[Timeerror]

Hi,

I am a lawyer and - this has to be said - Ubi Soft should change their lawyers. The anti-epilepsy filter could not avoid lititgation. Everybody in the world could sue Ubisoft - or any other company - and could argue that a game makes him sick, ill etc. (with or without this stupid anti-epilepsy filter).


If UbiSoft would have asked me as a lawyer, whether it they should add this anti-epilepsy filter, as a lawyer I would say: Yes, because in court proceedings you could argue, that you have done everything to avoid everything.


But UbiSoft is a company, that sells products and they should not act like a
scaredy cat. They should act as business men. Writing a warning on the box or in the intro is also sufficent and you would also have enogh arguments in court hearings.

In my opinon, the decions of Ubi Soft concerning Silent Hunter were bad (stopping support etc), but now the decisons are even worst.

Avoiding litigation is ok, but you could not manipulate a whoule game, because a lawyer says "We would recommend implementing such a filter" is nonsene. This is case, a managing director has to say: "o.k noticed, but in my opinion a warning on the box etc is fine, thank you for your legal opinion".