this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
73 points (95.1% liked)

Games

32456 readers
1474 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
73
Damnatory Arbitration (lemmy.kde.social)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by ulterno@lemmy.kde.social to c/games@lemmy.world
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.kde.social/post/1227204

Image shows screenshot of XCOM2: War of The Chosen: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Terms of Service, with an added Mandatory Arbitration clause in Section 15.

Came back to the game after a year or so, just to see this:

Shows how to opt-out

At least they let us disagree to the ToC. Not sure if I can play the game after that though, since I just exited after clicking the disagree button.

Also, at least they show us the changes on the top, so we know what happened.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Is this actually meaningful in any way or is it just the corporate equivalent of positive manifestation? Surely no court would take seriously an after the fact imposition of you waiving your rights by default unless you send a physical letter to them informing them you disagree with losing your right to sue (for no gain on your part).

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why not? Arbitration clauses work in the US. The funnier things that happen is when something is so bad, thousands of people go in for arbitration and the company cannot afford that. Then it backfires hard on them since you need to get every person to arbitrate and there is tens of thousands of them.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The whole forced arbitration is bad enough, but retroactively enforcing it on something you already own while deliberately making it difficult to opt out just seems like its begging to fall foul of anti-consumer rules. The whole "this applies to the extent that its not really fucking illegal" clause just makes it seem like an intimidation tactic rather than actually something they think they have any chance of enforcing if it came to it.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Anti-consumer rules...? What are those? Sounds like communist propaganda to me. All hail the ~~corporate overlords~~ job creators!

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Roku television debacle.