93 réponses à ce sujet

[cASe383]

LMFAO at the idea of a class action suit over a few bugs.



FWIW I've done three complete playthroughs, including DLC, and haven't run into anything that's a game breaker. Haven't even run into anything that was mildly annoying really.

[MuLepton]

FWIW I've done three complete playthroughs, including DLC, and haven't run into anything that's a game breaker. Haven't even run into anything that was mildly annoying really.

And others have lost 40+ hours of gameplay because of one bug which has been around since day one and wasn't fixed. So, grats to you, but your point is again?

Modifié par MuLepton, 06 mai 2010 - 03:59 .

[Branji]

The EULA doesn't actually mean much. Heard of Securom? That DRM was so hated that there ended up being 4 class action lawsuits over it. If enough fans do something because of the lack of support for the console versions (and Mac, which is basically considered abandonware the moment it hit the shelves), who knows what will happen. I say go for it.

[Thajocoth]

MuLepton wrote...

FWIW I've done three complete playthroughs, including DLC, and haven't run into anything that's a game breaker. Haven't even run into anything that was mildly annoying really.

And others have lost 40+ hours of gameplay because of one bug which has been around since day one and wasn't fixed. So, grats to you, but your point is again?

Nothing states that you won't have to restart from the beginning occasionally to play through the full game.  It really sucks and all, but the premise of the lawsuit here just doesn't hold water.

Heck, they've got a lot of different intros.  Without such restart bugs, I think a lot of people would miss at least half of them.  You're actually seeing MORE of the game by being forced to restart...

Modifié par Thajocoth, 06 mai 2010 - 09:57 .

[MuLepton]

Thajocoth wrote...

Heck, they've got a lot of different intros.  Without such restart bugs, I think a lot of people would miss at least half of them.  You're actually seeing MORE of the game by being forced to restart...

Of course, how silly of me. Let me quickly petition Blizzard to introduce a "autodelete first character at level 83" feature in Catclysm, because after all there's nine other classes I might never play otherwise.

Pop-quiz time: Are you more likely to restart the game if
a) You finished the game and thought "Wow, pretty awesome, let's see how it plays on a different class?" or
You couldn't finish the game because it corrupted your saves and then found out that the company couldn't be bothered to fix that bug, so there's possibility that it just would happen again in a new playthrough.

I would guess the answer's a no-brainer, but hey.

Modifié par MuLepton, 07 mai 2010 - 01:42 .

[Thajocoth]

MuLepton wrote...

Thajocoth wrote...

Heck, they've got a lot of different intros.  Without such restart bugs, I think a lot of people would miss at least half of them.  You're actually seeing MORE of the game by being forced to restart...

Of course, how silly of me. Let me quickly petition Blizzard to introduce a "autodelete first character at level 83" feature in Catclysm, because after all there's nine other classes I might never play otherwise.

Pop-quiz time: Are you more likely to restart the game if
a) You finished the game and thought "Wow, pretty awesome, let's see how it plays on a different class?" or
You couldn't finish the game because it corrupted your saves and then found out that the company couldn't be bothered to fix that bug, so there's possibility that it just would happen again in a new playthrough.

I would guess the answer's a no-brainer, but hey.

I was poiting out how ridiculous this all is with something equally as ridiculous.  The other half of my post points out exactly how many legs such a case would have to stand on (none).  I can almost guarantee you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Modifié par Thajocoth, 07 mai 2010 - 04:23 .

[MuLepton]

I've never stated anywhere that I think a lawsuit would be successful. I doubt it, in fact, but hey, people have sued over crazy stuff before.

What I have an issue with is people like cASe383 coming in, saying "LOL" (without bothering to bring up some actual arguments) and defending BW's lack of bugfixing by saying "IT NEVAR HAPPENED TO ME LOL". That's just asinine.
And your reply about "Well, you see more of the game" - I found that insulting and condescending towards the people who've had their games ruined by the bug. Yes, great, you weren't serious, but without use of emoticons and considering the absurd arguments that the fanboys (yes, I went there) on these forums bring up, that wasn't immediately clear.

TL;DR version: I find it amazing that people continue to defend BW's inaction about a game-breaking bug that has been around since launch.

Modifié par MuLepton, 07 mai 2010 - 04:38 .

[Thajocoth]

MuLepton wrote...

 I find it amazing that people continue to defend BW's inaction about a game-breaking bug that has been around since launch.

By no means do I think it's ok to have such game-breaking bugs AT release.  I just don't see any grounds for a lawsuit, which, in this topic puts me on the "defending BioWare" side.  I hate the entire concept of patches...  It becomes ok not to get it right the first time.  That makes publishers shrink dev time thinking it's perfectly alright to release a beta and patch it to a release later...  And so many betas never get patched.  Look at Assassin's Creed (The first one) for a great example of this.  The climbing alone was so buggy...  And the ending was so obviously rushed...  The game had it's highlights, but it needed some polish and debugging.  An Ubisoft dev cycle, at least at that time, was generally 1/2-2/3 of what you'd need to do a project properly.  Big N even did this once.  Remember WindWaker?  It was supposed to have 2 more dungeons and the Triforce grind was simply slapped on because they didn't take the time to finish designing it.

This is obviously that exact situation, just with EA this time.  But to sue because there are bugs in software (which is the topic of this topic)...  All software has bugs.  That's the nature of code.  You still CAN complete the game.  There's really just no grounds for lawsuit.

Modifié par Thajocoth, 07 mai 2010 - 07:23 .

[Noilly Prat]

I once had a third party memory card for my Nintendo 64 spontaneously erase itself and I had to start over again in a couple of games that I was around halfway through. That sort of thing always sucks, but I never even thought for a moment that this was any grounds for a lawsuit.

As for bugs, literally every game that ships has at least some. Some are more serious than others-- and a game-breaking bug is pretty damn serious-- but some people also just get really hung up on little insignificant bugs. Should BioWare release a patch for every little issue that crops up that happens to bother someone somewhere?

I realize that Origins has not seen a patch in a little while, and that many issues (all of the ones I've experienced being incredibly minor) have never been fixed, and I'm still holding off on a second Awakening playthrough until some of its more serious issues are fixed. My point is that there are a lot of considerations that need to be taken into account in determining what will be covered in a given patch. An extremely minor issue which most players experience but only a few are bothered by probably won't be a priority. Unfortunately, the same probably goes for a game-breaking bug which almost nobody ever experiences.

A lawsuit may seem justifiable to you because you experienced a major, game-breaking bug, but at its core it's still a lawsuit over a few game bugs. If such a thing were even entertained in a courtroom, it could establish a precedent that any developer can be sued over any bug in any game because some player or players happened to not like it.

It still sucks, but I don't think that silly, ill-advised lawsuits generally help consumers at all. The fact that Microsoft has managed not to get the pants sued off of them in spite of knowingly shipping numerous faulty consoles doesn't bode well for a lawsuit like this. (I am aware that some people have sued Microsoft over related matters, but these have gone nowhere as far as I know, and it hasn't forced Microsoft to even admit many of the problems, much less deal with them or refund customers who paid for repairs despite not having misused their consoles.)

Modifié par Noilly Prat, 07 mai 2010 - 05:30 .

[HedStr8EyesTite]

Noilly Prat wrote...

I once had a third party memory card for my Nintendo 64 spontaneously erase itself and I had to start over again in a couple of games that I was around halfway through. That sort of thing always sucks, but I never even thought for a moment that this was any grounds for a lawsuit.

As for bugs, literally every game that ships has at least some. Some are more serious than others-- and a game-breaking bug is pretty damn serious-- but some people also just get really hung up on little insignificant bugs. Should BioWare release a patch for every little issue that crops up that happens to bother someone somewhere?

I realize that Origins has not seen a patch in a little while, and that many issues (all of the ones I've experienced being incredibly minor) have never been fixed, and I'm still holding off on a second Awakening playthrough until some of its more serious issues are fixed. My point is that there are a lot of considerations that need to be taken into account in determining what will be covered in a given patch. An extremely minor issue which most players experience but only a few are bothered by probably won't be a priority. Unfortunately, the same probably goes for a game-breaking bug which almost nobody ever experiences.

A lawsuit may seem justifiable to you because you experienced a major, game-breaking bug, but at its core it's still a lawsuit over a few game bugs. If such a thing were even entertained in a courtroom, it could establish a precedent that any developer can be sued over any bug in any game because some player or players happened to not like it.

It still sucks, but I don't think that silly, ill-advised lawsuits generally help consumers at all. The fact that Microsoft has managed not to get the pants sued off of them in spite of knowingly shipping numerous faulty consoles doesn't bode well for a lawsuit like this. (I am aware that some people have sued Microsoft over related matters, but these have gone nowhere as far as I know, and it hasn't forced Microsoft to even admit many of the problems, much less deal with them or refund customers who paid for repairs despite not having misused their consoles.)

actually microsoft did offer refunds to everybody who paid for RROD repair before they settled the case and extended the warranty to 3 years...

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Thajocoth wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Got Microsoft to acknowledge and fix
the RROD issue.
Just saying....

That was far more people than this could possibly generate...

You'd need EA to lose the case to have any useful effect. Especially EA, of all companies in the industry... And if you do manage to beat them, and they fix this game, they'll make BW suffer for it in the future, one way or another.  Maybe they'll fire people.  Maybe they'll screw with the dev cycle or put massive restrictions on their creativity.

And if EA wins such a case, which is far more likely, they're likely to drop any further interaction with the game, as it'd be too big a risk in their eyes.  They wouldn't want another lawsuit for whatever bugs are in the next patch, and that's what's most important to EA.  If the lawsuit costs them enough, BW will still see the same punishments for it.

Really, no good could come of this.  Surango's idea is really your best bet.

FYI, Microsoft didn't lose the case. It was settled out of court, as many cases of this kind are.

My personal opinion tends to agree with Surango....and of course not buying any more Bioware products and such. All I am simply trying to point out is that the OP is not disingenuous or a "troll" as so many immature people so far seem to insinuate. There's nothing wrong with organizing people and using the court system if you believe this issue rises to that level.

sure, frivolous lawsuits are fine. that's why we live in a lawsuit happy world, isn't it? what the world needs is moe lawsuits. why vote with your wallet when you can tie up the courts so legitimate cases can't get through.

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

FYI, Microsoft didn't lose the case. It was settled out of court, as many cases of this kind are.

My personal opinion tends to agree with Surango....and of course not buying any more Bioware products and such. All I am simply trying to point out is that the OP is not disingenuous or a "troll" as so many immature people so far seem to insinuate. There's nothing wrong with organizing people and using the court system if you believe this issue rises to that level.

sure, frivolous lawsuits are fine. that's why we live in a lawsuit happy world, isn't it? what the world needs is moe lawsuits. why vote with your wallet when you can tie up the courts so legitimate cases can't get through.

How incredibly naïve. There's more to a lawsuit than just winning. The negative publicity something like that generates has a great deal of value. How about the massive lawyer costs that the defendant will have to pony up to deal with the case, even if it never even ends up in court. Frivolity is something for a judge and possibly a jury to decide, after they've heard from both sides in an organized fashion. Pronouncing your own opinion, without actually hearing what potential legal argument each side might have, is just as immoral. There's a huge difference between saying "I think this idea has no merit" and "this idea has no merit." One is an opinion, the other is an opinion falsely blanketed in the appearance of fact.

There is no legal recourse for a person to take if they are dissatisfied with a software product. Stores no longer take returns on open software. EULA agreements explicitly indemnify software companies for any damage their product may cause. While I generally subscribe to the notion of caveat emptor (buyer beware), I am also conscious that we do need protections like "lemon laws" to protect against blatantly unscrupulous behavior.

So I ask you, what recourse does a person have if they buy this game and find it unusable in a REASONABLE fashion? What constitutes reasonable use? What protections should the consumer have, if any? These are issues that could very well be raised in good faith in a legal setting. So tell me, what's frivolous about that again?

Modifié par Wicked 702, 07 mai 2010 - 09:57 .

[Wicked 702]

Noilly Prat wrote...

I realize that Origins has not seen a patch in a little while since launch, (fixed for you)

Noilly Prat wrote...

It still sucks, but I don't think that silly, ill-advised lawsuits generally help consumers at all. The fact that Microsoft has managed not to get the pants sued off of them in spite of knowingly shipping numerous faulty consoles doesn't bode well for a lawsuit like this. (I am aware that some people have sued Microsoft over related matters, but these have gone nowhere as far as I know, and it hasn't forced Microsoft to even admit many of the problems, much less deal with them or refund customers who paid for repairs despite not having misused their consoles.)

Not correct. Microsoft did get the pants sued off of them. In fact, it was a class action lawsuit. The case was settled, the financial details of which are private of course.

The later public benefit was Microsoft's very real acknowledgment that their console had problems, the refund of money to those that had to pay for repairs, and an extension of the warranty for certain problems (including the RRoD) to three years.

.....look it up.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 07 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[bzombo]

Wicked 702 wrote...

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

FYI, Microsoft didn't lose the case. It was settled out of court, as many cases of this kind are.

My personal opinion tends to agree with Surango....and of course not buying any more Bioware products and such. All I am simply trying to point out is that the OP is not disingenuous or a "troll" as so many immature people so far seem to insinuate. There's nothing wrong with organizing people and using the court system if you believe this issue rises to that level.

sure, frivolous lawsuits are fine. that's why we live in a lawsuit happy world, isn't it? what the world needs is moe lawsuits. why vote with your wallet when you can tie up the courts so legitimate cases can't get through.

How incredibly naïve. There's more to a lawsuit than just winning. The negative publicity something like that generates has a great deal of value. How about the massive lawyer costs that the defendant will have to pony up to deal with the case, even if it never even ends up in court. Frivolity is something for a judge and possibly a jury to decide, after they've heard from both sides in an organized fashion. Pronouncing your own opinion, without actually hearing what potential legal argument each side might have, is just as immoral. There's a huge difference between saying "I think this idea has no merit" and "this idea has no merit." One is an opinion, the other is an opinion falsely blanketed in the appearance of fact.

There is no legal recourse for a person to take if they are dissatisfied with a software product. Stores no longer take returns on open software. EULA agreements explicitly indemnify software companies for any damage their product may cause. While I generally subscribe to the notion of caveat emptor (buyer beware), I am also conscious that we do need protections like "lemon laws" to protect against blatantly unscrupulous behavior.

So I ask you, what recourse does a person have if they buy this game and find it unusable in a REASONABLE fashion? What constitutes reasonable use? What protections should the consumer have, if any? These are issues that could very well be raised in good faith in a legal setting. So tell me, what's frivolous about that again?

it's naive to think everything should be solved through the court system. if you can't get it straightened out, vote with your wallet and don't buy anything from them anymore. the game is playable by the vast majority of people who bought it. malfunctioning hardward, like the xbox rrod is different. the software runs. it just isn't bug free. anyone who bring a lawsuit like this will be laughed out, and depending on the country legal costs may have to be paid by the plaintiff.

[AlanC9]

Wicked 702 wrote...

How incredibly naïve. There's more to a lawsuit than just winning. The negative publicity something like that generates has a great deal of value. How about the massive lawyer costs that the defendant will have to pony up to deal with the case, even if it never even ends up in court. Frivolity is something for a judge and possibly a jury to decide, after they've heard from both sides in an organized fashion. Pronouncing your own opinion, without actually hearing what potential legal argument each side might have, is just as immoral. There's a huge difference between saying "I think this idea has no merit" and "this idea has no merit." One is an opinion, the other is an opinion falsely blanketed in the appearance of fact.

You've got two different arguments here. One is that lawsuits aren't completely about winning, and the other is that laymen can't judge the probability of winning. Maybe three arguments, since you're also making a point about rhetoric. So since rhetoric's in play, I suggest that different paragraphs might have been more appropriate.

As for the topic, even laymen can discuss the non-legal aspects of a lawsuit. Just from looking at this thread, my impression is that the plaintiffs would end up looking like whining crybabies. 

[JBurke]

Feed the troll! Feed it!

[Grimgor79]

JBurke wrote...

Feed the troll! Feed it!

 He's no more troll than you or I, the dude is just upset with Bioware and he has a right to feel that way. I'm not saying a class action suit is a good idea and I'm not saying it's a bad idea, truthfully I doubt he is really gonna move forward with this (may not be worth it)  more likely he is just pissed, alot of us are. Roshi just tends to be more vocal about these things.

[Wicked 702]

bzombo wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

How incredibly naïve. There's more to a lawsuit than just winning. The negative publicity something like that generates has a great deal of value. How about the massive lawyer costs that the defendant will have to pony up to deal with the case, even if it never even ends up in court. Frivolity is something for a judge and possibly a jury to decide, after they've heard from both sides in an organized fashion. Pronouncing your own opinion, without actually hearing what potential legal argument each side might have, is just as immoral. There's a huge difference between saying "I think this idea has no merit" and "this idea has no merit." One is an opinion, the other is an opinion falsely blanketed in the appearance of fact.

There is no legal recourse for a person to take if they are dissatisfied with a software product. Stores no longer take returns on open software. EULA agreements explicitly indemnify software companies for any damage their product may cause. While I generally subscribe to the notion of caveat emptor (buyer beware), I am also conscious that we do need protections like "lemon laws" to protect against blatantly unscrupulous behavior.

So I ask you, what recourse does a person have if they buy this game and find it unusable in a REASONABLE fashion? What constitutes reasonable use? What protections should the consumer have, if any? These are issues that could very well be raised in good faith in a legal setting. So tell me, what's frivolous about that again?

it's naive to think everything should be solved through the court system. if you can't get it straightened out, vote with your wallet and don't buy anything from them anymore. the game is playable by the vast majority of people who bought it. malfunctioning hardward, like the xbox rrod is different. the software runs. it just isn't bug free. anyone who bring a lawsuit like this will be laughed out, and depending on the country legal costs may have to be paid by the plaintiff.

The product I have NOW is faulty. While what you propose solves any FUTURE dilemnas, it does not correct the issue at hand.

Your idea is akin to buying a brand new car and having it break down sometimes. Instead of expecting the manufacturer to fix your existing car, you simply don't buy your next car from that maker. But what about the people who's car is broken NOW? Sure, some of the people that bought this production are fine. Many of them are able to run the car with no issues. But I'm not. Through no fault of my own (and that's key here), I am unable to start my car sometimes.

What legal recourse (refund, repair, etc.) do I have to deal with this problem? With cars, it's simple. There are lemon laws designed to prevent such things. But what do I do with this product, Dragon Age? There is no current legal recourse for an individual. Refunds are a no go.

There is the potential for a legal argument here. Whether it will win or not, who the hell knows. But there IS the potential for some sort of legal discussion on the issue. It is not instantly frivolous as you describe.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 08 mai 2010 - 12:50 .

[Wicked 702]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

How incredibly naïve. There's more to a lawsuit than just winning. The negative publicity something like that generates has a great deal of value. How about the massive lawyer costs that the defendant will have to pony up to deal with the case, even if it never even ends up in court. Frivolity is something for a judge and possibly a jury to decide, after they've heard from both sides in an organized fashion. Pronouncing your own opinion, without actually hearing what potential legal argument each side might have, is just as immoral. There's a huge difference between saying "I think this idea has no merit" and "this idea has no merit." One is an opinion, the other is an opinion falsely blanketed in the appearance of fact.

You've got two different arguments here. One is that lawsuits aren't completely about winning, and the other is that laymen can't judge the probability of winning. Maybe three arguments, since you're also making a point about rhetoric. So since rhetoric's in play, I suggest that different paragraphs might have been more appropriate.

As for the topic, even laymen can discuss the non-legal aspects of a lawsuit. Just from looking at this thread, my impression is that the plaintiffs would end up looking like whining crybabies. 

Yes and no. I certainly could have added a paranthetical break between the sentences about side benefits of legal filings vs the perceived frivolity of this case, except that I felt that the two concepts were linked. I was refuting the frivolity of the idea with examples of the other benefits that could be obtained through inititated a legal filing. I also felt that judging something as frivolous, without hearing any actual evidence from either side, is just as immoral as filing a frivolous lawsuit in the first place. One can render an opinion but an outright judgment is bad form.

In any event that would be a grammatical error at best and does not go for or against the veracity of the statement.


I can compare this concept to that of the famous hot coffee McDonald's case everyone contantly references. What I find incredibly amazing is how few people actually know the facts behind the case. Everyone immediately jumps to the (completely incorrect) assumption that the plaintiff was a complete moron for spilling hot coffee on himself/herself. I have yet to meet a single person, other than myself and the others that read the case study with me, that actually knows what really went on in that case. And the truth is, I always assumed what everyone else assumed. But after reading the details, it is 100% clear that McDonalds was totally at fault in that case. I urge anyone to actually read the official summaries and see if you disagree. My point is that judging any legal issue on its surface is not wise.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 08 mai 2010 - 02:08 .

[traversc]

In any event that would be a grammatical error at best and does not go for or against the voracity of the statement.

VORACIOUS STATEMENT. NOM NOM NOMNOM NOM NOM. Haha, but yeah, I didn't read this thread.

[Wicked 702]

Bah, typo. Funny though.

.....meant veracity. Fixed it.

[Taiko Roshi]

Let us put this into perspective with a little BW history as an analogy. BW started out life as a developing company that made software for medical institutions. Let say they provided software to a medical institution that was buggy and did not fulfill what the client had paid for, expected and was promised. In addition, when the client pointed out the bugs, BW not only told them to ****** off, but then tried to sell them extra add ons for the software which in turn made the original software worse. Could that client then take recourse due to BW's negligence in providing software which they had claimed to the medical institution to be the "full version"?
 

I hate the entire concept of patches...  It becomes ok not to get it right the first time.  That makes publishers shrink dev time thinking it's perfectly alright to release a beta and patch it to a release later...  And so many betas never get patched.

This 100%. Although I think that we will never see this become reality. As long as people keep buying buggy products and just accept it. As long as people keep supporting developers by buying crappy expansions/dlc, it will never happen. I've only seen it happen once in my life time and that was with Hellgate:London and the sinking of Flagship. Seriously, what BW has done and is doing is NO DIFFERENT to Bill Roper and his con artist mates!

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 08 mai 2010 - 10:23 .

[Thajocoth]

Bugs in a game do not endanger real lives, and the insinuation that it's the same would be an extremely dangerous precedent. If you write code for medical equipment, airplanes, or anything else that can effect people's lives, you can expect such lawsuits, but you'll also make more than double the money to begin with over someone in the game industry. Medical companies don't pay $60 for software... They pay many many times that, and the software is expected to do a LOT less than a video game is (with a longer dev cycle). Video games are among the most challenging types of software to write, a step below operating systems and databases. We accept the lower salaries because games are actually enjoyable to create, and because we don't have the same level of risk that you have when making software for medical equipment.

Don't confuse fantasy with reality.

Modifié par Thajocoth, 08 mai 2010 - 05:05 .

[Mad Bohemian]

My grandmother once told me "Anyone can sue anybody, you just have to have the right lawyer".

Modifié par Mad Bohemian, 08 mai 2010 - 05:49 .

[pvpgirl]

Not that I see this going anywhere, but a far better way to deal with EA is sales. If we could get every gamer on this forum between DA and ME, every gamer we each know irl and all of us just not buy anything from EA for a single month, maybe they would wake up and say 'look, their angry and their not gonna take it anymore'. Problem is, that will never happen. Even if 500 people say they'll do it, at least 50% likely wouldn't make it the full month. Thus EA learns nothing.