• ██████████@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is it just me, or does something not add up here? I find it incredibly hard to believe that hundreds of titles, some of which required payment, were so easily removed without notifying users. Google may somehow have the right to withhold purchased content from users, but that doesn’t change the fact the company is taking our purchases from our accounts without even telling us. On the aforementioned Reddit post, we can get some insight from one of the affected developers via a comment from NoodlecakeStudios that states: “Google Play has been on a rampage lately. They’ve removed a lot of our games too. Unfortunately for some of those games, they use really old engines or tech that can’t be easily updated to 64bit (which is a new requirement), so they won’t be coming back.” So much for apps staying accessible in our libraries. Even if the reasoning is less malicious, such as new (albeit unrealistic) tech requirements for older apps, or crazy laws like GDPR seeing removals in countries it does not apply, the real sting is that Google is not notifying its users (or even its devs) when an app is pulled and no longer available. Although Google has undoubtedly covered itself with conditions that we agree to when we use the Play Store, every user deserves to know when apps are pulled from their account.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Breach of contract” is a bit of a stretch as they could simply claim any excuse is a “breach of contract” by adding in new things at any point.

      • dubyakay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine if Microsoft said you can’t run 32bit software on your 64bit Windows anymore.

      • viking@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Only that the contract was unilaterally changed after being perfectly valid for the longest time.