Have you been ripped off by Software Co's?

Maddogg6 · Feb 4, 2008, 03:15 PM

The following is a letter I sent to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) in regards to misleading if not completely false 'Minimum System Requirements' advertised on pretty much all software sold (at least here in the US)

Please feel free to use the following as a template to voice your complaint as well. As, I believe it to be a well written complaint about the issue in general, but an attached sheet of your particulars can be attached (as I did) would allow the FTC to better investigate. PLEASE, make sure you are fair and accurate in your complaint - otherwise it will likely be regarded as trash and ignored.

Maybe it is a bigger problem that what I hear about... maybe not - so I added a poll for some feedback on this.

Quote:

Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

CC:
Ubisoft Entertainment
Business office
625 Third Street
San Francisco - CA 94107

Best Buy Co., Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 9312
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9312

Good Day,
I kindly request that this letter should be forwarded to the appropriate parties involved with those involved in enforcing the 'Truth in Advertising' legislation, or to chairman/chairperson, Deborah Platt Majoras if she has not already been forwarded a copy.

I am writing to inform, or to potentially re-affirm any previous claims made by others, of a fraud committed upon the citizens of this great nation that clearly should be otherwise protected by the ‘Truth in Advertising’ legislation.

The scheme works as follows.
Computer software retail packaging often states ‘Minimum System Requirements’ (referred to as ‘MSR’ from here on out) on the ‘outside’ of the packaging for that software. Consumers often use this information to determine if said software will, or could, operate on their particular PC/hardware.
I have personally found, often, they are misleading with the ‘exceptions’ to the posted MSR only found after the packaging has been opened (inside the box or on ‘technical support’ systems typically only sought after by the consumer having problems/errors.) And thus, the product is no longer allowed a refund by the retailer when the consumer has determined that the software as engineered could never operate on their PC/hardware as advertised. This leaves the consumer out of their hard earned money with nothing in exchange but misleading information on a box of junk disc(s).

Voicing my complaint Best Buy Co. Inc. (see attached letter) alone, thus far, has resulted in no response, and the software is still available to other non-suspecting consumers with the exact same misleading/false information advertised on its retail packaging.

While I understand the importance of protecting intellectual rights, as consumers, I urge you to not confuse this issue with intellectual property rights laws.

For retailers to knowingly continue to resell software with misleading MSR’s, are committing fraud. As, it is obvious to me that this falls under the ‘Truth in Advertising’ legislation passed through the Federal Trade Commission and hope your and/or your office will, at the very least investigate the above allegations, and at best, enforce current laws that would punish, and ultimately, put a halt on the activities of retailers who knowingly continue to sell software that advertises with misleading information and thus victimizes un-suspecting consumers.

Included are all the details and what I feel to be evidence regarding my particular case and are:.
1) A copy of the original letter sent to Best Buy Co. Inc. informing them of the product(s) they sell with false advertising.
2) A dated photo showing the same software still available at a local Best Buy retail outlet.
3) A print out the ‘exceptions’ to the MSR’s only found once the packaging has been opened. (As found contained on the discs used to install said software onto a computer.)

Thank you for your considerations. And please contact me at if you have any questions, or feel I can further assist in any resulting investigations.

Regards,

I edited out my personal info... and of course, in my case it was an Ubisoft title - and that address would need to be changed as well if you choose to use the above as a template to make your case to the FTC.

**Vikingod** · Feb 4, 2008, 08:25 PM

What title was it?

IEMC · Feb 4, 2008, 09:31 PM

I guess.

This is why I test software and don't spend my hard earned monies.

Maddogg6 · Feb 4, 2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

What title was it?

interestingly - it was MYST - I forget the exact name - but it was a release of 3 versions - Myst:III, Riven and a 'Masterpiece' edition of the original.

The MSR States A diectX9 video card 640x480. But in the readme file - it lists several chipsets known not to work with all 3 games - My NV8400 was one of them. Interestingly also - is, I can't choose 640x480 resolution manually. But Im not sure if thats the reason or not. Just it *is* known, but you dont find out until *after* the packaaging is opened, and thus no longer able to be returned because of anti-piracy law that allows this exception for software.

I forget the other particular software off hand, but I have seen it more than once, for me as well as for other people.

I am looking to possibly start a class action suit - but I would need more complaints to do so.... ??? maybe the letter to the FTC will be enough.

**Vikingod** · Feb 5, 2008, 09:14 AM

I think its an interesting argument. I agree that it is rediculous that software can't be returned, but I guess I can see both sides. I'm only vaguely familiar with the FTCs stance, but I bet you could make a case with the UCC as well. It's been a while since I looked into The Code, but when I was in college I wrote a paper regarding this subject specifically. My professor, who is a practicing attorney, indicated my argument had a good chance of making it in the courts. I'll see if I can dig it out, but I wouldn't hold your breath, it's probably long gone.

Also, make sure you file a complaint officially with the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau (https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup) if you haven't done so.

Surprizingly, I've personally not had an issue with this, at least nothing a driver update couldn't fix. The last time a game didn't work for me (bugs in the game I believe), I brought it back without questions asked. It certainly helped that I was friendly with the person at the GameStop though, and I understand that most don't have that advantage.

Edit: Reading your poll again, I doubt you could prove fraud. Non-performance or breach of contract, but not fraud. Check out:
UCC, § 2-607 (3), § 2-608(1)(b), and § 2-711

Be aware though, The Code is not law, and it's perfectly unspecific. For every argument you can make, there is one coming at you. Thats the beauty of it.

mkk · Feb 5, 2008, 10:16 AM

I hoped it was Crysis.

Maddogg6 · Feb 5, 2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

I think its an interesting argument. I agree that it is rediculous that software can't be returned, but I guess I can see both sides. I'm only vaguely familiar with the FTCs stance, but I bet you could make a case with the UCC as well. It's been a while since I looked into The Code, but when I was in college I wrote a paper regarding this subject specifically. My professor, who is a practicing attorney, indicated my argument had a good chance of making it in the courts. I'll see if I can dig it out, but I wouldn't hold your breath, it's probably long gone.

Also, make sure you file a complaint officially with the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau (https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup) if you haven't done so.

Surprizingly, I've personally not had an issue with this, at least nothing a driver update couldn't fix. The last time a game didn't work for me (bugs in the game I believe), I brought it back without questions asked. It certainly helped that I was friendly with the person at the GameStop though, and I understand that most don't have that advantage.

Edit: Reading your poll again, I doubt you could prove fraud. Non-performance or breach of contract, but not fraud. Check out:
UCC, § 2-607 (3), § 2-608(1)(b), and § 2-711

Be aware though, The Code is not law, and it's perfectly unspecific. For every argument you can make, there is one coming at you. Thats the beauty of it.

Yeah - my really fear so far is 'whats considered advertisement' - I dont find precedent that retail packaging constitutes 'advertisement' (I imagine those cases are settled and sealed..??) - it would sure seem like it tho...
Heres what the FTC calls 'deception' (aka used in fraud).
FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION

Quote:

Most deception involves written or oral misrepresentations, or omissions of material information. Deception may also occur in other forms of conduct associated with a sales transaction.

The MSR's could never be argued that a consumer would use that to decide on buy the product or not - and when exceptions are only posted *inside* the packaging - to me, it *is* deception - which as I understand is 'fraud'.

More info (breaks it down into more simpler terms instead of legal-eze language)
Frequently Asked Advertising Questions:A Guide for Small Business

Whats interesting is this particular case - its older software thats no longer functioning on newer hardware...(heh and 3 people jumped to the assumption it was that my system was below specs) but is *still* sold. So the typical 'misleading' MSR's usually indicate - you need better - ok - I have better, but still not working. Now - it would seem they also need to advertise 'Maximum Requirements. Which they do not do.

But I have not yet talked to a lawyer about this - and figured the FTC was my best course of action.

**Vikingod** · Feb 5, 2008, 03:04 PM

One of the key factors in such a "fraud" case, is that legally, it comes on the customers shoulders to investigate all matters before the exchange of money. If I was a lawyer, my first question would be, given the age of the game, and the known problems associated with older software, would it have been prudent to investigate the matter before purchasing the game. I think in this case, you could answer it either way. Thats the thing with this stuff, it's never black and white.

This would of course depend on what is on the box. If the box stated that your specific setup would run the game, you might have a better case. Often, MSR's post something like

Quote:

" Actual requirements vary, depending on the system configuration and the programs and features that you choose to install"

which could strengthen a defense.

Maddogg6 · Feb 5, 2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

If I was a lawyer, my first question would be, given the age of the game, and the known problems associated with older software, would it have been prudent to investigate the matter before purchasing the game.

Known to who? - you maybe, but a typical consumer?
It says works;
1) on XP, - check
2) needs at least a directX9 compatible video card, 640x460 - check my card will do *at least* that (as inferred from the word 'minimum').
3) 233 Mhz CPU - check
4) DX compatible sound card - Check

1) How is a consumer expected to know the age of a software sold currently - does this not infer - it is current software?

2) What is the truth in advertising legislation for - to simply waste tax dollars, Remind us there are crooks out there in retail stores?? or to protect consumers from deceptive business practices?

Quote:

" Actual requirements vary, depending on the system configuration and the programs and features that you choose to install"

I think you are missing the point.

Quote:

If the box stated that *your* specific setup would run the game

Yes it does.

Yet there are known chip sets that will not work - *thats* what should be on the outside of the box (instead of a disclaimer that gives no details) - not inside. And Best Buy would still not refund (but would only exchange for exact same title, that would still never work .)
That disclaimer - should instead be: 'Buy this at your own risk - if it doesn't work - your loss, law says so' - or something like that.

1) Best buy has been informed of this problem and has ignored it and is still selling it.
2) the software manufacturer is deliberately hiding information from consumers. That is *only* found when the box is opened.

Take your pick of whos at fault for fraud or unfair business practice or what ever - my letter was sent as a consumer not a lawyer under what I think is most appropriate.

I guess we can expect more of the same if we just sit back and allow such practices. Thats all I guess.

Judas · Feb 5, 2008, 04:19 PM

even in the case where i've ran ubisoft products that MEET the exact "minimum" AND even "recommended" requirements, that the product ceases to work properly... this is one reason i hate both EA and Ubisoft.....When i buy either product, or even consider them, there is usually a 50/50 chance that it'll either won't work or work half assed.

BBB should be contacted as well

Maddogg6 · Feb 5, 2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEMC

I guess.

This is why I test software and don't spend my hard earned monies.

And wonder why piracy is a problem - which gives them even more political/legal powers - to what? - turn the screws tighter?

I agree with your logic and its a quandary for me personally - I dont want to pirate anything - but they sorta leave us consumers little choice.

Maddogg6 · Feb 5, 2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

BBB should be contacted as well

Oh yes - I forgot about that one (not sure why, I have made similar recommendations before as wel... doh!)

Additionally - I will never buy a video game - ever. Unless I see some serious changes in the current system... I wont support consoles either as its cash in to the same hands.

OldBuzzard · Feb 6, 2008, 01:29 AM

Let me make sure I'm right here.

You are complaining that a game won't run on your system, when systems with your specs didn't even exist at the time the game was released? And you want to call that deceptive?

I guess I should dig out all of my old DOS and Windows 3.11 games and complain about them too.

YAYitsAndrew · Feb 6, 2008, 10:06 AM

I think it's a rerelease of the old games, bundled together, where you would expect the publisher to put some effort into updating or emulating the game so that it runs on modern systems.

When companies say "includes the original maniac mansion!" or whatever, they're not giving you the dos version that was on some floppies 15 years ago. They had to update it so that it works in the same era as the new game they released.

It seems like they are using emulation in this case to get the old myst games to work, but ran into problems with certain chipsets.

To the topic creator: Don't punish all game developers just because you got burned by one. Consoles don't have these system requirement issues so extending your "afraid to buy" argument past pc's is ridiculous. If you want to not support ubisoft with any sources of money, then don't buy THEIR console games (which unfortunately means no Assassin's Creed for you). There's also an independent games industry that can't afford to wait for publishing deals. It's unfair to slight those developers as well. They rarely ever see any of their software in a box on a shelf.

YAYitsAndrew · Feb 6, 2008, 10:11 AM

There's also a larger issue to discuss here, like what other information should be published on the side of the box. I don't want to derail the topic but I think game boxes should discuss if their game is playable or not under certain handicaps. Blindness, Deaf, etc. I'd even like to see left-handed notifications because I've been burned out of 50 bucks over games that I can't play because I'm left handed. It's been a while because I'm not playing many pc games, but Freedom Force comes to mind instantly.

edit: This just made me think of a good website idea. A database where players can log in and report their actual findings about specs to run a game as well as discuss other things like handicaps that prevent them from playing.

**Vikingod** · Feb 6, 2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

Known to who? - you maybe, but a typical consumer?
It says works;
1) on XP, - check
2) needs at least a directX9 compatible video card, 640x460 - check my card will do *at least* that (as inferred from the word 'minimum').
3) 233 Mhz CPU - check
4) DX compatible sound card - Check

1) How is a consumer expected to know the age of a software sold currently - does this not infer - it is current software?

2) What is the truth in advertising legislation for - to simply waste tax dollars, Remind us there are crooks out there in retail stores?? or to protect consumers from deceptive business practices?

I think you are missing the point.

Yes it does.

Yet there are known chip sets that will not work - *thats* what should be on the outside of the box (instead of a disclaimer that gives no details) - not inside. And Best Buy would still not refund (but would only exchange for exact same title, that would still never work .)
That disclaimer - should instead be: 'Buy this at your own risk - if it doesn't work - your loss, law says so' - or something like that.

1) Best buy has been informed of this problem and has ignored it and is still selling it.
2) the software manufacturer is deliberately hiding information from consumers. That is *only* found when the box is opened.

Take your pick of whos at fault for fraud or unfair business practice or what ever - my letter was sent as a consumer not a lawyer under what I think is most appropriate.

I guess we can expect more of the same if we just sit back and allow such practices. Thats all I guess.

Maddogg, there really is no reason to be so hostile. I was simply giving you another perspective, based on my knowledge and experience working within the legal system, and with fraud cases specifically. The law is not as black and white as I think you would believe, and I was giving you other points to consider to bolster your argument.

Your quickness to blow up at people seems to me to be your greatest enemy. If you are serious about this, I don't think that attitude the best way to go about it.

Mousey · Feb 6, 2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEMC

I guess.

This is why I test software and don't spend my hard earned monies.

Really, is that a job or a "hobby"? Details?

Methious · Feb 6, 2008, 12:58 PM

I don't mind buying software, but given the proclivity of manufacturers to maximize sales at any cost many times I test drive it before I buy it.

Nothing stinks more than getting $50 bucks worth of game, and your rig crashes when you load it.

Maddogg6 · Feb 6, 2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Maddogg, there really is no reason to be so hostile.....
Your quickness to blow up at people seems to me to be your greatest enemy. If you are serious about this, I don't think that attitude the best way to go about it.