http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8044125.stm

I don't think I've ever seen a game that couldn't be completed cos of a glitch

I've seen plenty of games that should never have been released due to the amount of bugs in them and patches required though, and I suspect that's what this is really about

It looks like an absolute can of worms to me, but I did laugh at this for a few reasons:



First of all, there's Francisco Mingorance , then there's getting into the nonsense of 'contractually licensed' with the EU - how daft is the BSA? The EU take these things almost personally (Google, M$ etc)

Regarding 'breach of contract', who the hell was ever gonna go to court over a duff game within the EU?

I have to say, overall and going by the tone of the whole article, I think there's more pros than cons here for the consumer. If I'm reading it right (and some of that's between the lines)

Oh I see. When Consumers are affected by their shoddy products the companies say consumers should have to rely on civil remedies, yet when it comes to Copyright Infringement the companies want the protection of the Criminal Law!

2 year guarantee is crap, games today are so huge that it is not effective

2 year support is better, that way all they have to do is fix found problems found.

You cannot expect a game to work on future hardware or OS without physically testing, it's a crock of sh*t and will result in one of 3 ways
1. No one will take any notice of it
2. Games will suck but work
3. Prices will go sky high to reflect the increased test cycle