Microsoft Helps Out Battlefield Dad

[Worgen]

its still bullshit, they shouldnt even allow a game to be purchased for an account that cant play it, if they do then thats a trap that should be illegal

I kind of agree. I'm glad everyone is happy, but if you're using a 9 year old profile, YOU HAVE TOF FUCKING READ!!!

I'm 21, I don't read age restrictions, because I'm in Canada and I was legal 3 years ago. a 9 year old or his father will have to read a little more carefully for fear of age restrictions.

I also feel the video was unecessary. It wasn't THAT far down and it was in caps

if it was that important it should have been at the top of the list rather then hidden down near the bottom, shit like that is why we need some heavy regulations on digital distribution, its much too easy for the consumer to be fucked over

 

[justnotcricket]

let's be honest about it - nobody ever reads the T&C anyway and slapping a potentially crippling restriction like this in there isn't exactly playing fair.

I'm glad things worked out for this guy and his son, don't get me wrong, but...that's the *point* of T&Cs. Terms and Conditions. Even the 'potentially crippling' ones. Yeah, they're boring, and no-one wants to read them, and so companies can 'hide' stuff in there...but it's totally up to the consumer to read them. If we actually read Ts&Cs companies maybe *wouldn't* be able to get away with 'hiding' stuff. If you don't read them, you have to be prepared for unpleasant surprises.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

Great, now someone who isn't old enough can play a game that was never meant for them. That's exactly how to keep the press off gaming when they complain minors are seeing violent content.

It's called parental supervision. This isn't some lazy parent buying GTA IV for his 8 year old kid and then blaming the game industry when his 8 year old kid "borrows" his car and drives over a sidewalk full of people because he thought it was fun in the game. Aside from the whole "didn't read the terms and conditions before buying" thing, he's actually being quite responsible being involved in his son's gaming (or as he puts it, dragging his son into his own gaming) and I do applaud him for that.

It's not as bad as the situation you describe, but to my mind it's still pretty bad for a 9 year old to be playing a violent FPS. If the dad wants to connect with him, how about picking one of the hundreds of non-violent games out there. It's not like BF1943 is the big game which all the kids friends will be playing at school; from what I gather he wants to play it as that's what his dad does. Ideally then his dad should switch to something else when his son is around.

I'm one of those people who will never mind as to what a game allows you to do, only that the person playing the game is at least as old as whatever certifying body dictates (unsurprisingly this viewpoint is often vehemently disagreed with by those under age). Why does playing a violent game with your father/adult make what's occurring less impactful? If anything it must give the whole experience a kind of validation because it is happening while under the observation of a figure of responsibility.

 

[Coles_Law]

I find it a bit odd that he seems to be completely abandoning the child's old account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the old account would only be limited for games with the age restriction purchased through Arcade. Why not create a new account just for this game, get 1 mo. on Live, and after they beat it go back to the old account?

(I realize this isn't the main issue here, but others have debated that thoroughly enough as it is).

 

[Danpascooch]

I'll leave my opinion regarding whether he deserved a refund or not etc out, but there's one thing:

'Deeply buried?' His own Youtube video shows that it's included on the game's marketplace page and take 2 seconds of scrolling to find, within the first 6 sentences of a pretty short set of Terms and Conditions. I can understand calling it deeply buried if it's on page 9 of a 14 page legalese strewn PDF, but it's literally right there before you buy the game.

Call me arsey, but when the T&C are that short, there's no excuse not the read them.

Yeah but it said he needed to be 13 to REGISTER WITH EA ONLINE not 13 to play, for all he knew Registering with EA online was not something he had to do, you know all those programs that annoy you with notifications asking if you want to register them but letting you use them anyway?

 

[Danpascooch]

Great, now someone who isn't old enough can play a game that was never meant for them. That's exactly how to keep the press off gaming when they complain minors are seeing violent content.

It's called parental supervision. This isn't some lazy parent buying GTA IV for his 8 year old kid and then blaming the game industry when his 8 year old kid "borrows" his car and drives over a sidewalk full of people because he thought it was fun in the game. Aside from the whole "didn't read the terms and conditions before buying" thing, he's actually being quite responsible being involved in his son's gaming (or as he puts it, dragging his son into his own gaming) and I do applaud him for that.

It's not as bad as the situation you describe, but to my mind it's still pretty bad for a 9 year old to be playing a violent FPS. If the dad wants to connect with him, how about picking one of the hundreds of non-violent games out there. It's not like BF1943 is the big game which all the kids friends will be playing at school; from what I gather he wants to play it as that's what his dad does. Ideally then his dad should switch to something else when his son is around.

I'm one of those people who will never mind as to what a game allows you to do, only that the person playing the game is at least as old as whatever certifying body dictates (unsurprisingly this viewpoint is often vehemently disagreed with by those under age). Why does playing a violent game with your father/adult make what's occurring less impactful? If anything it must give the whole experience a kind of validation because it is happening while under the observation of a figure of responsibility.

It's his right as a parent to choose, this is not the kind of stuff videogames get bad press for, it's when the parent is totally not involved that it becomes a problem.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Sorry, but America needs the "recommended age limit" to become a legal age limit. I know that opinion isn't exactly popular on here, but it would at least give some validity to decisions like this. The game was rated 13, the kid is 9. These are the same parents that moan when their kids are exposed to "offensive" material in games or online.

I bet if this kid goes insane at school and shoots people, his dad will be the first to jump on the "violent video games did this" bandwagon.

 

[Stormz]

Glad to see this all worked out in the end. I actually have a question somewhat related to this. If I buy Dragon age Awakening on my live account, which is child right now even though I'm turning 17 and can buy mature games basically, am I not going to be allowed to play it even if I download it?

 

[Eldarion]

"A couple of the commenters on The Escapist piece cracked me up. They were applauding my decision to be involved in my kid's hobby," he wrote. "Little do they know I'm dragging the poor kid into *my* hobby. I've been a gamer since I first got an Atari 2600 back in the day, and now I'm passing along the terrible tradition to my son."

So he is another one of those "games are terrible" people? Did not expect that.

 

[aashell13]

It seems to me that microsoft got around to doing the right thing. good for them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Morale of the story: You get a refund for a 'non-refundable purchase' if you complain loud enough and get attention.

Especially since such "non-refundable" purchases are unlikely to hold up in court and Microsoft could stand to lose a lot more....

But yes, what a terrible moral.

 

[Fenring]

Sup ThomW.

You're a pretty cool guy and make cool Greasemonkey Scripts.

 

[night_chrono]

I have lost a lot of faith in the Escapist Community after this thread (and its predecessor).

Technically the kid isn't allowed to have an xbox live account. In the United States there is a law that makes it that you have to be at least 13 years old to sign up for any online service. So how did he have a xbox live account? His dad signed up for it and handed it over. It keeps the system legal and gives the opportunity for parental controls.

He SHOULD of been able to do the exact same thing with the EA account. The fact that EA denied gameplay based off the child xbox live account is extremely deceitful, and there is no reason for it. I understand that by law they have to limit it to 13+ for game accounts, but the fact that they don't offer the same parental sign-up, child use is insanity. It is only going to cost them customers.

Not to mention the fact that it's a T rated game is irrelevant. As many have pointed out it is only a guideline. This guy knows it, and keeps a close eye on his son, as any parent should.

Plus with this EA online account it means that a 12 year old couldn't use the REQUIRED online activation code in this years Madden.

 

[ekkaman]

Almost tempted to get the game so I can hunt them both down and cause pwnage upon them. Almost.

 

[Harrowdown]

He bought a game with a 16+ rating on a childs account. Is that really the industry being 'evil'?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

its still bullshit, they shouldnt even allow a game to be purchased for an account that cant play it, if they do then thats a trap that should be illegal

I kind of agree. I'm glad everyone is happy, but if you're using a 9 year old profile, YOU HAVE TOF FUCKING READ!!!

I'm 21, I don't read age restrictions, because I'm in Canada and I was legal 3 years ago. a 9 year old or his father will have to read a little more carefully for fear of age restrictions.

I also feel the video was unecessary. It wasn't THAT far down and it was in caps

if it was that important it should have been at the top of the list rather then hidden down near the bottom, shit like that is why we need some heavy regulations on digital distribution, its much too easy for the consumer to be fucked over

While this is true, I feel a certain amount of common sense factors in. If you're working with an age 9 account, then you have to wonder if there are limitations... This is why I don't think Digital Distribution is TOO advanced yet, we're still gonna get stories of this for a while

 

[Worgen]

its still bullshit, they shouldnt even allow a game to be purchased for an account that cant play it, if they do then thats a trap that should be illegal

I kind of agree. I'm glad everyone is happy, but if you're using a 9 year old profile, YOU HAVE TOF FUCKING READ!!!

I'm 21, I don't read age restrictions, because I'm in Canada and I was legal 3 years ago. a 9 year old or his father will have to read a little more carefully for fear of age restrictions.

I also feel the video was unecessary. It wasn't THAT far down and it was in caps

if it was that important it should have been at the top of the list rather then hidden down near the bottom, shit like that is why we need some heavy regulations on digital distribution, its much too easy for the consumer to be fucked over

While this is true, I feel a certain amount of common sense factors in. If you're working with an age 9 account, then you have to wonder if there are limitations... This is why I don't think Digital Distribution is TOO advanced yet, we're still gonna get stories of this for a while

thats the thing tho, there shouldnt be age limitations, there arnt on retail games and I think that battlefield is only rated teen which means no one gives a crap about its rating, if parents set one then thats all well and good but industry forced age limits are bullshit

 

[theultimateend]

Morale of the story: You get a refund for a 'non-refundable purchase' if you complain loud enough and get attention.

Except that's not the morale of the story at all and you know that quite clearly.

Could people try any harder to troll these days? Good lord.

"A couple of the commenters on The Escapist piece cracked me up. They were applauding my decision to be involved in my kid's hobby," he wrote. "Little do they know I'm dragging the poor kid into *my* hobby. I've been a gamer since I first got an Atari 2600 back in the day, and now I'm passing along the terrible tradition to my son."

So he is another one of those "games are terrible" people? Did not expect that.

He was being self deprecating for laughs.

I bet if this kid goes insane at school and shoots people, his dad will be the first to jump on the "violent video games did this" bandwagon.

Comments like this are why computers should read back to you what you have written. Because I'm hard pressed to believe you'd hear what you just wrote come back to you and think "Sweet lets hit post."

He bought a game with a 16+ rating on a childs account. Is that really the industry being 'evil'?

No. The major problem still is that video games, regardless of the content, don't have any special properties that any other form of entertainment can't replicate.

I don't see how a fantasy that has absolutely no basis in reality has stuck around to actually become law :/.

But I realize that wasn't your point. Just bugs me when people get penalized because of a crackpot rule.

 

[Fenring]

He bought a game with a 16+ rating on a childs account. Is that really the industry being 'evil'?

Seeing how the "+16" (Where did you get that number?) is a guideline, kinda. He understands what the game is, and is okay with his son playing it.