[BlackFly]

Possibly, but it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly. People approach free-to-play games and subscription based games with different attitudes than purchased games. A purchase carries a reasonable expectation of durability.

On the other hand, if you sell cosmetic items in your subscription based or free-to-play game, then you have sold something with a reasonable expectation of durability which is somewhat already enshrined in the digital goods laws. If you rent those items for a limited time then the relationship is again honest.

If it is reasonable to expect a limited time frame of usage from the software then it is reasonable for the company to state what guarantees they are willing to make for that time frame in a subscription contract. The presumption of durability should carry the weight of law (up to consumables and wear and tear).

[johnnyanmac]

> it is an unmitigated good to incentivize companies to position their relationships with customers honestly.

Yeah, good luck with that. these companies have wasted that goodwill for almost a decade now. The real unfortunate part is that most consumers don't care, so companies can keep doing it.

[BlackFly]

Well, I have personally had luck with this. It took a very long time after the initial laws on digital content for refunds to become widely available but it happened. I am doing my part, I do not share your cynicism here. To me it appears to be working effectively.

The saying is, the wheels of justice turn slowly but they grind finely.

Directive 2019/770 is still young and game companies haven't had much opportunity to interact with irate customers demanding remedy under this directive and its national transpositions yet. They still use the old terminology to clarify their sale as a "service" despite the new act defining what a service is and making that definition inalienable. As more and more people assert their rights, new norms will develop. More and more companies may be forced to register as gatekeepers under the digital markets act as well.