>>32060
>Nobody reads the terms and conditions
Ignorance of an agreement that you signed where the company lists all of their terms is not a defense.
>Any changes to terms and conditions they are grandfathered into
That isn't how it works. When a company changes their ToS, they have to send out a whole new line of agreements that people are required to agree to. While this will effect games that are still getting updated (Like
Warzone,
Team Fortress 2,
LoL, etc.), that won't effect games already out of service (Like
CoD2, the original
Half-Life,
Halo: CE, etc.).
>They should not be entitled to the money paid for products/services when they arbitrarily decide to no longer render products/services.
The problem is that people agreed to the limitations of said products and services, and willingly exchanged their money for it.
>Also consider that those terms and conditions would not hold up under scrutiny because many users who click "i agree" are not old enough to agree to any binding contract.
That's not going to work when
they already list on the back of the box that they have the right to terminate the game's online connection at any time for any reason along with a myriad of other rights the company has; on top of the fact that practically zero retail stores sell these games to children, so they can only sell said games to children with the parent's consent (In which case, the blame can be placed on the parent for being a negligent retard).
And, what do you propose as a solution? Demanding that people show their I.D. before being a video game to "declare" that they're a "knowledgeable and self-aware adult" who's agreeing to whatever terms and conditions the company lays out in their game?
>>32062
Then buy the DVDs with Japanese dubs and English subs. Or, make your own archive of downloaded anime on a hard drive.
>>32065
>Thankfully, as fucked as Australia can be sometimes, those EULAs are not legally permitted to take away any consumer rights that are part of our law, and we have a lot of consumer rights to back us up with this shit.
With the way U.S. law works, all business and sales agreements and transactions are structured under the assumption that both parties are intelligent individuals who wholly agree to the rights and limitations laid out in the agreement (The EULA). So, at the end of the day, the only reason why players in the U.S. are losing access to their games is because
they agreed to allow the company the right to restrict and limit their access to their games.
>>32063
>>32067
>Laws are being passed but its pretty worthless.
Did any of them use the online gambling laws that were already present for other titles?
>>32068
>Is this outcome a surprise?
Not really when every single country despised the U.S. back in the 19th century, and boasted about how much "better" they made their constitution.
>>32069
>we need a /his/ very badly but I lack confidence in Acid/Mark.
There was a thread on /pol/ that is semi-active (In relation to the rest of the board).