So... wouldn't Electronic Arts' refusal to give a refund technically be considered theft? I mean, think about it. Say I spend 60 USD on a solely online multiplayer game and then it is rendered unplayable because they shut down the servers. I can't ever access that game again as a result. Therefore, following that logic, I've now permanently lost 60 dollars that I can't EVER get back because they won't issue refunds.
How then, in any universe, is this kind of practice from game companies such as EA even legal? No wonder the Stop Killing Games Initiative has the amount of supporters that it does. It seems there's all kinds of laws protecting these big video game industry corporations from theft, but who's protecting the consumers from theft from such corporations?
The most obvious and basic concept of consumerism (in terms of buying goods) is that when people pay for a good, an exchange is made between the buyer and the seller. The buyer then OWNS said good (such as, in this case, a specific video game or console). Therefore, you the player, now OWN the game. If an individual or groups of individuals (Electronic Arts) take what someone else OWNS without their express permission OR knowledge, that is defined as STEALING. So that would mean as a company, you can be held liable within the court of law for any criminal damages incurred against the consumer. Therefore, wouldn't it be in the company's best interests financially to issue a refund so as to avoid potential lawsuits?
Its doubtful, but I'm hoping EA sees this post on here and finds my arguments compelling enough to actually start implementing refunds to all you Anthem players.