[kgwxd]

Government forced speech is never reasonable. If you don't like the arrangement, just don't buy the game. Tell them why you didn't buy the game. Hope for a better future where more of the industry is built on open source. That's all anyone can do. That's all anyone should be able to do.

[autoexec]

> Government forced speech is never reasonable.

Government forced speech includes food companies needing to add ingredient labels on packaging including allergen info, landlords needing to notify tenants before entering their homes, stores having to post accurate prices for the products they sell, and employers having to provide workers with safety data sheets for the hazardous materials they work with. These are all perfectly reasonable. Thanks to government forced speech we have more freedom/rights and better lives.

[wredcoll]

There's always someone willing to blame the victim.

The answer to companies committing fraud is not "buyer beware".

[wilg]

Except shutting down a game is not fraud.

[toraway]

How is selling something and then removing the ability to use what was paid for not fraud? (setting aside the EULAs companies currently get away with using to sidestep the question)

There's even a specific term for scams where you pay money based on a specific description for an item being sold that is then changed after the time of sale known as a "bait and switch".

[ethin]

What are you proposing then? The government is not allowed to compel speech for good reason.

[Y-bar]

That’s not a Carte Blanche that forbids the government from everything.

The government can compel speech from food and other producers to print content and nutritional labels on their products. The government can compel speech on a yearly basis when we file taxes. The can compel speech such as guidance maps and websites to be accessible to the blind (ADA). They can compel vehicle owners to provide insurance and ownership information, which is a kind of speech.

[ethin]

> That’s not a Carte Blanche that forbids the government from everything.

I never said it was. Yes, commercial speech has diminished protections, but it is not annulled. It is still protected to a degree, even if less than ordinary speech. You may consider selling a game to someone and then shutting it down Fraud, but I somehow doubt the supreme court would agree with you (although you might be able to convince a lower circuit court to). Compelling speech is usually something that undergoes strict scrutiny. Compelling commercial speech requires that you pass the test established in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (unless SCOTUS decides on one of it's random whims to overturn that ruling, which for all we know it might).

Don't get me wrong: I am in no way anti-regulation. But compelling speech is something that needs to be handled carefully.

Edit: removed the strawman thing (that was inaccurate and I apologize for the accusation).

[ppseafield]

This is not just free speech, it's commerce, and the government has the ability to regulate commerce. Warranties and lemon laws are not regulating speech - they're regulating sales and the legal requirements for those sales. Providing a method for playing a game a customer purchased after the company decides to abandon it is putting a legal requirement on the sale of goods.

[hgoel]

Welp, better get rid of all nutritional facts, allergy warnings, medical side effect notices and all the other signage mandated by government for your safety.