Anonymous
7/2/2025, 8:13:03 PM
No.105779560
>>105779470
>Games already have an Eula that usually says they can stop the service at any time, if you disagree, don't buy.
Ok? I don't particularly care if they shove a disadvantageous agreement in the players' faces when people can just declare that such practices are illegal. I don't even play live service games, but I have no argument against this approach.
>Companies should have the freedom to sell shitty product if they want to as you should have the freedom to not buy. anything more than that is the state gaining a power that shouldn't have.
I disagree. If I purchase a firearm, I expect the firearm to be in a working state and that it won't harm me when I use it. I have no problem with a legal body enforcing this standard.
>imagine giving more power to the state because you wanted muh child video game forever.
It's not giving the state any more power. They have that power already, it's just taking power from the company and handing it to the consumer.
>People usually don't understand freedom and they only like when it favors them and are willing to completely give it up
Sure. But this is not one of those cases.
>If video games don't say anywhere that the product has expiration date, then with the current law you can sue them and that would work as precedent for future cases.
Except that is hardly enforced. And even if it were, I would prefer to have the games as copies that I own permanently, and not as a service.
>Games already have an Eula that usually says they can stop the service at any time, if you disagree, don't buy.
Ok? I don't particularly care if they shove a disadvantageous agreement in the players' faces when people can just declare that such practices are illegal. I don't even play live service games, but I have no argument against this approach.
>Companies should have the freedom to sell shitty product if they want to as you should have the freedom to not buy. anything more than that is the state gaining a power that shouldn't have.
I disagree. If I purchase a firearm, I expect the firearm to be in a working state and that it won't harm me when I use it. I have no problem with a legal body enforcing this standard.
>imagine giving more power to the state because you wanted muh child video game forever.
It's not giving the state any more power. They have that power already, it's just taking power from the company and handing it to the consumer.
>People usually don't understand freedom and they only like when it favors them and are willing to completely give it up
Sure. But this is not one of those cases.
>If video games don't say anywhere that the product has expiration date, then with the current law you can sue them and that would work as precedent for future cases.
Except that is hardly enforced. And even if it were, I would prefer to have the games as copies that I own permanently, and not as a service.