The Government recognises recent concerns raised by video games users regarding the long-term operability of purchased products.

Consumers should be aware that there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products. There may be occasions where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for video games that have declining user bases. However, video games sellers must comply with existing consumer law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs).

The CPRs require information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibit commercial practices which through false information or misleading omissions cause the average consumer to make a different choice, for example, to purchase goods or services they would not otherwise have purchased. The regulations prohibit commercial practices which omit or hide information which the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.

The CPRs are enforced by Trading Standards and the Competition and Markets Authority. If consumers believe that there has been a breach of these regulations, they should report the matter in the first instance to the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 0808 223 1133 (www.citizensadvice.org.uk). People living in Scotland should contact Advice Direct Scotland on 0808 164 6000 (www.consumeradvice.scot). Both helplines offer a free service advising consumers on their rights and how best to take their case forward. The helplines will refer complaints to Trading Standards services where appropriate. Consumers can also pursue private redress through the courts where a trader has provided misleading information on a product.

The CRA gives consumers important rights when they make a contract with a trader for the supply of digital content. This includes requiring digital content to be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It can be difficult and expensive for businesses to maintain dedicated support for old software, particularly if it needs to interact with modern hardware, apps and websites, but if software is being offered for sale that is not supported by the provider, then this should be made clear.

If the digital content does not meet these quality rights, the consumer has the right to a repair or replacement of the digital content. If a repair or replacement is not possible, or does not fix the problem, then the consumer will be entitled to some money back or a price reduction which can be up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. These rights apply to intangible digital content like computer software or a PC game, as well as digital content in a tangible form like a physical copy of a video game. The CRA has a time limit of up to six years after a breach of contract during which a consumer can take legal action.

The standards outlined above apply to digital content where there is a contractual right of the trader or a third party to modify or update the digital content. In practice, this means that a trader or third party can upgrade, fix, enhance and improve the features of digital content so long as it continues to match any description given by the trader and continues to conform with any pre-contract information including main characteristics, functionality and compatibility provided by the trader, unless varied by express agreement.

Consumers should also be aware that while there is a statutory right for goods (including intangible digital content) to be of a satisfactory quality, that will only be breached if they are not of the standard which a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory, taking into account circumstances including the price and any description given. For example, a manufacturer’s support for a mobile phone is likely to be withdrawn as they launch new models. It will remain usable but without, for example, security updates, and over time some app developers may decide to withdraw support.

Department Culture, Media & Sport

  • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why does this response just feel like it’s a restatement of what people already have the right to without addressing if they’re taking any action or not? Their mobile phone example even remains usable, whereas a lot of these games do not.

    • TheSpermWhale@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This government seems more interested in sending immigrants to Rwanda than doing anything that would actually help anyone

    • Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because that’s what it is. I think some of it might have to do with the limited content of the petition itself (a pretty short description about “customers being robbed” without any broader ideas suggested by the campaign) and some with the fact they get plenty of petitions so the first reaction is to stick with what’s already there. That’s my guess at least.

      I hope that if this petition reached 100k signatures and went to a parliamentary hearing there could be a chance for a more nuanced presentation of the topic but who knows, maybe I’m just being naive.

    • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s an online petition. If petitions actually had the power to change anything, they wouldn’t let you sign them. The response will always be some mealy-mouthed rubbish.

      Frankly, this isn’t anything to do with the government anyway, nor should they be getting involved.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Frankly, this isn’t anything to do with the government anyway, nor should they be getting involved

        It kinda does though. The only way you’re going to force companies to keep their old games available is through laws. Companies will only release source code when they take down their online games if legally compelled. They will only release source or keep on steam old off-line games they don’t want to keep up if they are legally compelled.

        And honestly, it seems like the bare minimum to give the community the resources to keep playing a game when you’ve decided as a company it’s too old and you want to move on from it.

      • astrsk@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That last statement seams a bit misguided. The without government regulation, cars wouldn’t have such long parts and repair support. Why shouldn’t video games and other products be treated the same?

        • eltimablo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because cars are a useful tool made up of physical parts that can wear out, while games are an entertainment product made of ever-changing software. You need a car. You don’t need video games.