Posted August 04, 2009
aw: Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from you guys is that you're fine with companies changing their offerings after you've already handed them your money? So the folks who lost all their game videos when the MLB shut down their server, they shouldn't be upset? Or the folks who lobbied MS and Yahoo to keep their DRM servers up, they shouldn't have done that? Maybe I'm engaging in hyperbole here, but I find these things to be in parallel. GOG advertised their service in a certain way, but provided a different service in this instance. One with WAY less value, and that negates a big part of their value proposition for a chunk of their customer base.
Is this what they call a straw man argument?
- There is no DRM
- You are not cut off from your games once you've downloaded them
- 'The offerings" are legal copies of old games - often not available anywhere else - with no DRM, to keep, permanently. Yes, if they changed the deal for what they're actually selling I might have a problem with it.
- The service they are FORCED to remove - wasn't really necessary, nor legally required. (You can bleat all you want about advertising, but the fact is, they never stated outright that this was an time-unlimited service).
You might as well try and sue them for not having wallpapers or soundtracks for some other games. Let me know how that goes.
aw: GOG, your continued silence on this is really disappointing. Have they posted an official word in any other forum?
True if you consider MANYRESPONSES, clarifying and apologizing as "continued silence". Boy, you just have to open your eyes to see their response.
Well, there's absolutely no pleasing some people. I'm out of this ridiculous argument, since there's no way to win. Personally, I ended up with a crazy amount of game value out of this whole deal, for only a few bucks. I hope future customers aren't scared off from getting a super deal because of a few whiners.