Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HL2 makes story in The Inquirer

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105

Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?

....Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has recently
found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report made
following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an
internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did
not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the
game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from HL2 or
face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.


In related news, HL2 wins awards.
http://www.interactive.org/awards/IAA-8/winners.asp#1
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

OldDog wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105
>
> Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?
>
> ...Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has
recently
> found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report
made
> following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing
of an
> internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements
did
> not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with
the
> game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from
HL2 or
> face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations
will
> agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer
that
> Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

difool will be loving this...
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The Chronic wrote:
>
>
> The difference is that "internet connection" is open to
misinterpretation,
> particularly for a game with a single player campaign.

Absolutely. It will be read in context, and in the context of a PC game
with a single- and multi-player component it can reasonably be assumed
to refer to the multi-player only, because that has been the norm and
there is nothing to indicate it is differing from the norm.
The law will judge such cases on their own merits and in the specific
context in which they occur.

>
> > The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.
>
> Certain clauses in the EULA have no legal binding, but that's not the
issue.
> The issue is misleading labelling on the package.

It's similar to expansion packs which clearly state "You must own the
original game to play this one - the original is not included in this
box" The HL2 box should clearly state "online activation is required
for all game play". It doesn't need to be in 6' letters of fire, but it
should be as clear as the expansion pack advice.

The "contract" originally referred to did not mean the EULA, but the
terms of sale/use known at the time of purchase. This would include any
advice on the box packaging. However, some courts have ruled it also
includes any clauses which a purchaser would reasonably expect to find
in the EULA. Such as you bought a licencce, not the product; you can't
copy, lend hire etc; no dissassembling the code etc. It depends on the
specific situation as to whether the court will uphold the EULA.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
> >The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's
insufficient.
> >It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
interpretation
> >in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
> >different, and it doesn't make that clear.
> >
> >
>
> ...deliberately with calculated forethought too.........


John, you should always put "IMO" when stating an opinion, rather than
a fact. Some people here can't tell the difference and will sieze it as
an opportunity for flame-throwing rather than useful discussion. IMO.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:40:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:20:01 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>...Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has recently
>found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report made
>following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an
>internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did
>not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the
>game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from HL2 or
>face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
>agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
>Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
requires an internet connection? Maybe they should build a speaker
attached to a motion detector into the box so whenever anyone picks it
up, it screams "I need an internet connection!" at 120 dB.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:40:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

drocket wrote:
> So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
> system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
> requires an internet connection?

Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:45:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105

thanks a lot!
great news, but i would rather see it being the european comission or
any other european regulator than only the german
the rest of europe has also right to be defended like the german gamer
is, so i only wish europe will follow the say path!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:45:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, drocket wrote:

> So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
> system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
> requires an internet connection? Maybe they should build a speaker
> attached to a motion detector into the box so whenever anyone picks it
> up, it screams "I need an internet connection!" at 120 dB.

so you are better than the german consumer association?
you are much better than they are right?

you again...
i still remember when you wrote in this group two months ago about steam
being completely "normal", steam is nothing "new"

its so frustrating seeing gamers completely blind when anyone who follows
this group and tries to read every complaint gamers have will come across
many many many reports of hl2 retail buyers who fell they were mislead
when buying hl2 cause of the "internet connection" requirement

only people on purpose and to justify steam will deny the requirements on
the now hl2 box can easily be mistaken by multi-player capabilities found
on the majority of fps and are totally INSUFFICIENT to describe what steam
is, and means

again a very big thanks to olddog! an example of a gamer who choosed steam
and believes on steam but that doesn't make him blind for every issue it
raises and steam raises many many issues!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 8 Feb 2005, flightlessvacuum@lycos.com wrote:

> difool will be loving this...

please let me correct you if i may...
"all german pc gamers will be loving this"
and yes i'm extremely happy for them, now i want the same for me

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
February 9, 2005 10:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:34:04 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
>"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.

It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:56:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.

The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
different, and it doesn't make that clear.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:22:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:
> > I wonder if nuts of the future will come with a label that says
"remove
> shell before eating".
>

The nuts of the present already come in bags labelled "Warning -
contains nuts". (American Airlines was the culprit I believe)
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> Spake Unto All:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105
>
>Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?

The EULA has no legal power whatsoever in europe. It's nothing more
than a readme.txt here. But what the reviewer wants is STEAM, not just
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY, mentioned as a requirement of the game.

Which strikes me as a strange view, as steam isn't a prerequisite, it
is bundled with the game.

>face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
>agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
>Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

Well, I guess it could be mentioned more clearly on the box that you
really, truly, actually DO need internet connectivity to play. I'm
sure there's people who will miss this, just like I *know* there are
plenty of people who miss that World of Warcraft and Everquest 2 need
internet connection.

For completeness, I'll list the reviewers other "significant issues":

"The second is that where a gamer buys a copy of the game for which
the CDKey has already been hacked, he will have to wait up to two
weeks to get a replacement from Sierra/Vivendi, since shops will
generally not take back opened software. The third is that no copy of
the game can be sold without paying Valve a $10 fee to transfer the
CD-Key to another Steam account."

#2: Well, that makes Sierra/Vivendi/Valve on par or better than most
other software houses wrt to helping people who claim to have had
their keys stolen.
#3: Yeah. That is, and IMO remains, the sole real problem with Steam.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> Spake Unto All:

>since this has always been
>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer.

It lists internet connection as a _minimum requirement_.

Bitching about it not being playable on a non-internet-connected
machine is like bitching about it not being playable on a Matrox
Millennium gfx card, or their Pentium 90 - neither of which meet
minimum requirements either.

>If the average
>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.

The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> It lists internet connection as a _minimum requirement_.

Under the category of "other." Unclear.

> Bitching about it not being playable on a non-internet-connected
> machine is like bitching about it not being playable on a Matrox
> Millennium gfx card, or their Pentium 90 - neither of which meet
> minimum requirements either.

The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
particularly for a game with a single player campaign.

> The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.

Certain clauses in the EULA have no legal binding, but that's not the issue.
The issue is misleading labelling on the package.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:39:33 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The third is that no copy of
>the game can be sold without paying Valve a $10 fee to transfer the
>CD-Key to another Steam account."

I'd like to see someone test this bulllshit clause in court. They
don't have a legal leg to stand on.
February 9, 2005 1:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>
>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>different, and it doesn't make that clear.

"unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.

The fact that some other game boxes are ambiguous or misleading is an
issue you should take up with the relevant publishers. HL2 is
correctly labeled.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
February 9, 2005 1:51:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,

Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
February 9, 2005 1:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:51:36 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
>
>Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.

Nice, you just gave in! Information on packaging has to be made clear
for everyone legally able to make decisions for themselves (adults and
non invalids). Since you just said that the box might confuse stupid
people, you admitted the box's label(s) are unacceptable.


--
Alex
atheist #2007
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 2:09:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>
>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>
>

....deliberately with calculated forethought too.........

John Lewis

>
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 2:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Not sure.
They can't forbid resale of the product, but that's not what they do
either, they just stop the product from being used (unless sold
together with its account).
This is clearly not the way it's previously been with games, but one
could compare it to resale of e.g. MMORPGs - you can't play those
either without an account.
Although in this case they'll likely not say that you pay for the
account, but for the service of re-registering the key.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 2:24:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:56:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:34:04 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
>>"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
>>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
>>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.
>
>It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>--

....deliberately vague and incomplete....

"On-line authentication is required"

immediately after the hardware requirements (and
clearly spaced away from any mention of multi-play )
This would be sufficient to alert the otherwise unwary
purchaser.

John Lewis


>Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
>Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
>please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
>Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 2:26:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:51:36 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
>
>Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.

Hopefully, most PC users are not as arrogant and snobbish as
you...........

John Lewis

>--
>Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
>Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
>please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
>Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:01:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:l7qj01lkaa714nh25kh7f1fitgrml85c7n@4ax.com...

> >> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
> >The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
> >It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
interpretation
> >in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
> >different, and it doesn't make that clear.
> "unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.
>
> The fact that some other game boxes are ambiguous or misleading is an
> issue you should take up with the relevant publishers. HL2 is
> correctly labeled.

It does not say that internet authentication is required for the single
player game. It merely says that net acess is required and again, using the
example of every other game made, that means net access is required for
MULTIplayer.

The box should unambiguously state that a Steam account is required to play
single player.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:16:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>>
>>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>
> "unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.

Words are never completele unambiguous and are allways open to
interpretation. It all depends on the situation.

If you are a publisher and you can reasonably expect your customers to
interpret your words differently than you meant them (which is clearly
the case here), you should take precautions and make the text clearer.
That would not seem too much to ask.

Louis
February 9, 2005 4:00:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:47:58 -0500, Alex <a@b.c> wrote:

>Nice, you just gave in! Information on packaging has to be made clear
>for everyone legally able to make decisions for themselves (adults and
>non invalids). Since you just said that the box might confuse stupid
>people, you admitted the box's label(s) are unacceptable.

Yeah, in the same way that manufacturers of sleeping tablets put a
warning "may cause drowsiness" on the packaging to avoid lawsuits from
the truly f***witted people in this world, half of which seem to be
present in this thread.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
February 9, 2005 5:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"difool" <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:isfj0191jffjqh7ngvtioh8ngiqn1hlsns@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2005, flightlessvacuum@lycos.com wrote:
>
>> difool will be loving this...
>
> please let me correct you if i may...
> "all german pc gamers will be loving this"
> and yes i'm extremely happy for them, now i want the same for me
>
> --

Ha. Good response difool!
February 9, 2005 5:53:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:l7qj01lkaa714nh25kh7f1fitgrml85c7n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>>
>>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>
> "unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.
>
> The fact that some other game boxes are ambiguous or misleading is an
> issue you should take up with the relevant publishers. HL2 is
> correctly labeled.
> --

Just what is your problem, Andrew? A completely neutral trading standards
department has found the packaging wanting. Why do you have to defend Valve
all the time?

Let me reiterate the salient point here - the trading standards office
concerned has one axe to grind - consumer protection and upholding the law
(or would that be two axes?). They see Valve as falling down on both counts
and have directed them accordingly.

Maybe you feel that the trading standards office are "anti steam FarCry
fanbois" as is often the response to a post which has the effrontery to
criticise Steam and/or Valve?
February 9, 2005 5:56:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:s72k01prf8b86oe2d4sn3kdtab3icqhfac@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:47:58 -0500, Alex <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>Nice, you just gave in! Information on packaging has to be made clear
>>for everyone legally able to make decisions for themselves (adults and
>>non invalids). Since you just said that the box might confuse stupid
>>people, you admitted the box's label(s) are unacceptable.
>
> Yeah, in the same way that manufacturers of sleeping tablets put a
> warning "may cause drowsiness" on the packaging to avoid lawsuits from
> the truly f***witted people in this world, half of which seem to be
> present in this thread.
> --

So, Andrew, not only are the German population stupid, but also many posters
in this thread. Oh, add to this the German trading standards officers
concerned and their legal advisors.

Sheesh, Andrew, either you are somebody akin to Stephen Hawking incognito or
a total and utter prick - probably about 15 years old with it.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 5:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The Chronic wrote:
> drocket wrote:
>
>>So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
>>system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
>>requires an internet connection?
>
>
> Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
> "internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
> the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
> an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
> this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
> consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.
>
>

"Internet connection required".

Which part is ambiguous?

I agree that the shops need to remind people since it is a new concept,
nonetheless it is perfectly clear. Again : "Internet connection required".

Its like crossing a border : valid passport required. Easy.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 5:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:55 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>"Internet connection required".
>
>Which part is ambiguous?
>
>I agree that the shops need to remind people since it is a new concept,
>nonetheless it is perfectly clear. Again : "Internet connection required".
>
>Its like crossing a border : valid passport required. Easy.

Internet connection required usually implies for MP and Vivendi did
not mention this game requires IC for authentication. Just like those
game companies that install hidden copy protection drivers without the
users knowledge (Starforce) they have unwittingly opened themselves up
to a possible lawsuit. This is something I want to see go to court and
take these companies down a peg or two.
February 9, 2005 5:57:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:53:38 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:

>Just what is your problem, Andrew? A completely neutral trading standards
>department has found the packaging wanting. Why do you have to defend Valve
>all the time?

I am sorry to hear common sense isn't allowed on Usenet any more. Just
KF me and have fun talking to DiF***wit who will happily talk bollocks
to you until the cows come home.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 5:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The Chronic wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>>It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>
>
> The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
> It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
> in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
> different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>

I feel its a tad early for you to be redefining the english language
and how people interpret it. You feel the average consumer doesn't
understand the word "required" thus leaving Valve open to legal action?
February 9, 2005 5:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cud4tf$h8i$03$2@news.t-online.com...
> The Chronic wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>>
>>
>> The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>> It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
>> interpretation
>> in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>> different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>>
>
> I feel its a tad early for you to be redefining the english language and
> how people interpret it. You feel the average consumer doesn't understand
> the word "required" thus leaving Valve open to legal action?

I think you will find it is the trading standards office concerned making
this distinction.
February 9, 2005 6:09:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:51 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:

>So, Andrew, not only are the German population stupid, but also many posters
>in this thread. Oh, add to this the German trading standards officers
>concerned and their legal advisors.

I have said nothing about the German population. The German trading
standards will have received complaints from bozo's like DiF***wit and
will be acting to help the "speshul" people in their community from
having to use their brain.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:01:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Schrodinger wrote:
> "Walter Mitty" <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cud4tf$h8i$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>
>>The Chronic wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>>>
>>>
>>>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>>>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
>>>interpretation
>>>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>>>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>>>
>>
>> I feel its a tad early for you to be redefining the english language and
>>how people interpret it. You feel the average consumer doesn't understand
>>the word "required" thus leaving Valve open to legal action?
>
>
> I think you will find it is the trading standards office concerned making
> this distinction.
>

I dont doubt it. The world has gone potty.

I wonder if nuts of the future will come with a label that says "remove
shell before eating".

--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com
February 9, 2005 7:08:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:529k01d7clomha48b3c2ke7r32ivija5qj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:53:38 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:
>
>>Just what is your problem, Andrew? A completely neutral trading standards
>>department has found the packaging wanting. Why do you have to defend
>>Valve
>>all the time?
>
> I am sorry to hear common sense isn't allowed on Usenet any more. Just
> KF me and have fun talking to DiF***wit who will happily talk bollocks
> to you until the cows come home.
> --

Andrew, according to your posts, common sense is not allowed in the German
Trading Standards department either. One must accept at some point that,
when everybody disagrees with you it may be for a reason...
February 9, 2005 7:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:gl9k019o2aqu6gtv69lfdtkhi28nic7h5s@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:51 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:
>
>>So, Andrew, not only are the German population stupid, but also many
>>posters
>>in this thread. Oh, add to this the German trading standards officers
>>concerned and their legal advisors.
>
> I have said nothing about the German population. The German trading
> standards will have received complaints from bozo's like DiF***wit and
> will be acting to help the "speshul" people in their community from
> having to use their brain.
> --
>

Your inference by stating that warnings are placed on sleeping tablet
packaging "to avoid lawsuits from
the truly f***witted people in this world" is that there are a lot about and
they need protecting from themselves.

Rights or wrongs of this aside, there is a clear implication that you feel a
sizable number of Germans must fall into this category, otherwise their
Trading Standards people and legal advisors to same would not feel it
necessary to take this action.

From my point of view, you do not seem to be accepting a logical and
reasonable argument already put forward in this NG (okay, ignore the
ramblings of DiFool) and since confirmed by a serious German state
institution.

I won't kill file you because that is silly. If I thought you weren't worth
talking to, I would simply not reply to you.
February 9, 2005 8:37:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:13:15 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:

>Rights or wrongs of this aside, there is a clear implication that you feel a
>sizable number of Germans must fall into this category, otherwise their
>Trading Standards people and legal advisors to same would not feel it
>necessary to take this action.

Cases like these only need a handful of idiots to make a protest and
trading standards departments start an investigation. It is the same
as having a slightly saucy ad campaign that 5 prudes complain about
and the whole ad has to be pulled. It is nothing to do with a sizeable
number of people, whether or not they are German.

Regardless of all this, the bulk of the article is about the EULA
which I am not talking about, I am just taking issue with people who
are claiming it isn't clear you need a net connection. From memory the
specs on the box also say DVD drive alongside net connection in the
"Other" section. Are there people that are confused about the
imaginary ambiguity with that as well? Probably not as that doesn't
make for such a good troll.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
February 9, 2005 10:29:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> Not sure.
> They can't forbid resale of the product,

I've worked for software companies for fifteen years and none of the
products I've worked on could be 'resold'.

The user's bought a licence to run the software - they never owned it.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:29:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:29:14 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>The user's bought a licence to run the software - they never owned it.
>
Those licenses mean next to nothing in many countires, especialy
Europe. The courts set the rules, not the software houses. If I had
the mind and money to do so I could have a field day in court with
game publishers and many of their shoddy products.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:15:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cud8ks$7a3$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Schrodinger wrote:
<snip>
>
> I dont doubt it. The world has gone potty.
>
> I wonder if nuts of the future will come with a label that says "remove
> shell before eating".
>
> --
> Walter Mitty


Too late. Buy any appliance from the store, open the user manual and be
prepared to read 4 pages on things not to do with your appliance.

1. Don't use the egg beater on your ear.
2. Don't take a bath with your toaster.
3. Don't stick your fingers in the tree sheddar while it's on.
4. ...
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:27:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:lkqj01p9oa87s011n8slsma3tuegpb0448@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The difference is that "internet connection" is open to
misinterpretation,
>
> Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.
> --


If it takes intelligence to use a pc, then that leaves me out.

To change subject, I use to enjoy logging on. Reading email, surfing the
web.... but now, just to get online I need to:

1. Setup a firewall
2. Anti-virus program running
3. Don't use IE cause of the holes
4. Run Spyware program
5. Disable file sharing
6. Don't open email attachments from people that you don't know.
6a. Don't open email attachemtns from people that you do know.
7. Don't use your email in a newsgroup
8. Don't click on pop-up
9. Disable Active Scripting
10. .....

Madness! I'm mad as heck and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!! ;) 
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:57:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:55 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The Chronic wrote:
>> drocket wrote:
>>
>>>So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
>>>system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
>>>requires an internet connection?
>>
>>
>> Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
>> "internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
>> the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>> an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>> this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
>> consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.
>>
>>
>
>"Internet connection required".
>
>Which part is ambiguous?
>
>I agree that the shops need to remind people since it is a new concept,
>nonetheless it is perfectly clear. Again : "Internet connection required".
>
>Its like crossing a border : valid passport required. Easy.


This is just the tip of the iceberg. One of my former coworkers
recently lost his sight in an auto accident. Imagine his surprise to
find out that he couldn't play any of his games any more. He intends
to make billions suing the entire gaming industry. Nowhere on any game
package does it state that eyesight is required to play.

It's a clear cut case of misleading the consumer. :( 

Seems there's a lawyer out there that will take ANY case. :) 

Remove nospam_ to reply by email

Jeff H........
February 10, 2005 1:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chris Pound" wrote

> "Vince" wrote:

>>The user's bought a licence to run the software - they never owned it.

> Those licenses mean next to nothing in many countires, especialy
> Europe.

Which countries?

Not the UK.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:03:01 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>Not the UK.
>

The UK especially. Read your own consumer protection laws lately? You
can return any product that doesn't work as advertised, including
software. Not according to the Mickey Mouse software EULA's though.
It's BS.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:25:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> Spake Unto All:

>> It lists internet connection as a _minimum requirement_.
>
>Under the category of "other." Unclear.

So by inference it is equally unclear that you need a DVD-ROM drive to
play the game?
Because that too is listed in the "other" category, as a DVD-ROM is
neither OS, processor, memory, graphics card, or free harddrive space.

>> Bitching about it not being playable on a non-internet-connected
>> machine is like bitching about it not being playable on a Matrox
>> Millennium gfx card, or their Pentium 90 - neither of which meet
>> minimum requirements either.
>
>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
>particularly for a game with a single player campaign.

Frankly I don't see how "minimum requirement" can be reasonably
misinterpreted to mean "not minimum requirement".

I do, however, see how customers might fail to notice the requirements
textboxes completely, even though white-and-orange in color, because
they're quite small. Which is unfortunate.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:25:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> Spake Unto All:

>Andrew, according to your posts, common sense is not allowed in the German
>Trading Standards department either. One must accept at some point that,
>when everybody disagrees with you it may be for a reason...

I'm not sure you, difool/riku, Kroagnon and the German Trading
Standards Dept (if that is their real name) quite count as
"everybody".
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:25:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> Spake Unto All:

>So, Andrew, not only are the German population stupid, but also many posters
>in this thread.

Is that so?
Would everyone who bought HL2 without knowing it required internet
connection please raise their hands?

> Oh, add to this the German trading standards officers
>concerned and their legal advisors.

It is entirely possible that they are. It wouldn't be the first time.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:25:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Chris Pound <Chris@invalid.noemail> Spake Unto All:

>>The user's bought a licence to run the software - they never owned it.
>>
>Those licenses mean next to nothing in many countires, especialy
>Europe.

Not true. The EULA is worthless, but copyright legislation still
apply.
!