Have you been ripped off by Software Co's? - Page 2

**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.

erm... hostile - my blood pressure raised not a single bit... 'accenting' something to re-present my point I felt you were missing <> anger or hostility.

Please don't read more in a post (written words) that does not exist... you would know if I were angry - with the heavy use of expletives in your direction.

(I guess I should use more smilies, but tend to avoid it when talking 'serious' conversations. But body language is still not available to determine someones demeanor - I personally try not to make such assumptions - but, I guess I do assume others do the same (avoid assumptions) as well.. ??? my bad.)

Quote:

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.

True - but the truth in advertising laws - as they are supposed to protect consumers - is 'less grey' than most other areas of law as, 'Deception' was clearly defined by them, just not what is considered 'advertising'.

And while your point of view was appreciated and considered - I simply pointed out 2 potential scenarios that *could* be played out - best buy at fault for ignoring the complaint - and the game maker deliberately hiding pertinent information that any disclaimer could never precisely warn a consumer about to make an informed decision. And 'your choice' will likely be also the FTC's choice as well - maybe they have more choices that I, nor you maybe aware of(??) How will we know unless some one makes the honest attempts?

Maybe this wasn't written well to state my point...(and interpreted as 'hostile'??)

Quote:

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

reworded: How will we know unless someone tries? Thats all any one consumer do I guess. But to do nothing would never fix this problem.
Maybe you took 'thats all I guess' - as 'Im no longer corresponding with you' - no no no ... thats not what was meant. Sorry if thats so.

Quote:

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.

Yes - but more how they could have list known problems on the outside of the box, that are typically only found *after* the box is opened.

Quote:

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.

While I understand your position - how does a consumer - with the current laws - go about determining *who* are fair... when you can't find out until its too late (do independent makers allow refunds in these cases? I'll assume no tho there *may* be an exception - its hardly the rule as I see it, and would more likely fall under retail stores policy as well).
So, yes, to me, it makes sense to bundle all makers together in order to compel change - when *largely* its the same makers for the console games as well. Its money in the same hands as far as I see and am concerned.

Quote:

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.

if you honestly felt you were ripped off - its on topic as far as I am concerned. But thats something I would have never thought of myself and may be something to support my case... ?? Perhaps additional letters to the appropriate agencies (I think theres a national lobby group that represents handicapped people - I think they could be of benefit to contact them as well - tho all I find is disabled veterans lobby - dav.org) maybe my recollection are state level groups??

edit:

Also - in response to 'investigating purchases prior to making a purchase'.... look at all those people who bought toys made with lead paint and were re-called.... they were not expected to test every toy they considered buying with a lead test kit - nor are they given the opportunity... how is my situation different?

and wow - the majority chose that I should buy new hardware - when the fact is - I cant buy 'new' to make this work - but would need to buy old. hmmm. Interesting indeed.

**Vikingod** · Feb 6, 2008, 03:42 PM

One key element, which I didn't address in my first post (to my error), is this: Is software a 'good' or a 'service' (ie. by Licensing Agreement). If you are really going to build a case, you might want to figure that out. I can tell you, there is no easy answer, and the courts of law have not decided on it firmly, though they tend to lean toward it being a service. Without this distinction, it's impossible to see which laws even apply to it.

As far as peoples choices in your poll; my guess is, considering your wording, their concern is not with your hardware, but the former.

Maddogg6 · Feb 6, 2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Without this distinction, it's impossible to see which laws even apply to it.

hmm... I was figuring that more recent IP protection laws have pushed software more into the 'product' . (its 'stealing' when done over the internet - ie, illegal down load - but not 'hacked' to gain access)

Quote:

Is software a 'good' or a 'service' (ie. by Licensing Agreement)

Ah ha! great point.... a license agreement is not available until *after* the box is opened as well - another great point in my favor I suspect... ??? What if I say - I don't agree to it - then what? I am simply screwed?

Quote:

Without this distinction, it's impossible to see which laws even apply to it.

Then it is my stand that may help make the distinction more clear between. ?? who knows maybe fame can be had from this issue

- (na, I didnt think so either)

Cannyone · Feb 7, 2008, 02:28 AM

Well I chose : "Holy crap, I had no idea that $50 I am out of was from retail fraud." Primarily out of sympathy to your cause. But I'm just about to swear off on buying ANY PC games. I mean lousy, irritating, design choices are bad enough. But there are allot of games on the PC that have errata which keeps you from playing altogether. And that is simply not excusable.

But to sue them? No way! That's simply not enough punishment!! They should be deported to a country where the women are so ugly that it's illegal for them to show their faces in public... Then once they become "radicals" we can shoot them.

Seriously Dude! Buy yourself an Xbox 360 and forget about PC games. Yeah you'll still have those annoying design decisions that the devs foist on us occasionally. (Like making us wear PINK and Black armor...) But the games will play!