{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by SketchSkirmish:
9/17/2015 6:53:43 PM
25
Dear Bungie - Walking that legal line
Bungie,
I've been reading the forums for some time now. Ever since the release of 2.0 & TTK, there has been a surge negative feedback. All prior DLCs have also garnered some negativity, but not like this. I have been seeing people mention class action lawsuits. I have seen people instructing others on acquiring refunds. Most shocking, I'm seeing those who are unable to purchase the new material have fundamentally had their existing game quote, "nerfed".
In detail, they cannot access content higher than level 20, they cannot increase difficulty on previous missions or strikes (including heroic & nightfall), and they cannot access the variety of PvP gametypes previously available. I also venture to guess that they will not have access to Trials of Osiris or Iron Banner events.
While I struggle to identify the game as a First Person Shooter (FPS) or Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) Game, this kind of "update" walks the fine line of legality. As I understand it, per the current law, all of these actions are within legal boundary and permissible. What I do not agree with is the ethics of the decision, and I find it in such poor taste that an addendum to pre-existing law should be created to prevent future exploitation of your (Activision or Bungie's) business methods.
Clearly, the consumer has the right to boycott, voice their opinions, and provide feedback to agencies like the Better Business Bureau. I feel they should. I feel that your company should see this vast amount of feedback as a critical issue. Thusly, they should be reaching out to the general public with an explanation and/or solution. While again, all the changes are within legal boundary (albeit gray), you should feel ethically obligated to respond to the outrage.
Personally, I own the new expansion and have my own griefs toward its quality and content, but it nowhere compares to the poor execution of its release.
You have my regards.
-
Very good post. Thank you for showing concern for those of us cheated by Bungie.
-
What an excellent post. You, guardian, have my thanks and support for this open letter.
-
Edited by NovelPegasus072: 9/20/2015 3:26:42 AMVery well written Nice to read a post written with clear purpose and not deluded with praise or anger
-
-
If you want to bring more attention to this, please considering liking my thread in the general forums: [url]https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/154566057/0/0[/url]
-
-
Bored of these kinds of posts
-
Bump.
-
Edited by Lizard King: 9/18/2015 1:41:47 PMYou sir deserve a well earned Thank You and all our respects. Another important point is this is a terrible marketing strategy. By blocking players you create negativity , anger but more importantly you are forcing players to quit. As a nature Human's don't react good to blocks. If you let players continue level up , play the game as they did , sooner or later they may find themselves purchasing the game. But with the block you basically tell us Go F..k Yourselves. And i urge Bungie to reconsider your action and have another meeting with your Legal team. As clearly your legal team thinks that EULA will cover your company in USA however in EU EULA's are not over consumer laws. I can easily point you out countries like Netherlands , Germany whom deny EULA's because their courts believe that Consumers can't be forced to accept EULA's as they are not educated in contract laws. You made a huge mistake but it is still not too late , a well stated apology and correction of this unlawful action may still change the future of your company. or else the negativity will only continue to increase. As don't forget within a month The Taken King owners will again run out of content and they will also join this non ending drama.
-
Edited by Null: 9/19/2015 3:46:16 AMIf you want, read this post. This is then [b][i][u]overstepping[/u][/i][/b] the line of the law. https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/154509630/0/0
-
Look at this post. https://www.bungie.net/en-GB/Forum/Post/154245087/0/0 Negative reviews about bungie on metacritic are now being removed. Disgusting practice.
-
-
7 RepliesWait a minute? Did I just miss something? What was that? Someone Dies on this planet every 29 seconds and you want to bitch about a game? What a freaking tool its a game its not life get a job you piece of shit...
-
1 ReplyEdited by Kweh: 9/18/2015 9:29:30 PMConsumers have the right to fight back. Here is proof people have stood up for what they believed in when it comes to EULA. Here are precedents. Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus (1908) US Supreme Court- No license required to use copyrighted material. License "claimed" by copyright holder cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp (1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp (1991) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wise Technology (1991) the court concluded that subsequent changes to the Copyright Act had rendered the need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software "largely anachronistic.". Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart (1997) held that the sale of software is the sale of a good. Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) The first-sale doctrine applies to software. Softman v. Adobe (2001) The first-sale doctrine applies to software and can not be waived or taken away through an EULA. Krause v. Titleserve (2002 2nd Cir Appl) Titleserve owned the software; Krause was confusing ownership of a copyright with ownership of a copy of the copyrighted material. Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk (2008 9th Cir W. Wash) Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement. Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk (2008 9th Cir W. Wash) Second Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement, AGAIN. This case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
-
Bungie are that bad with negative comments, because they NEVER listen to it. Maybe if they take advice this game would be so much better and millions of people would be so much happier!
-
Good post. I disagree with your justification of buying TTK, but its your money. I appluad you for acknowledging the fact that there is a legitimate beef. It is so rare that we get that from Destiny fans. Usually, all we get is gibberish, like this QUICKSILVER317 guys spouting. Thank you, sir.
-
Well said and even in the us courts have struck down elus and ToAs, I'm becoming more convinced in people wanted to sue they could. Seriously can you imagine the publicity that would get? Might be enough to force change right there
-
Bump for good taste
-
A measured and well expressed point of view and feedback. Not sure it belongs in these forums.
-
That's why we're quitting Destiny!
-
Great post. Thank you!
-
-
you sir deserve a bump
-
Not as emphatic as I feel about it, but well said.
-
