🚀 go-pugleaf

"Darin Johnson" <darin@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:72088a8a-e226-438e-b997-f558430020e0@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 11:56 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Most of the reviewers haven't ran into anything yet. They are posting
>> their reviews *before* trying the game. That rules out most of your
>> explanations.
>
> But I want my reviews before I buy a game.  If the only
> people doing reviews are professional gaming magazines and
> web sites, then you can't trust the reviews.  That's why I
> don't buy games until months or years after they come out :-)
>
> --
> Darin Johnson

Agreed. None of the professional reviewers mention DRM or activation limits. 
To me this is a fundamental part of the merchantable package as it directly 
affects its value.

I am of the belief that the advertising and the packaging of these DRM laden 
games is in breach of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 with respect to 'Of 
Satisfactory Quality'.

A consumer should know, before they buy a game, how often they can activate 
or install it.  Not indicating these limits directly affects the 
Merchantable quality and value of the package, yet it is never placed on the 
packaging or advertising. This is a misrepresentation of the contents of the 
box as a consumer can reasonably expect to install a piece of software as 
often as they like, provided that there is only ever one instance of the 
installation at any one time and that they are the legal owners of the 
CD/DVD.

I am in communications with the Uk Trading Standards body about this and 
hope to pursue this further.

RobP