Actually not really since every multiplayer game on the PC uses dedicated servers. Very rarely is a person using a PC forced to host anything.

@noname

On the grounds that they are advertising superior multiplayer, yet they don't even mention how it works, which I guess is illegal when it comes to the ISPs.

@OT

That's actually interesting since I have, on multiple occassions, hosted different kinds of server. Not game ones, but definitely Vent and file hosting. Though I don't use any of the listed ISPs.

That's "puffing" at worst, which is perfectly legal. Shoot, it's downright applauded when it comes to legal negotiations.

Some states are really liberal in what you can return an item for.  Simply incompatibility with your ISP can be considered grounds in some states.  Failure to provide warning of requirements that may make it incompatible, etc...  Many states have laws that trump much of the idiotic license terms on software even if they claim it can't be.  That said, they (state laws) typically cap the damage to the purchase price.

That said, I would recommend changing ISP over returning the game in most cases...

PS: First step, ask for it in writing from your ISP if you are allowed to play this on line or not. If you get it in writing from your ISP, I bet your store will accept the return even if the package has been open.

Perhaps you're right: I don't claim to be an expert in the laws of all 50 states. But I do know that California law, at least, would not support this idea, and neither would the Uniform Commercial Code. Dealers are not required to provide disclosures of possible incompatibility, or to warrant the compatibility of the item with the consumer's intended purpose unless:

1) The merchant is informed by the buyer of the intended purpose, and

2) the buyer relies on the merchant's representation regarding the item.

I can't imagine too many cases where either prong is satisfied: the merchant has no way of knowing if the buyer intends to take the product online (and in light of the recent Demi-God figures, it appears that many PC gamers DON'T game online!) and, even if it did, consumers rarely rely on the merchant telling them if the game will violate the consumer's ISP Terms of Service.

I'll keep searching to see if there's any law that would apply here, but I'm drawing a blank. The better bet is to try to return the item to the merchant and hope they refund it if you explain the problem, but there's no guarantee that they'll say yes and, unless the merchant's terms of use require them to take it back for anything beyond a defective product, I don't think they're obliged to do so.

 I don't think that changes the analysis. Unless the store feels that customer relations matter, the fact that you the consumer made a unilateral mistake of fact (which does NOT completely negate the value of the product!) probably won't sway them.

using torrent violates your ToS too ( covered under file sharing), has that even bothered you ?

didn't think so..

So you seem very selective about your ToS violations issues...

When did "peer to peer" become servers? If "Peer to peer" is a problem, then instant messaging is a problem. Dedicated servers sound more like a problem with the ToS than peer to peer.

Do you know how peer to peer games work? One is a server which connects everyone. Meanwhile with IM you connect to a server, you aren't a server. Same with Dedicated. Peer to Peer is a problem when one of the peers acts as a server.

Take it easy.
MW2 isn't the only P2P game. You and a few other users have taken this "dedicated server removal" and blew it way out of proportion. Jesus Christ.. it's not a big deal.

Play the game, or don't play the game.. thats it. Stop complaining about it because it didn't go the way you wanted.

no isp will actually suspend your service for playing this game thats just bull shit