Bungie,
I've been reading the forums for some time now. Ever since the release of 2.0 & TTK, there has been a surge negative feedback. All prior DLCs have also garnered some negativity, but not like this. I have been seeing people mention class action lawsuits. I have seen people instructing others on acquiring refunds. Most shocking, I'm seeing those who are unable to purchase the new material have fundamentally had their existing game quote, "nerfed".
In detail, they cannot access content higher than level 20, they cannot increase difficulty on previous missions or strikes (including heroic & nightfall), and they cannot access the variety of PvP gametypes previously available. I also venture to guess that they will not have access to Trials of Osiris or Iron Banner events.
While I struggle to identify the game as a First Person Shooter (FPS) or Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) Game, this kind of "update" walks the fine line of legality. As I understand it, per the current law, all of these actions are within legal boundary and permissible. What I do not agree with is the ethics of the decision, and I find it in such poor taste that an addendum to pre-existing law should be created to prevent future exploitation of your (Activision or Bungie's) business methods.
Clearly, the consumer has the right to boycott, voice their opinions, and provide feedback to agencies like the Better Business Bureau. I feel they should. I feel that your company should see this vast amount of feedback as a critical issue. Thusly, they should be reaching out to the general public with an explanation and/or solution. While again, all the changes are within legal boundary (albeit gray), you should feel ethically obligated to respond to the outrage.
Personally, I own the new expansion and have my own griefs toward its quality and content, but it nowhere compares to the poor execution of its release.
You have my regards.
-
Bearbeitet von Kweh: 9/18/2015 9:29:30 PMConsumers have the right to fight back. Here is proof people have stood up for what they believed in when it comes to EULA. Here are precedents. Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus (1908) US Supreme Court- No license required to use copyrighted material. License "claimed" by copyright holder cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp (1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp (1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wise Technology (1991) the court concluded that subsequent changes to the Copyright Act had rendered the need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software "largely anachronistic.". Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart (1997) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good. Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) The first-sale doctrine applies to software. Softman v. Adobe (2001) The first-sale doctrine applies to software and can not be waived or taken away through an EULA. Krause v. Titleserve (2002 2nd Cir Appl) Titleserve owned the software; Krause was confusing ownership of a copyright with ownership of a copy of the copyrighted material. Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk (2008 9th Cir W. Wash) Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement. Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk (2008 9th Cir W. Wash) Second Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement, AGAIN. This case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.