Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well these days I don't give a hoot about achievements anymore. Hell, I've even disabled the pop up message on my xbox because it tends to ruin any form of immersion. Used to be addicted to it though.

Besides, if I want that, I'll just play Dark Souls.

With over 20 playthroughs shared between the PS3 and PC versions of Dark Souls, I still don't know what achievements I've unlocked. Some games just beg to be played.

I have yet to figure out how to turn off the trophy notice for the PS3. I would like to know, if anyone has that information.

No clue, don't own a PS3. And trophies are PSN's version of achievements/gamerscore.

It is quite annoying to go through what is meant to be a poignant or revelatory scene or sequence in a game, only to see the trophy notice pop across the screen and make me remember that I'm only playing a game.

"Congratulations, you beat the tutorial"

feth you too.

Haha, yep. That's why I've deactivated them on XBL. I'd assume that the PS3 has something like personal settings too, should be in there somewhere.

That said, playstation menus have always been enormous clusterfucks to me.

Funny Things in Video Games: The newest Witcher game, being based on a character written by a Polish author and heavily influenced by Polish folklore and developed by a Polish developer will not be playable in Poland on the XBone.

Also awesome article mocking the new systems and old: http://kotaku.com/next-gen-consoles-as-game-of-thrones-characters-513889696

Found an Image:

Aww... I like Hodor.

The Lysa Tully one is funnier but I didn't find it on the first page of results XD

Except everybody loves Hodor!

Heh, I noted on my facebook page I have issue with the Daenerys comparison, because she's awesome and the wiiU is a piece of.. [redacted by the inquisition] hehe.

edit - although its still not as funny as the men in black glasses clip. I'm still chuckling about that one while I'm thinking about it days later.

Men in Black clip?

 Fafnir wrote:


...Wow...

Just saying: that's illegal in the EU.

Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just saying: that's illegal in the EU.

Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.

Maybe they convince everyone it's akin to renting a movie. Iirc you are not allowed to sell a rented movie
Or they go the usual route of bribinglobbying to get a special snowflake treatment.
.

The ruling was specifically made with software in mind

 Sigvatr wrote:
The ruling was specifically made with software in mind

Their drm model just disallows the full usage of second-hand games. Is that also part of the EU ruling?
.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


...Wow...

Just saying: that's illegal in the EU.

Not really. You agree to the terms of usage, you're aware of what you can/can't do.

If you choose not to actually read the TOU? That's your own fault.

Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.

Where do you keep getting this idea that you cannot sell games?

You will be able to "gift" games to people who have been on your Friends list for more than 30 days.
You will be able to sell games, but it is more complex than just going to a shop and getting some cash back. It involves transferring the licenses, Microsoft getting involved, and something like a 10% cut for the developer and a 10% cut for the publisher.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


...Wow...

Just saying: that's illegal in the EU.

Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.

There's going to be a lot of murky legal waters in the EU. Apparently, a stipulation of the EULA is that you're not allowed to file a class action lawsuit. Not something that I think would go over well anywhere, really.

The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.

Potentially.

It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.

Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.

Aye, EULA's have already been deemed not worth the text typed in UK law. It is a literal waste of time Microsoft having it. Law has stepped in here and noted that effective blackmail to access an online account (i.e you sign or can't play) will not trump a legal standpoint, consumer law trumps it.

Now on saying that, if you'll find a UK law firm willing to try and take a class action against a US company.. that's another story.

Iirc, we have a precedence. Someone played a Bioware game and since his account was banned, he could no longer play the game. I don't know if it went in front of a court, but in the end, they had to lift the ban so that he could play again and just restricted his forum access.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Iirc, we have a precedence. Someone played a Bioware game and since his account was banned, he could no longer play the game. I don't know if it went in front of a court, but in the end, they had to lift the ban so that he could play again and just restricted his forum access.

If I'm remembering right, the dispute was that he was banned from using his BioWare and Origins account, but he could still utilize his console based account as Microsoft were not the ones who banned him.
That does not necessarily mean that an EULA between you and Microsoft specifically stating that you cannot utilize glitches within a game would be illegal however. It means that Microsoft are likely going to have to take over from the company based "anti-cheat teams".

I remember a lot of people starting up with the whole "It's illegal!" garbage after BioWare started banning people for the rocket glitching, and I distinctly remember it being that the people who were "banned" could only play the basic campaign, without any of the DLC because the DLC requires you to be signed into Origins.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.

Potentially.

It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.

Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.

Making them unable to access online/multiplayer content is perfectly reasonable, but having someone get banned from XBL and be unable to play their single-player games? That's a little harsh.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.

Potentially.

It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.

Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.

Making them unable to access online/multiplayer content is perfectly reasonable, but having someone get banned from XBL and be unable to play their single-player games? That's a little harsh.

Why is one acceptable but not the other?

In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.

And?

If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.

There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.

The EULA means absolutely nothing. In it, the developer could ask everyone who agrees to pay 500$ per month and still, nobody would have to pay since it breaks the law.

Furthermore, I don't see anything bad coming from someone changing stuff if it only affects singleplayer.

Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.

Of course not, but none of us ever said so

An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.