confiscation through income tax / inflation / seizing of gold
This is what is called corporate socialism.
___
TLDR: You would call it "Corporate Socialism" or "State Capitalism". Communism is not price control on everything, there are no prices in communism because the community owns it all and does not need to pay.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Gaming is the most abused? What are you basing that on? Plenty of things are abused in such a way.. From ticket sales to hobby shops... Over-priced garbage sold in way that pushes one toward more pointless purchases. Better seats for a better price, foods are another example... some of the most pointless things are the most expensive, all feeding off some human flaw..
I guess you consider gaming as just a hobby when I consider it a more essential part of life. You don't need to collect model planes, but you need to exercise your imagination, social and mental skills by playing.
lol .. entertainment is an essential part of life? Now that is the poster child of an entitlement attitude.
You do not need to play video games to excise your imagination, social and mental skills. Heard of chess, card games, table top RPGs, or just talking to friends?
Going to have to strongly agree with @nariusseldon here. Gaming is not an essential part of life. Eating and breathing are an essential part of life. If you think gaming is a essential part of life then you might need to make some lifestyle changes.
I mean essential for a fullfilling life. Would you consider a life where you are force-fed and breathing through tubes a fulfilling life? I don't deny there are other forms of games but I suggest computer games can fill an essential part of your life in the asbsence of these.
Saying a fulfilled life now changes everything. My opinion and your opinion and everyone else's opinion can vary greatly on what it means to have a fulfilled life. I wouldn't try to debate that topic though because only you can judge that criteria for yourself.
You really need to understand companies don't need to call you to change a product. You don't like their change you have two options.
1) Stop playing
2) keep playing and adapt
If they claim the game won't be pay 2 win, and it becomes pay 2 win, they are violating laws.
"Bait-and-switch marketing techniques are dishonest.
In fact, in many countries true “bait and switch” has been made illegal
through different forms of consumer protection legislation. In the United States, consumers can file a lawsuit against a
marketer for false advertising if they’re using the technique."
"Bait and switch" is not a legal term it is called "false advertising".
READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY:
Title 15 U.S. Code § 54 - Standard of proof; public policy considerations
The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.
Let's see here. We have the following requirements:
1. Causes or is likely to cause SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO CONSUMERS which is not REASONABLY AVOIDABLE BY CONSUMERS. 2. Not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers.
I really want to see you argue with the court that a cash shop in a computer game has caused you substantial injury which was not reasonably avoidable by you. Hilarious!
TLDR: False Advertising in laymen's terms: "Did you get substantially injured by this cash shop change? If your answer is no and if you just don't like the cash shop you can avoid the game, now get the fuck out of my court!"
You should read the law more closely:
Section 45 (a) (1) of the same law:
"Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
The section you quoted limits only when the Commission may declare unfair act or practice unlawful, but the Commision also has power to act on deceptive acts or practises.
EDIT: Also your TLDR is plain wrong. If some individual sues a company for false advertising, then it's a question of "Did this change violate the agreement between you and the company?"
Advertising material becomes part of the agreement when a purchase is made, and after that it's a question of if the product deviates too much from what was agreed. /EDIT
Does there really need to be legislation that the entertainment industry needs to abide by? just let market forces do their thing, and if anyone doesn't think market forces, ie. The Consumer, have no effect on companies, then just look at what happened to SOE, now DBG, 2016 might even be the last year the company is even a thing. Anyone who seriously doesn't believe that the entire SOE debacle wasn't the result of consumer disatisfaction probably needs to take off the blinkers, i am not saying that the whole SWG thing caused it, but it certainly was the opening shot that created so much disaffection between consumer and publisher, that lessons weren't learned imo inevitably led to Sony selling off SOE, if SOE had not had such strong backing from Sony in the first place, i strongly believe that SOE's end would have come much, much sooner.
Its said so many times, that consumers will always vote with their wallets, but its a truism, and you can be sure that companies are very sensitive to consumer interest, or more precisely, disinterest.
Getting the legal system involved will only benefit lawyers and companies that perhaps, are often seen as being little more than ambulance chasers. I don't particularly trust lawyers, politicians or for that matter, bankers, i believe they consider their own money as being far more important than that of the average consumer, unless its profitable of course, which usually means that for both the consumer and the publisher, its unlikely to be.
IMO the gamers bill of rights, is only likely to disincline developers to make games in the first place, its a dumb idea, that benefits noone, and i would question the agenda of anyone seriously trying to promote it, to prove they didn't have a vested interest that would benefit from enacting it, financially. Of course, i play Eve, so such paranoia comes naturally
"Bait and switch" is not a legal term it is called "false advertising".
READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY:
Title 15 U.S. Code § 54 - Standard of proof; public policy considerations
The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.
Let's see here. We have the following requirements:
1. Causes or is likely to cause SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO CONSUMERS which is not REASONABLY AVOIDABLE BY CONSUMERS. 2. Not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers.
I really want to see you argue with the court that a cash shop in a computer game has caused you substantial injury which was not reasonably avoidable by you. Hilarious!
TLDR: False Advertising in laymen's terms: "Did you get substantially injured by this cash shop change? If your answer is no and if you just don't like the cash shop you can avoid the game, now get the fuck out of my court!"
You should read the law more closely:
Section 45 (a) (1) of the same law:
"Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
The section you quoted limits only when the Commission may declare unfair act or practice unlawful, but the Commision also has power to act on deceptive acts or practises.
EDIT: Also your TLDR is plain wrong. If some individual sues a company for false advertising, then it's a question of "Did this change violate the agreement between you and the company?"
Advertising material becomes part of the agreement when a purchase is made, and after that it's a question of if the product deviates too much from what was agreed. /EDIT
Have you even read § 45? No you did not read it, nor did you understand it. Because if you did then you would have noticed that at the end of 45 in section (n) which i quoted it defines Standard of proof; public policy considerationson what is unfair and deceptive. THAT IS WHAT I POSTED. It's only unlawful or deceptive if:the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers
Next time read the whole law and understand it.
/smh
TLDR: There is pretty much NO practice in commerce that is not deceptive. Have you ever watched commercials? They are nothing if not deceptive. Yet you can not sue everyone willy-nilly because you need to proof someone got substantially injured.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
"Bait and switch" is not a legal term it is called "false advertising".
READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY:
Title 15 U.S. Code § 54 - Standard of proof; public policy considerations
The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.
Let's see here. We have the following requirements:
1. Causes or is likely to cause SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO CONSUMERS which is not REASONABLY AVOIDABLE BY CONSUMERS. 2. Not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers.
I really want to see you argue with the court that a cash shop in a computer game has caused you substantial injury which was not reasonably avoidable by you. Hilarious!
TLDR: False Advertising in laymen's terms: "Did you get substantially injured by this cash shop change? If your answer is no and if you just don't like the cash shop you can avoid the game, now get the fuck out of my court!"
You should read the law more closely:
Section 45 (a) (1) of the same law:
"Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
The section you quoted limits only when the Commission may declare unfair act or practice unlawful, but the Commision also has power to act on deceptive acts or practises.
EDIT: Also your TLDR is plain wrong. If some individual sues a company for false advertising, then it's a question of "Did this change violate the agreement between you and the company?"
Advertising material becomes part of the agreement when a purchase is made, and after that it's a question of if the product deviates too much from what was agreed. /EDIT
Have you even read § 45? No you did not read it, nor did you understand it. Because if you did then you would have noticed that at the end of 45 in section (n) which i quoted it defines Standard of proof; public policy considerationson what is unfair and deceptive. THAT IS WHAT I POSTED. It's only unlawful or deceptive if:the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers
Next time read the whole law and understand it.
/smh
TLDR: There is pretty much NO practice in commerce that is not deceptive. Have you ever watched commercials? They are nothing if not deceptive. Yet you can not sue everyone willy-nilly because you need to proof someone got substantially injured.
Why are you adding extra words to the law?
§ 45 (n) talks only about unfair. Word deceptive is not used at all.
Compare it to § 45 (m) where lawmakers have repeated words unfair or deceptive total of 8 times to make sure that the reader understands they are talking about both unfair and deceptive. Omitting the word deceptive from § 45 (n) after that was not accident, and you should not add extra words to the law.
Given a choice between communism or price controls on everything, nearly all of the people who suffered under communism would have opted for the latter.
let me ask you this then.
If there is price controls on most items there isnt any possible way they system is Capitalism. So what is it?
we were taught in school that communism is about many things but one of them was price controls on everything. if that is incorrect then what economic system would it be?
When communism collapsed in a series of popular revolts around the start of the 1990s, do you really think that people were revolting against price controls, and that mass murder and police states had nothing to do with it?
The United States once had a bout with heavy price controls:
That sort of government meddling is what some in this thread are calling for. Historically, it contributed to the Great Depression being much worse than it otherwise could have been, but it's far shy of the mass murder (estimated 20th century death toll: 100 million) that pretty much always happened under communism.
Define 'heavy' not wait...
IT DOESNT ANSWER MY QUESTION
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Or, we could blame others for our weaknesses.
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
down
price
controls
do you really think one of the first areas of price control is going to be food and.....games?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If there is price controls on most items there isnt any possible way they system is Capitalism. So what is it?
we were taught in school that communism is about many things but one of them was price controls on everything. if that is incorrect then what economic system would it be?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The United States once had a bout with heavy price controls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration
That sort of government meddling is what some in this thread are calling for. Historically, it contributed to the Great Depression being much worse than it otherwise could have been, but it's far shy of the mass murder (estimated 20th century death toll: 100 million) that pretty much always happened under communism.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The word carries a pretty heavy meaning in Australia, just want to make sure that you mean it in some other sense than criminality.
You do not need to play video games to excise your imagination, social and mental skills. Heard of chess, card games, table top RPGs, or just talking to friends?
Going to have to strongly agree with @nariusseldon here. Gaming is not an essential part of life. Eating and breathing are an essential part of life. If you think gaming is a essential part of life then you might need to make some lifestyle changes.
Capitalist societies value the principles of individual rights, freedom, liberty (laissez faire) and rule of law. When you apply these values to production you get free markets and individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. All is regulated by the rule of law instead of the rule of man.
Here are some examples of price controls that happen in so called capitalist societies today:
- Oil/Gasoline prices (always been regulated)
- Essential food prices (Bread, Milk, Sugar etc.)
- Rent
- Price of labor (minimum wage)
- The list goes on...
To answer your question: Up until the 1930's the US was pretty much an ideal free market capitalist system with minimum governmental involvement. Reality now is that about 1/3rd of spending is federal government which like i listed above does heavy price regulations, subsidies, responsibility to house, feed and educate its citizens. Bail outs and subsidies of companies and banks is the purest form of communism.Let's look at the current state of affairs in most so called "capitalist democracies":
- Centralized Economic Planning
- Central Bank that controls the money supply/interest rates
- Price and Wage Controls
- Legal tender laws
- Property confiscation through income tax / inflation / seizing of gold
This is what is called corporate socialism.___
TLDR: You would call it "Corporate Socialism" or "State Capitalism". Communism is not price control on everything, there are no prices in communism because the community owns it all and does not need to pay.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Section 45 (a) (1) of the same law:
"Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
The section you quoted limits only when the Commission may declare unfair act or practice unlawful, but the Commision also has power to act on deceptive acts or practises.
EDIT: Also your TLDR is plain wrong. If some individual sues a company for false advertising, then it's a question of "Did this change violate the agreement between you and the company?"
Advertising material becomes part of the agreement when a purchase is made, and after that it's a question of if the product deviates too much from what was agreed. /EDIT
Anyone who seriously doesn't believe that the entire SOE debacle wasn't the result of consumer disatisfaction probably needs to take off the blinkers, i am not saying that the whole SWG thing caused it, but it certainly was the opening shot that created so much disaffection between consumer and publisher, that lessons weren't learned imo inevitably led to Sony selling off SOE, if SOE had not had such strong backing from Sony in the first place, i strongly believe that SOE's end would have come much, much sooner.
Its said so many times, that consumers will always vote with their wallets, but its a truism, and you can be sure that companies are very sensitive to consumer interest, or more precisely, disinterest.
Getting the legal system involved will only benefit lawyers and companies that perhaps, are often seen as being little more than ambulance chasers.
I don't particularly trust lawyers, politicians or for that matter, bankers, i believe they consider their own money as being far more important than that of the average consumer, unless its profitable of course, which usually means that for both the consumer and the publisher, its unlikely to be.
IMO the gamers bill of rights, is only likely to disincline developers to make games in the first place, its a dumb idea, that benefits noone, and i would question the agenda of anyone seriously trying to promote it, to prove they didn't have a vested interest that would benefit from enacting it, financially. Of course, i play Eve, so such paranoia comes naturally
It's only unlawful or deceptive if: the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers
Next time read the whole law and understand it.
/smh
TLDR: There is pretty much NO practice in commerce that is not deceptive. Have you ever watched commercials? They are nothing if not deceptive. Yet you can not sue everyone willy-nilly because you need to proof someone got substantially injured.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I mean they're all old folks up on the hill anyways and would think that only kids play video games.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
§ 45 (n) talks only about unfair. Word deceptive is not used at all.
Compare it to § 45 (m) where lawmakers have repeated words unfair or deceptive total of 8 times to make sure that the reader understands they are talking about both unfair and deceptive. Omitting the word deceptive from § 45 (n) after that was not accident, and you should not add extra words to the law.
Define 'heavy' not wait...
IT
DOESNT
ANSWER
MY
QUESTION
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me