Stupid serial numbers!

[wishface]

mad; codes are a silly idea. They just inconvenience the legit buyer and don't mean a jot to pirates.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

yes. they are only there to frustrate....

 

[scott_forester]

yes. they are only there to frustrate....

On a side note I'd like to meet the people who think it's a good idea to put software keys on USB keys for their products and beat them to death with bat.

 

[wishface]

yes. they are only there to frustrate....

you think they actually stop piracy?

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

err yes. To some degree.

 

[scott_forester]

you think they actually stop piracy?

I think they provide a speed hump without it you'd wonder if some games companies wouldn't stop developing on PCs given that they could add £30 to a game and offer a keyboard for console games.

 

[wishface]

err yes. To some degree.

i don't think they make a blind bit of difference.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Of course they do. Of course alot of software does get pirated, but if it requires an online activation it is far more difficult to get away with pumping out loads of copies. Also, using serials prevent the vast majority of people from pirating the software, by this I mean actively decompiling the code in order to get the serial. Since most people aren't capable of this i would say it does make a difference.

 

[stdPikachu]

Not really game's fault though is it? It's not their responsibility to open all the packaging and check the serial nos.

Your contract was with them, not whoever the guilty party may be As an aside, it's not unknown for people (including shop staff) to buy a game, install it, swipe the license, put the DVD through a shrinkwrap machine and return it so that it goes straight back out on the shelf so that the next unwitting punter finds themselves with a non functioning game. If you bought it sealed and it didn't work, it wasn't fit for purpose unless it came with a proviso you had to sign saying "I hereby say that I won't claim for a refund if this thing goes wrong" except, er, that's in violation of your statutory rights.

But GAME only accept games back if they are 'unopened'

If you have a legitimate complaint of the game, you're within your rights to force them to take it back for a full refund. If they state this as company policy, it's against the law. Locate your local trading standards ombudsman.

VThe shop refused to reimburse me because "we've done nothing wrong".

Irrelevant, in the UK at least. You trade was with the shop, not whoever the wrongdoer was. They are wholly responsible for your satisfaction with the product. If the game doesn't work, blows up your house and eats your first born, technically it's not their fault either but they're still responsible. If they want to pass the buck up to the manufacturer, that's not your call or concern.

Virgin tried to pull this shit with me when I tried to return Opposing Fronts, because I couldn't fucking stand the mandatory "you must sign in to play this game because there's no way i fuck we'll trust a stinking pirate like you" mentality, telling me I'd need to take it up with THQ. Asking for the manager and explaining the sales of goods act earned a full refund and an apology. He was blatanly aware that he was in the wrong, but these people make their lives easier by feigning ignorance in the hope that you'll just give up and buy another copy.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Irrelevant, in the UK at least. You trade was with the shop, not whoever the wrongdoer was. They are wholly responsible for your satisfaction with the product. If the game doesn't work, blows up your house and eats your first born, technically it's not their fault either but they're still responsible. If they want to pass the buck up to the manufacturer, that's not your call or concern.

Just quote Donahue vs. Stevenson

 

[stdPikachu]

Just quote Donahue vs. Stevenson

Wow, I'd not actually heard of that case before. For those in the same boat:

A tort is committed when someone fails to fulfil a duty which they owe to another but which does not arise out of an explicit contract. the classic example of this is the case Donahue vs. Stevenson. Mr Donahue bought a bottle of ginger beer for his wife. The pub therefore entered into a contract with Mr Donahue to provide him with drinkable ginger beer. After Mrs Donahue had drunk some of the beer, she noticed that it contained a decomposing snail. Consequently she was sick and sued the pub although she did not have a contract with them. The court held that the pub did have a duty to her and consequently she was awarded damages.

 

[scott_forester]

After Mrs Donahue had drunk some of the beer, she noticed that it contained a decomposing snail.

I wonder if it was a Mexican ginger beer?