268 réponses à ce sujet

[Nykara]

leewells wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

Its not a bait and switch. But Rushed and Poorly managed.

They didn't do this on purpose. They just went "corporate mindset" and decided money>effort. So if you spend 50 million on ME2 and it was considered great, then spending 100 million on ME3 would automaticly make it brilliant. Every other aspect just got dropped, time, passion and effort were all replaced by putting in moar money.

No evil plots to see here. Just bad management.

If the ending is consistant with the indoc theory (if this is how it is clarified after PAX) and they intend on releasing a "real ending" it is indeed bait and switch by definition.

No. Not really because it could be argued that we saw the soldiers cheering - that earth was in fact 'retaken' when the reapers where destroyed/synthesised/controlled and that they were railroaded by the fans to 'change' the ending because they didn't like how it was executed - not that it wasn't executed.

There is actually nothing illegal here. Not really. Many storylines where in fact concluded from the previous games. It could even be argued that the reapers where also concluded just as 'promised' reguardless if we like how it was done or not. Actions we took previously did count - for some things. Such as Legion being there or not being there, the original council or a new council etc etc. Nope, companies are far more clever then to allow themselves to fall in to a trap where they can actually be sued reguardless as to intention or not.

Before anyone shoots me down - I did not like the endings. I want to see something more that explains it as a dream/indoctrination or the choice to tell the starkid to get lost. Just stating the facts as to why Bioware and EA will not be sued for this and any attempts to do so will either be thrown out of court at first hearing or fail.

[D_Dude1210]

Just wanted to add:

False Advertising Law & Legal Definition

Advertising is the act or practice of attracting public notice and attention. It includes all forms of public announcement that are intended to aid directly or indirectly in the furtherance or promulgation of an idea, or in directing attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment.

Advertising as a business may be subject to reasonable regulations, but since it is neither inherently dangerous nor a nuisance per se, it cannot be prohibited. The right to engage in any lawful private business or occupation includes the right to advertise it, and this right to advertise one's commodities or services is a valuable property right. Regulations exist governing deceptive or unfair advertising, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and use of endorsements.

Many states have laws against false advertising, which vary by state. The main federal laws governing false advertising are the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and the Lanham Act. Under the FTC Act, false advertising includes advertisements that make representations that the advertiser has no reasonable basis to believe, even if the representations turn out to be true. Only the Federal Trade Commission can enforce the FTC Act.

Private parties, such as consumers or competitors, can file a complaint for false advertising under the Lanham Act. To establish a violation under the Lanham Act, consumers and competitors must prove the following: (1) the advertiser made false statements of fact about its product; (2) the false advertisements actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the target population; (3) the deception was material; (4) the falsely advertised product was sold in interstate commerce; and (5) the party bringing the lawsuit (plaintiff) was injured as a result of the deception. Injury is construed as a likelihood of injury, rather than actual injury.

Source: http://definitions.u...se-advertising/

[AtreiyaN7]

Yeah, I'm going with no, it's not.

[liggy002]

They may release content for free to clarify the ending and pass it off as indoctrination theory. Then, they will say that it is an ending. People wont accept that as an ending, arguing that the ending didn't actually happen. But it did happen, it happened in Shepard's head. We were just left on a cliffhanger. One could argue that there are motion pictures out there that leave us on a cliffhanger with open ended possibilities. As an example of a show, consider the way that the Sopranos ended. They could then release post ending content and label that as an expansion pack. In all likehood, they may release that for free as well but they could also release content that is connected to that and then charge us. There are just so many possibilities here. There are loopholes to skirt around the law.

[leewells]

Nykara wrote...

leewells wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

Its not a bait and switch. But Rushed and Poorly managed.

They didn't do this on purpose. They just went "corporate mindset" and decided money>effort. So if you spend 50 million on ME2 and it was considered great, then spending 100 million on ME3 would automaticly make it brilliant. Every other aspect just got dropped, time, passion and effort were all replaced by putting in moar money.

No evil plots to see here. Just bad management.

If the ending is consistant with the indoc theory (if this is how it is clarified after PAX) and they intend on releasing a "real ending" it is indeed bait and switch by definition.

No. Not really because it could be argued that we saw the soldiers cheering - that earth was in fact 'retaken' when the reapers where destroyed/synthesised/controlled and that they were railroaded by the fans to 'change' the ending because they didn't like how it was executed - not that it wasn't executed.

There is actually nothing illegal here. Not really. Many storylines where in fact concluded from the previous games. It could even be argued that the reapers where also concluded just as 'promised' reguardless if we like how it was done or not. Actions we took previously did count - for some things. Such as Legion being there or not being there, the original council or a new council etc etc. Nope, companies are far more clever then to allow themselves to fall in to a trap where they can actually be sued reguardless as to intention or not.

Before anyone shoots me down - I did not like the endings. I want to see something more that explains it as a dream/indoctrination or the choice to tell the starkid to get lost. Just stating the facts as to why Bioware and EA will not be sued for this and any attempts to do so will either be thrown out of court at first hearing or fail.

The facts being spun on the ending indicates that the soldiers cheering is in fact part of the dream sequence just like the normady crash-landing also, part of the dream sequence.  The only part of that that some thinks was just a spoiler or easter egg was the grandson and grandchild part saying "one more story" and shep waking up. Which is a pretty big "bomb" on whether or not they intend on releasing post-ending dlc or a Mass Effect 4.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 08:49 .

[Nykara]

leewells wrote...

Nykara wrote...

leewells wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

Its not a bait and switch. But Rushed and Poorly managed.

They didn't do this on purpose. They just went "corporate mindset" and decided money>effort. So if you spend 50 million on ME2 and it was considered great, then spending 100 million on ME3 would automaticly make it brilliant. Every other aspect just got dropped, time, passion and effort were all replaced by putting in moar money.

No evil plots to see here. Just bad management.

If the ending is consistant with the indoc theory (if this is how it is clarified after PAX) and they intend on releasing a "real ending" it is indeed bait and switch by definition.

No. Not really because it could be argued that we saw the soldiers cheering - that earth was in fact 'retaken' when the reapers where destroyed/synthesised/controlled and that they were railroaded by the fans to 'change' the ending because they didn't like how it was executed - not that it wasn't executed.

There is actually nothing illegal here. Not really. Many storylines where in fact concluded from the previous games. It could even be argued that the reapers where also concluded just as 'promised' reguardless if we like how it was done or not. Actions we took previously did count - for some things. Such as Legion being there or not being there, the original council or a new council etc etc. Nope, companies are far more clever then to allow themselves to fall in to a trap where they can actually be sued reguardless as to intention or not.

Before anyone shoots me down - I did not like the endings. I want to see something more that explains it as a dream/indoctrination or the choice to tell the starkid to get lost. Just stating the facts as to why Bioware and EA will not be sued for this and any attempts to do so will either be thrown out of court at first hearing or fail.

The facts being spun on the ending indicates that the soldiers cheering is in fact part of the dream sequence just like the normady crash-landing also, part of the dream sequence.  The only part of that that some thinks was just a spoiler or easter egg was the grandson and grandchild part saying "one more story". Which is a pretty big "bomb" on whether or not they intend on releasing post-ending dlc or a Mass Effect 4.

Speculation and Bioware has more then left it open enough to be able to say it ment something completely different to how it was interpreted.

[DVZ]

leewells wrote...

TL;DR

*Sigh*

Americans.

Why do you always think your laws apply in other countries? Bioware are Canadian. They don't give a moose's frozen testicle what a North Carolina judge thinks.

[leewells]

DVZ wrote...

leewells wrote...

TL;DR

*Sigh*

Americans.

Why do you always think your laws apply in other countries? Bioware are Canadian. They don't give a moose's frozen testicle what a North Carolina judge thinks.

Ummm.. BioWare and EA has outlets and subsedaries in just about each state in the US.  It may be head quartered in Canada, but this is like saying that no one in the US has legal premise to sue Sony or hold them to US law being they're a Japanese company (look at the NC DoJ website and search cases for Sony, lol, this speaks loads about your "implied" jurisdictional bounderies).  Its entirely untrue -- and if you're going to advertise and sell products in another country, as the saying goes, "When in Rome....".

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[mirage2154]

ME3 is really ****** a lot of people, I hope EA/Bioware can finally lean the lesson that people is the only power in the world.

[Elite Midget]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Yeah, that's how it works with products.

For some reason, in the minds of most people, it's somehow different with Games, though.
Don't ask me why.

It's also funny how he'll say that in response to some of the more vague pre-release statements. There are vastly more misleading ones around. Casey's infamous ABC quote being chief among them

People and many gamers don't see games as a product but as a hobby. Even Yugioh card players wised up years ago that even though what they do is a hobby, that's mocked by outsiders, it's still a product and they don't take getting lied to very lightly. At least not compared to all the crude gamers take and how easily they forget many false promises made to get the game to sell in the first place.

If ME3 was advertised truthfully it wouldn't have sold anywhere near the numbers it had sold.

[leewells]

Elite Midget wrote...

If ME3 was advertised truthfully it wouldn't have sold anywhere near the numbers it had sold.

Exactly what makes it false advertising at best.

[satunnainen]

The baiting part is normally called advertising, I am not sure what the switching part was.

Atleast my game was epic enough, so that my common sence tells me to not sue anyone because I didnt like some minor details in the end. Most judges would throw the case out of court and possibly make me pay for wasting their time.

[leewells]

satunnainen wrote...

The baiting part is normally called advertising, I am not sure what the switching part was.

Atleast my game was epic enough, so that my common sence tells me to not sue anyone because I didnt like some minor details in the end. Most judges would throw the case out of court and possibly make me pay for wasting their time.

switch: denied the baited product (ie, "epic conclusion", "retake earth", etc) or should the "rest" of the game be presented as paid-for DLC -- then they raised the PRICE of the bait which is then also the switch that brings the issue out of the grey area to a true illicit activity.

From my understanding the bait and switch scheme can be done under 2 principals - 1) The value of the product and 2) The price of the product.

1) The product is advertised to do (list stuff here); when sold it does not, or requires extra parts to do so.  Models, electronics, etc get away with this by making it clear (12 pt font) on the front of their boxes "does not include glue, paint, batteries, etc". (current Mass Effect 3 situation)
2) The product is advertised at (priceA), when sold, it does not do what it was advertised to do without paying (priceB) or requires you to pay (priceB) for a diffrent product because (priceA) was sold out.  This is classic of used car sales fliers -- adverising a BMW for $19,000, and when you come in, saying you don't qualify for that price, instead you must pay $33,000 for that same BMW.   Also, in this situation, if ME3 sells dlc that is the "real ending", then they increased the value (by adding dlc) of the game in order to do as it was advertised (conclude the series).

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 09:14 .

[Fulgrim88]

leewells wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

The baiting part is normally called advertising, I am not sure what the switching part was.

Atleast my game was epic enough, so that my common sence tells me to not sue anyone because I didnt like some minor details in the end. Most judges would throw the case out of court and possibly make me pay for wasting their time.

switch: denied the baited product (ie, "epic conclusion", "retake earth", etc) or should the "rest" of the game be presented as paid-for DLC -- then they raised the PRICE of the bait which is then also the switch that brings the issue out of the grey area to a true illicit activity.

Which leaves us in a bind though.
For I would very much like to see what we were initially promised. E.g. vastly different, individual endings.
However, I don't see something like that happening for free.
Seeing as this company - sadly - has become an EA subsidiary in both mind and heart, they won't throw money out of the window for something silly like "trust" or "pride in quality". So all we can expect from a Free DLC is a half assed paintjob for the ending we've got.

So it's either getting what we don't want, or getting them into legal trouble for producing a worthy conclusion to the series. Meh.

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 03 avril 2012 - 09:15 .

[Cuddieee]

I'm pretty sure you waived your right to a class-action lawsuit when you agreed to the terms & conditions. Best bet is probably a small claims court if you're serious about financial recompense.

EA amended their terms & conditions to include that tidbit because they're well aware of what they're doing, and they couldn't give any less of a damn.

[DanteImprimis]

DVZ wrote...

leewells wrote...

TL;DR

*Sigh*

Americans.

Why do you always think your laws apply in other countries? Bioware are Canadian. They don't give a moose's frozen testicle what a North Carolina judge thinks.

BioWare is now a division of EA, which is a multinational corporation based in the United States, so I'd say it's not entirely unreasonable to think that American corporate law could apply.

[the red boon]

well I feel bait and switched I don't care about the legalities of it.

[leewells]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

leewells wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

The baiting part is normally called advertising, I am not sure what the switching part was.

Atleast my game was epic enough, so that my common sence tells me to not sue anyone because I didnt like some minor details in the end. Most judges would throw the case out of court and possibly make me pay for wasting their time.

switch: denied the baited product (ie, "epic conclusion", "retake earth", etc) or should the "rest" of the game be presented as paid-for DLC -- then they raised the PRICE of the bait which is then also the switch that brings the issue out of the grey area to a true illicit activity.

So it's either getting what we don't want, or getting them into legal trouble for producing a worthy conclusion to the series. Meh.

Its not that black and white.  If they released DLC free-of-charge that is a continuation of the game (which people paid for in the first place) there are no issues, and it shouldn't take that much time to light up that crucible and destroy the reapers and maybe have a new alliance capitol on Earth to do your post-game shopping with the multi-player mission maps available in single-player.  This is not asking that much from BioWare as there is only one zone that would need to be created and everything else recycled (I know this from being a project manager for The Rift in Dragon Age: Origins and assuming they have a sumular development tool they gave us when that game debuted).  They could have drasticly diffrent endings as well without much effort -- showing that you have the resources to move the citidel back, is not some big-awesome undertaking... Showing that the mass relays didn't explode, again is not an awesome undertaking... Showing you reunited with your squad mates again is not some big awesome undertaking.   This is asking only for about a days worth of work from 10-20 developers -- that is it.

[leewells]

Cuddieee wrote...

I'm pretty sure you waived your right to a class-action lawsuit when you agreed to the terms & conditions. Best bet is probably a small claims court if you're serious about financial recompense.

EA amended their terms & conditions to include that tidbit because they're well aware of what they're doing, and they couldn't give any less of a damn.

There is also called "unfair provisions", which was a supreme court precident a while back, which stated that unfair provisions inside contracts (moreover the terms and conditions) which revolked civil rights (ie the right to seek remedy for injustice), and other "unfair" breeches were considered "junk" clauses that could not and would not be legally enforced.

If you would, as a business owner and "some" limited education in business law, I can show you the exact text (scan) from that book that details this by case and date.

The book I would be pulling from is "Business Law, Anderson and Kumf, Tenth Edition".

Actually, WOW, this book (that I have fogotten a vast part of) has some intresting parts on "Consumer Laws and Consumer Protection"...

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[Baine10]

Please do, if you're confident.

It'll be great -- you can totally get them off the market, take over them with the money you've won, and do all you can to make it better.

Good luck.

[leewells]

Baine10 wrote...

Please do, if you're confident.

It'll be great -- you can totally get them off the market, take over them with the money you've won, and do all you can to make it better.

Good luck.

Found it, scanning... (will edit in a few with link to pdf).

Edit:

top-right "Oppressive Contracts"

PDF Link
*sorry for all of my chicken-scratch all over the pages  *

Pay specail attention to... "or a provision declaring that a party shall not be liable for the consequences
of his negligence"

The precedent: Oklahoma ex rel. Derryberry v Kerr-McGee Corp. (Okla) 516 P2d 813.
The LAW: Uniform Commercial Code § 2-103

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 10:02 .

[AnsinJung]

What is this, I thought people were already getting refunds.

[Dae0]

Given the vast array of laws and regulations that EA would be liable to, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that they will:
1) Not do anything.
2) Clearly state that the original ending is cannon. Then release a paid ending dlc and emphasize that the dlc is purely optional (but not detrimental to the intended story of the game or that it is purely to please the fan outcry). I highly doubt that bait and switch laws and precedents apply to post production modifications.
3) Release a free ending dlc and quite possibly make it mandatory via the "you must download an update to connect to the [online game service]". (In my case the online game service would be xbox live. I cannot say with certainty if there is an equivalent for PS3 or PC players)

[AlexXIV]

Well that's not what Bioware was doing. They said we would have conclusion, that's right, and they are going to clarify on the ending because the current one didn't have much of one. However, we pretty much knew what we were going to buy. I would almost call DA2 a fraud because we were promised a quality product and didn't get it. ME3 is the quality product we were promised just with a terrible and stupid ending. And I fear that's nothing we can get a guarantee for. I mean ... if THEY think it is good ending, then you can't argue that they did purposefully sell something of lesser quality than promised.

However, 2 more days and I am going to get refund for ME3 unless they announce that they fix it in a way that is acceptable.

[That Laggy Guy]

All this talk of legal action is absolutely moronic. Stick to appealing to the supposed "love" BioWare has for us, the fans. If that doesn't work, then let's simply stop lining EA's filthy pockets with our hard-earned cash.