So, after a month or so of near-constant updates and efforts to live up to their product claims, EA has yet to satisfy its consumer base.
SimCity was supposed to be this glorious simulation, with enough variables, tools, and goodies under-the-hood that it would make your head spin. Instead the players were delivered a game that either un-delivered, under-performed, or flat out lied about its capabilities to its consumers. I don't need to go into specifics here, anyone still following this story knows the concepts and statements I am referring to.
The point of this post is to look at SimCity in the terms of a normal product on the market, under a standard legal analysis.
SimCity is a product, one created by a company that must obey the laws of the land (America in this case). Here we have a unique set of laws that govern products, known as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which SimCity falls under. Under the UCC, products delivered to consumers (gamers) must meet certain criteria to meet its warranty, think of this as a guarantee that the product will actually do what it is supposed to do. This criteria can either be explicitly defined by the seller, or implicitly by statements or actions taken by seller in pushing their product.
§2-314 of the UCC specifically explains that such goods (c) "(must be) fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used".
My question today is this, at what point does a game fail to be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used? If I log-in and play for 5 minutes does that mean I have used it in an ordinary purpose, even if I am kicked back to the main menu due to server issues? How about buying a game that requires an internet connection on my end (requirements to run clearly printed on the box), only to be met with server failures on the other end (something that is assumed to be provided as part of the service?)
I don't want to create more hate over this whole launch, I am just curious as to what people actually think they are purchasing when they buy a game.