British MP Says Concord's Sudden Shutdown Is Perfect Example of Why Gamers Need Improved Consumer Protection

LectureMaster

Has Man Musk


The UK's House of Commons has debated the need for improved video game consumer protections as well as video game preservation. In this debate, Concord's sudden shutdown was used as an example of a game shut down suddenly, and the requirement for strong consumer protections in such a case.

One MP stated in their statement: "A recent example is Concord, a game released for PlayStation 5 and Windows in August 2024. Following a disappointing launch, Sony Interactive Entertainment made a commercial decision to shut it down. To their credit, they did refund all purchases, but this isn't always the case.

"I know the honourable members will agree that where publishers fail to make the life span of a game clear at the point of sale, they must be held accountable. That's why I welcome the strengthened consumer protections, including the digital markets, competition and consumers act 2024, which came into force earlier this year. This legislation rightly requires traders to provide clear, timely, and accurate information to consumers, including the longevity and functionality of digital products."

Other games of note mentioned as examples of games made unplayable, including The Crew as well as Anthem, the latter's servers will be shut down later this year.

The debate was had today in the UK House of Commons, in which MPs discussed the issues raised by the Stop Killing Games consumer movement. MP Ben Goldsborough led the debate, making the argument for further consumer rights in regard to live service video games.

Goldsborough noted that the video game industry provided both £7.6bn and 75,000 jobs to the UK. He noted in his opening statement: "Gamers still feel the deep sense of personal possession, because they invest more than money. They invest time, effort, imagination, and friendship. When a game shuts down without notice, that investment is lost."

He also urged funding partnerships, and sector support to make sure we maintain a library full of significant games. Goldsborough said: "This is about fairness, responsibility, creativity, and protecting a cultural legacy [...] of which the United Kingdom should be proud."

There were issues raised with the suggestion, with one MP noting that when games are acquired or shut down altogether the responsibility to provide such support for preservation efforts or online support. This was countered by the claim that there's a need for "natural justice", that if someone has paid for a product they should be able to use it for as long as they like.

The UK government has stated it has no intention of changing consumer laws, in spite of the overwhelming amount of pro-consumer and pro-preservation sentiment from the MPs present in today's governmental debate.
 
ab1iz2.jpg
 
Consumer protection? You mean company protection. The only ones who ended up hurt, humiliated, and mocked were Sony and the Concord studio; and, let's be honest, the only people who even bought that "game" were PlayStation employees anyway
 
Sony handle the shutdown rather well. They could have just put it on maintenance mode for the ten players and shut it down a year later.
The game was ass.
 
surprise. a govt official has no clue about what actually happened.

pretty sure not a single customer was not made whole unless they did not want to be made so.
 
Biggest bomb, but also the quickest turnaround to erase it. Honestly think the sales were less than 10k so they just said fuck it and refunded.

That says a lot though, that sort of thing is pretty much unprecedented. Especially considering it was a high budget title.
 
Worst example possible... i mean, whoever bought it could get the money back. The Crew would be THE EXAMPLE for that, since a simple patch would resolve the online/offline debacle.
 
The game failed and everyone was refunded

A perfect example would be The Crew 1
There was no obligation for Sony to do that for Concord; they did it because they knew shutting down a $400 million dollar game less than two weeks after its launch and trying to keep the money would immediately gain lots of regulatory attention asking questions about Sony's refund policy. Same thing with Cyberpunk - Sony didn't drop the game because it had issues, they dropped the game because CDPR brought heavy attention to the fact that Sony's refund policy isn't up to par.

In any case, if you shut down an online game, I believe the server code should be open-sourced. If the community wants to keep it alive, they deserve the opportunity since they've already bought in.
 
Wanna protect consumers? Don't let shit like Concord gets released

I can't even imagine the amount of time, effort and money that went to a shitty game and no one in the process of creating it, had the courage to say that it was absolute trash, lmao
 
Only way to protect consumers is to force stores and companies to have a mandatory refund policy or server access which is xxx days of duration. So if a game shuts down fast in that time period, the gamer can get their money back.

Only problem with that is all a studio has to do is shut down the game at xxx +1 day and gamers are hooped again. So if the policy is 30 days, just shut it down on day 31.

But if they make it let's say 6 months or 1 year of consumer protection that's different.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom