By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 14 December 2017
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said: 
Zekkyou said:

You're digging way too deep into this. It's a disclaimer, not an in-depth legal document. Just because you can interpret it one way, doesn't mean that is the intention. Even if MS were planning to give you universal life-time guaranteed protection from the actions of every single independent developer ever (lol), they'd still include that disclaimer because what kind of dipshit company wouldn't provide themselves with that potential flexibility? Emphasis on 'potential'.

Go look at a game on the PlayStation store. Most games have multiple disclaimers, including one which explicitly states it's a "One-time license fee". Just because that technically implies they can do all kinds of messed up things, doesn't mean they're actually planning to do so. It's there to provide them potential flexibility, and the extra 1% of protection they might one day need.

And what customer should cushion the gambles of the company? If the disclaimer doesn't have any legal validity then the protection you were claiming before is null.

And the disclaimers of digital owned games is one of the things that make me very much a hard copy owner first.

A customer that wants the benefits associated with that 'gamble'. Consumers should be protected from exstremes, and they usually are (both legally and because of PR), but if they expect benefits above the standard then risks above the standard are understandable, and should be clearly presented.

I didn't say disclaimers have no legal validity, I was pointing out that its intentions likley arn't as broad as the implications (as with most disclaimers). In situations such as the one I pointed out to you earlier, it would almost certainly stand up to scrutiny.

And yes, that's part of the point. Thanks to that disclaimer both you and Sony were able to avoid any potential legal disagreement on that specific matter.