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

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

I think it's more the responsibility of it all. If anything happens and that disclaimer isn't there, people are going to say "Well, you should have some kind of a disclaimer letting people of a certain age game.... Blah Blah Blah" Don't forget this kid was raised gamer by his dad, so I'm guessing his Dad's etiquette rubbed off on him, but we all know the toddler screamers that make online gaming a bit of a bummer.

people that are going to ***** about games are going to ***** about them no mater what, really all this does it make the company look like an overly aggressive nanny to the gaming community and give them bad press which ea cant really afford to have since its going up against the activision monster and had just finished making itself look slightly better to the gaming community and now all this stuff happens

the tos is just a way for companies to hide shitty practices that say their product could rape you and toss your body out of a moving car and if any blood got on the back seat then you need to pay for cleaning

 

[Verlander]

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.

Hey look, someone who didn't even read the OP.

How didn't I?

 

[cainx10a]

Awesome ending to this story

 

[Harrowdown]

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.

That's its PEGI rating. The ESRB rating is T, so my point stands. I agree that the father can let his kid play it if he thinks it's appropriate, but the function of a childs restricted account is to prevent the kid from playing games too mature for them. This isn't exactly the game industry ripping off the innocent customer. If anything, it's just a one off incident of an inflexible system causing someone minor inconvenience.

 

[Belated]

Here's the thing. Yes the father should've read the contract, but Microsoft shouldn't have made it possible for that account to buy the game if that account couldn't use it. Imagine if you went to a restaurant and somebody sold you a pie, then immediately took it back saying that you're not following the restaurant's dress code, then pointed to a somewhat obscure sign that tells you about the dress code. And then refused you a refund.

Sure you didn't read the dress code sign, but you'd still think the restaurant was at fault. Even though you were violating dress code, they let you in anyway and still accepted your money. When you accept somebody's money, they are entitled to your service.

I don't know what the legal standpoint is on this, but from a moral standpoint, EA basically said "We'll overlook the terms just this once for your sake, cross my heart. Thanks for the money. What? Game? You can't play the game, we were just kidding about that. Your money back? What money?"

If EA is going to make arbitrary rules like this, they need to find a way to prevent younger accounts from downloading the game in the first place. So what, the system allows you to pay for a game, but not play it? I don't care what the terms say. There is NO way to justify that.

 

[GeorgW]

Did he call gaming a terrible tradition?? I'm no longer on his side...

 

[EllEzDee]

Yea, let's allow this 9 year old kid to play a game set in the bloodiest war of human history. Sounds like a plan.

 

[ultrachicken]

'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.

Not only that, it's in freakin' caps that jumped out at me as he scrolled. Pretty hard to miss.

So, why did they let him buy the game in the first place, if he can't play it? If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is.

 

[justnotcricket]

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.

This is true, but as some point there has to be a line. If a company is going to put into place a policy that restricts access to its product, then it has, or should have, an obligation to make that restriction reasonably clear. "Reasonably" being a wonderfully vague term, of course, but in a case like this I don't think it's cricket that EA/MS can see perfectly well that the game is being purchased through a child's Live account, yet says nothing about until after it's too late. If nothing else, it's just a really shitty way to treat customers.

You are quite right, but I wonder how paranoid we're getting? I agree that a system where you can freely buy a game through a restricted account and then not play it is flawed, but is it really the company trying to shaft people or is it just a bug in the system that either no-one's tripped before, or no-one's complained about? Obviously companies should treat their customers well, but before we string them up, perhaps we should ask them nicely to fix the bugs in their system. Then if they refuse to, and refuse to make the restriction more clear, *then* we can start truly crying foul.

 

[BabyRaptor]

So he whined until he got his way. GREAT example to set for his kid...