this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
1320 points (98.2% liked)

Games

32924 readers
1607 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On today's episode of "This shouldn't be legal"...

Source: https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 310 points 7 months ago (54 children)

Fucking bonkers. Between this an McD's changing their ToS to say using their app waives any right to non-arbitration dispute, something needs to be done about companies trying to effectively write new laws into their ToS. This shit is beyond egregious

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 81 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Number three combo, hold the freedom please

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago

Sincere thank you for providing what I was referencing 👍

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago (9 children)

They can write anything they want in a TOS, doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 47 points 7 months ago (3 children)

even then, it's essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you're legally entitled to do. If you can't do all that, then your rights are moot.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it's time to nip this on the front end though. ToS are such a part of daily life now. They should be regulated to be concise, use standardized consumer-friendly language, and have bounds against non-arbitration and other nonsense like this. This sort of legislation is well overdue.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

which tv manufacturer was it that updated their eula and if you didn't agree it bricked your tv?

[–] Randomocity@sh.itjust.works 30 points 7 months ago

Roku had a new agreement that if you didn't agree you couldn't access the TV

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)
[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 104 points 7 months ago (7 children)

No satire? Guess anything on the internet is out of the question then.

Engaging or providing subjective negative reviews

What do they think a review is?! If they wanted an advertisement, buy an ad spot on Google ya cheap bastards.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 80 points 7 months ago

Because they want the benefits of advertising with the power of word-of-mouth, all at the expense of free.

That they think they can get away with it is bananas to me.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

I saw that line and immediately thought "oh ho ho, we have a loophole. This wasn't a subjective review, it was entirely objective. The game is objectively shit."

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 83 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No way they can enforce that. I hope nobody is going to intimidated by this.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 102 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This isn't a "we'll sue you" clause, it's a "we'll never do business with you again" clause

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 46 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Which is usually unwritten but understood. It's wild that they put it in writing.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 80 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I hope there is a bunch of really sarcastic positive reviews, listing everything they hate about the game as if it’s what they really love about the game.

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 61 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

The ToS forbids satirical reviews. I'd start a review by reading out this portion of the ToS and then make a list of things I hate, just saying I'm not allowed to talk about this aspect of the game, or this aspect of the game, etc, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 68 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It must be a REALLY good game. Only the best games that were already going to get high reviews would ever resort to such a policy

[–] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 66 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"I signed a contract that forbids me from saying anything negative about this game. I am therefore contractually obligated to say nothing"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Koen967@feddit.nl 55 points 7 months ago

Shows that they have amazing confidence in their product. This is the same to me as saying "We know it sucks so please don't say so if we give you this key."

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 53 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My first thought is: This is probably a shitty game because if it was good, they wouldn't be worried.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] viking@infosec.pub 49 points 7 months ago (8 children)

It says not to leave "subjective bad reviews". As in, objectively bad is fine.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 30 points 7 months ago (4 children)

It also says you can't compare it to other games "maliciously." What the fuck does that even mean?

"Marvel Rivals is just as bad as Cyberpunk 2077 at launch."

???

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 14 points 7 months ago

Not being able to make satirical comments about any game-related material would mean nobody could say something like, "Controlling Iron Man feels like fighting Jarvis for control of the suit", or "Storm is as effective as a light breeze"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Apeman42@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago

This is utter hogshit, but also seems relatively easy to work around. "I am legally forbidden from sharing my opinions on the quality of Marvel Rivals." is a pretty clear and succinct review that technically flies under their legal fuckery.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Basically makes any test results null and void

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

these ass hats know what they are risking. they just plan for a "sorry we got caught" apology ready if needed in the hopes that they get away with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 24 points 7 months ago (5 children)

This is market manipulation at its best. The whole board should be jailed for it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 23 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Every reviewer who signed this should post a review, but of the business practices and why not to buy the game.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

They saw what MKBHD's honest reviews did to Fisker and Humane and said "can we stop that from happening?"

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 16 points 7 months ago (7 children)

As stupid as it is, it doesn't stop a creator from simply demonstrating issues, without commentary. Just show people the issues and don't remark on them.

That being said, nobody should sign this. Trying to forbid people from making satirical remarks? What the crap?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 15 points 7 months ago

This is so stupid. Isn't this a free-to-play game? With one-time-purchase games you can try to fool people, then take your money and leave while people complain about the game behind you.

But this is a free-to-play game, they intend to make money by gradual ongoing revenue from in-game purchases, etc. You can't fool people who are actively playing the game.

The contract hurts their image, and prevents them from receiving critical feedback.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well that's stupid. Getting negative reviews is also a good thing. It allows you to re-evaluate your product(s). Pretty much you're going to sell a half assed product, pretending it's amazing because you refused to take critically-negative feedback from your paying customers. Guess they just want to completely obliterate their company.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago

That's by design. They weren't interested in writing a good game or getting honest feedback. They wanted everyone to buy it and get money for it.

load more comments
view more: next ›