LogFAQs > #913122211

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's the intended requirements, and if it's not met, a recall should be made for a free fix. As it happens, the fix comes in the form of a patch so you don't have to send away your game.

And if that patch causes the game to exceed the advertised system requirements, it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to issue a refund to those who are no longer able to meet the updated requirements. Furthermore, this is a day 1 patch that is mandatory to make the game playable, not one that was issued later, so it should have been included in the system requirements from day 1, and nobody should have been able to download the game before that change was made.

Quite simply, if a game requires a 100 GB download to run, and the system requirements only say 50 GB, that's false advertising. The publisher is responsible for ensuring system requirements are accurate.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Suing a game company because you don't like their craftsmanship is bad because it's sad and embarrassing.

Penalizing a company for refusing to issue a refund on a dysfunctional product that they falsely advertised as working is the basic premise of any sort of consumer protection, whether it's in the form of formal laws or in the form of lawsuits and legal precedent. Acting smug because you're protected by European law while looking down on people who have no such laws and instead rely on lawsuits to accomplish exactly the same thing is pretty laughable.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.