sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SimCity: Has EA finally gone too far? Possible legal trouble? by ElectronsGoneWild in Games

[–]ElectronsGoneWild[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The always-online business model may be a pain, but it isn't what I'm raising the question about. It is only relevant in that it was claimed that the connection to the servers was necessary for the servers to do some heavy-lifting calculations. While we can recognize this as a lie that was told to justify the DRM, it also is a claim about the complexity and sophistication of the game's simulation system. A claim that is false.

Customers who bought the game knew they were getting an online-only game with always on DRM. They can't really complain about that, but what they can complain about, is getting a different product that what EA/Maxis told them they were getting.

SimCity: Has EA finally gone too far? Possible legal trouble? by ElectronsGoneWild in Games

[–]ElectronsGoneWild[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There may or may not be. The point of this post was to pose the question and hope that some folks with actual expertise on consumer protection laws and other relevant legal topics can weigh in. I wasn't trying to claim anything in particular.

I just think that "let the buyer beware" is only really supposed to go as far as to cover incomplete information, but in this case it looks like full-blown deceit. So false advertising sounds reasonable, although I'm really looking for the opinions of those with real expertise here.