268 réponses à ce sujet

[Bizantura]

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.

Very much agree.

[D_Dude1210]

I say, go ahead and do it. If i can help, lemme know how. I doubt that this would change anything. At most, the producers of ME3 might get a slap in the wrist from EA. But at the very least, it'll make EA think twice before pulling illegal s*** like this again.

[Xandax]

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

Yeah - for some reason some  people don't see themselves or others as customers buying a products if it is a computer game.
I don't know a single mainstream, mass unit, industry that still can get away with it.

[Zolt51]

Oh please. If I hear anyone mention lawyers again on this board I'll puke rainbows.

[bahamutomega]

OP:  thank you.  sincerely, i was wondering whether this was false advertising or bait-and-switch or another legal "gray area"

i still don't believe any legal action will help speed the process we want along (such as the "false advertisment" charges filed with the FCC).

unfortunately, one ambiguous statement (such as the aforementioned ABC ending interview) does not undo the countless other interviews that were given leading up to this game with very definitive information regarding the endings.  one ambiguous statement does not undo all of their trailers with the theme, in big, bold, flaming letters "Take back Earth" splashed up on the screen.  this game has nothing to do with "taking back Earth from the Reapers."  you flee Earth in the beginning of the game and you have 1 "meh" battle at the end of the game (having had over 7k EMS, i get to say "meh" about that battle).

yes, i understand that interviews and commentaries are not legally binding contracts.  but looking at the televised commercials... can someone who "gets" the ending (not IT, but BioWare's "artistic vision") please explain to me how i have taken back Earth?  because in all three of the endings, i can't see Earth unless i make a gross assumption (note:  assumption =\\= speculation).

once again OP:  thanks.

[leewells]

bahamutomega wrote...

yes, i understand that interviews and commentaries are not legally binding contracts.  but looking at the televised commercials...

once again OP:  thanks.

The interviews and commentaries can be held as advertisments through the commercial media, but it was clearly and plainly (and still is) advertised as such on the box and on their website.

And no problem... Some people are arguing that the EULA or Terms of Service specifies that people cannot sue them for this fiasco -- so I posted a PDF scan from my Business Law text-book that says if it is in the terms of service or EULA it is oppresive and therefor a void provision in the eyes of the law (page 2 of this post).

[Tessah]

This is sooooo wrong.. this is not helping us with getting what we want ?

We want "them" to make "us" a new ending ? and you really think throwing a lawyer is going to help this?
*FacePalm*

[Raptr569]

I think what Casey meant when he said there isn't an a, b, c ending he meant the game as a whole and not the last 5 minutes.

There are many ways in which you can end certain stories in ME3, eg: Quarian and Geth, you can just have the Quarian or just the Geth or both? Wrex might be there, he might not etc etc etc...

[leewells]

Tessah wrote...

This is sooooo wrong.. this is not helping us with getting what we want ?

We want "them" to make "us" a new ending ? and you really think throwing a lawyer is going to help this?
*FacePalm*

No one has thrown a lawyer into this yet... I did specify that while talking to my relative and questioning the validity of the FTC complaint that was on the news about BioWare he stated some very specific facts of law, which I quoted very clearly.   I'm not sure how this is in any way considerable in a threatening comment or thread.  To say BioWare is doing something illegal is not a threat -- it is a fact or preception...  No one has said anything about filing suit against BioWare however I did say that if BioWare releases ending DLC for a price, they will open it up so that everyone will have a perma-facie case against them.

[nomoredruggs]

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.

I'm tempted to believe that's the case here.

[ryuasiu]

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

Its not just games, its movies and books too. I never seen anyone try to sue a movie for failing to be an 'action packed thrill ride'. all the points OP brings up is the same kind of marketing. Very subjective and the same exact marketing speak done in movies. 

Don't like how star wars went? Stop giving money to George Lucas. Same thing here

[blacxthorne]

Conclusion to the story does not mean the conclusion you would like. "Retake earth" is your mission, and what you're trying to do throughout the game, not the spoilers for the ending. The story can be concluded with a sad ending, with you failing to retake earth. That would make it a conclusion, and you would have played a game about retaking earth. No false advertising here.

But the many, many clues to show that the indoctrination theory is correct also suggest that this is the best written story ever. The clarification DLC wouldn't change the ending, and wouldn't be the "real" ending. It would just be some kind of epilogue for those who didn't get it. Even though the three games provide you enough evidence to figure it out already. So the real ending is IN the game. With you defeating the indoctrination, or giving into it.

Even if you argue that if the theory is correct then the game is more about indoctrination than retaking earth (although I'd say they're intertwined: you retake the earth only if you resist indoctrination where Saren and the Illusive Man failed)... Just because a story turns out to be about something other than advertised it doesn't make it fraud. No one sues Fight Club for being about something other than soap, or not being a karate movie, or the so-called characters being people other than what is advertised.

And if the indoctrination theory is wrong:

You can't say this is fraud because you don't like the story or it turned out to be bad. Even if this is the worst written ending ever, it's still, up to that point, one of the best written game series ever, and the game is very much enjoyable if not outright amazing up to that point. Games used to just end with "game over" screens. Now they're trying to make it cinematic, and you're calling fraud because you don't like how they do it? This is a game and it would only be fraud if it was not playable, or it didn't relate to the franchise at all (eg if it was a game about donald duck trying to kill master chief for ripping off doom). Call it what it is: an amazing game series with a crappy ending. That would be unfortunate, but no ending should take back the hundreds of hours you enjoyed playing. You can't call people fraud if they mess up. You have to let them do weird and unexpected things so you can have amazing endings even if this one has failed. I certainly don't want games where every developer plays safe because what you and people like you are doing here, and give us only obvious, simple, and (just to be sure and very safe) happy endings lest people call them frauds.

This is ridiculous. Get over it.

I say go nuts, developers. At least you gave us something to think about.

Read this:
http://uninhibitedan.../mind-holy-fuck
Watch this:


I'm happy.

[DVZ]

leewells wrote...

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....".

Puh-leeze. Sony probably agreed with those rulings because they want to keep trading in the US. I know you Americans like to think your laws apply everywhere, but US judgments are not automatically enforceable in foreign states. Take the UK for example. We have no bilateral enforcement treaty with the US. For a US court judgment to be enforceable, strict conditions have to be met, most prominently, that "the defendant agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court." But my point here isn't really whether or not Bioware is under US jurisdiction; it's that in your OP you talk like some big legal badass, yet your "case" doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let's deconstruct, shall we?

leewells wrote...

First of all, any EA execs reading this, read it carefully, anyone else, check the links.

EA Exec: Lolwut? *Rolls eyes*

You seriously think an EA executive is, a) going to read this, or give a rat's arse?

leewells wrote...

From what I have gathered and from what it seems, BioWare advertised a game to the community as the "Epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trillogy" (ref).  It was also advertised as "retake Earth" (ref).  Instead, we are presented with a dream-state ending that does not appeal to the advertisements in which the ending is left without resolution or conclusion and without retaking earth.  It was announced that they were going to be adding DLC to the "post ending" sequences (ref) presumably to be after Shep wakes up from the indoc attempt (see the indoctrination theories in this forum or this if you need help understanding)

"From what I have gathered"... "from what it seems"... this is all just your opinion. Court rulings aren't based on opinion or speculations. Yes, they advertised the game as an epic conclusion to the trilogy. It was a pretty damn epic game from where I'm sat. And it concluded the trilogy. I think BioWare made that fairly obvious by all the statements saying they're not changing the ending. And, yes, it was advertised as taking back Earth. That's exactly what happens in the game. Y'know... Reapers destroyed... human soldiers celebrating victory on Earth... just what game were you playing? As far as announcements being made with regard to post-ending DLC - BioWare have not made any official statements of that nature, or specified what the DLC will consist of or where it takes off from the Mass Effect trilogy (we don't know if it's going to be a prequel or sequel).

leewells wrote...

"The act of 'bait-and-switch' is the advertisment of a product and selling that product or a diffrent product for a product that is of lesser value or forcing you to buy a product at a higher value [this is why many packages state 'batteries not included' should the product require them].  To advertise a book as 'the end' of a seriese and only selling the entire book except for the last chapter is not the product advertised and therefor a text-book example of bait-and-switch for digital or printed media.  You should look at the Black's Law Dictionary refrence for bait-and-switch."

No wonder your relative said that if you fed him such opnionated garbage. BioWare haven't falsely advertised anything. They said this would be the end of the Shepard character; not the end of the Mass Effect series as a whole. Regardless of popular opinion about the endings (which isn't everyone, remember), the game isn't missing any components to the story. It does come with an ending. Doesn't matter how badly you think the ending was done. If BioWare had advertised and sold you a game, and you only received the box, then that could be interpreted as false advertising or a bait and switch. 

leewells wrote...

"Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discoverthat the advertised good is not available and are "switched" to a costlier product."

Christ alive. You're actually using a Wikipedia reference. 

*Sigh*

leewells wrote...


I would say that if BioWare ever intends on releasing post-ending DLC to be PAID for, they will be giving every purchasor of Mass Effect 3 an opritunity to sue for Bait-and-Switch.

I would say you're completely wrong. BioWare advertised you a game with a start, middle and end. You got a game with a start, middle and end. Like I already said, regardless of your opinion of the game, it does have an ending. Bait-and-switch would apply if the game they shipped stopped at the Cerberus base mission and they shipped the Earth mission and Catalyst sequence as DLC. Offering explanations, additional content or expansions doesn't constitute bait-and-switch. If it did, why hasn't BioWare been sued for releasing Lair of the Shadow Broker, Kasumi or Zaeed for Mass Effect 2? Because the DLC content wasn't necessary to complete the game. And seeing as the version of Mass Effect 3 BioWare have provided ends exactly where they said it would - with the defeat of the Reapers - the same will apply with any future ME3 DLC.

[ryuasiu]

leewells wrote...

Tessah wrote...

This is sooooo wrong.. this is not helping us with getting what we want ?

We want "them" to make "us" a new ending ? and you really think throwing a lawyer is going to help this?
*FacePalm*

No one has thrown a lawyer into this yet... I did specify that while talking to my relative and questioning the validity of the FTC complaint that was on the news about BioWare he stated some very specific facts of law, which I quoted very clearly.   I'm not sure how this is in any way considerable in a threatening comment or thread.  To say BioWare is doing something illegal is not a threat -- it is a fact or preception...  No one has said anything about filing suit against BioWare however I did say that if BioWare releases ending DLC for a price, they will open it up so that everyone will have a perma-facie case against them.

*facepalm* They didnt do anything illegal here. Was it moral for the marketing machine to bend the truth? No it was not, but nothing they have said was technically a lie and it would be VERY easy for them to get the case dismissed. Also releasing DLC does not open themselves to a lawsuit or prove what they did was illegal. I am really confused on your reasoning for thinking that this is the case <_<

[fpspind]

1. No it isn't its just misinformation.
2. Apart from the fact that it won't happen suing Bioware / EA achieves nothing - Unless of course you hate these companies for whatever reason.
3. There is more than 1 game out there that had DLC for endings as the game didn't have it on release.
4. The game clearly ends, so saying that it doesn't is incorrect, it only says that customers have been misinformed - which I don't necessarily see as the case anyway.

EDIT: Also companies have disclaimers that any/all information given prior to release is subject to change at the discretion of the owners.

Modifié par fpspind, 03 avril 2012 - 10:21 .

[satunnainen]

Raptr569 wrote...

I think what Casey meant when he said there isn't an a, b, c ending he meant the game as a whole and not the last 5 minutes.

There are many ways in which you can end certain stories in ME3, eg: Quarian and Geth, you can just have the Quarian or just the Geth or both? Wrex might be there, he might not etc etc etc...

I was kind of thinking about the same when I started thinking about endings of ME1 and ME2. In ME1 you had one ending, Saren + reaper destroyed, rest was just details (council dead/alive, Who to appoint to council, who to romance, etc). In ME2 you had again 1 (or 2 if you count the Shepard dieing as separate) way to complete the game. Rest was again details, like save the base or destroy etc.

Now in the 3rd you spend atleast half the game meeting old friends and closing old stories. If you start nitpicking (why wouldnt you, this is the internet after all ), we have only 1 ending (reapers are dealt with, mass relays broken) and rest is again details.

Modifié par satunnainen, 03 avril 2012 - 10:20 .

[D_Dude1210]

@ryuasi: the difference between your example of a movie/book being an "action-packed thrill ride" and not delivering and what has happened here is that Bioware representatives gave SPECIFIC claims on their products (how it ended, how many endings, what endings NOT to expecg, etc.) thru interviews, blogs, etc. One is identified in thru industry as "puffery" (Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally. See: wikipedia entry), an unethical but unprosecutable act, the other is reffered to as false advertising, w/c is illegal and very much prosecutable.

[ardias89]

Dont let this get out of control...

[ryuasiu]

DVZ wrote...

leewells wrote...

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....".

Puh-leeze. Sony probably agreed with those rulings because they want to keep trading in the US. I know you Americans like to think your laws apply everywhere, but US judgments are not automatically enforceable in foreign states. Take the UK for example. We have no bilateral enforcement treaty with the US. For a US court judgment to be enforceable, strict conditions have to be met, most prominently, that "the defendant agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court." But my point here isn't really whether or not Bioware is under US jurisdiction; it's that in your OP you talk like some big legal badass, yet your "case" doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let's deconstruct, shall we?

As an American I can say this view does not represent all of us. And I agree that his case has no legs to stand on. A simple case of someone reading up on law and now thinking he is a lawyer and knows the law better than anyone else.

[Raptr569]

satunnainen wrote...

Raptr569 wrote...

I think what Casey meant when he said there isn't an a, b, c ending he meant the game as a whole and not the last 5 minutes.

There are many ways in which you can end certain stories in ME3, eg: Quarian and Geth, you can just have the Quarian or just the Geth or both? Wrex might be there, he might not etc etc etc...

I was kind of thinking about the same when I started thinking about endings of ME1 and ME2. In ME1 you had one ending, Saren + reaper destroyed, rest was just details (council dead/alive, Who to appoint to council, who to romance, etc). In ME2 you had again 1 (or 2 if you count the Shepard dieing as separate) way to complete the game. Rest was again details, like save the base or destroy etc.

Now in the 3rd you spend atleast half the game meeting old friends and closing old stories. If you start nitpicking (why wouldnt you, this is the internet after all ), we have only 1 ending (reapers are dealt with, mass relays broken) and rest is again details.

Exactly! I thought it would play out more like the ending of ME2, it could vary who survived and whether or not Shepard did, I figured maybe there would be a Reaper win and Reaper lose ending at most.

[ryuasiu]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

@ryuasiu: the difference between your example of a movie/book being an "action-packed thrill ride" and not delivering and what has happened here is that Bioware representatives gave SPECIFIC claims on their products (how it ended, how many endings, what endings NOT to expecg, etc.) thru interviews, blogs, etc. One is identified in thru industry as "puffery" (Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no "reasonable person" would take literally. See: wikipedia entry), an unethical but unprosecutable act, the other is reffered to as false advertising, w/c is illegal and very much prosecutable.

Epic is subjective. They can argue that it is not an ABC ending since there are little changes depending on EMS. Every statement they have made can be easily defended. The 'ABC' arguement would be the strongest statement you could use and it falls flat, all else is as you called it puffery. There is not really a case here.

[Sarevok Synder]

Trentgamer wrote...


EAs main focus is very short term investments.

That's why they have a seriously bad rep on the market. That's why their shares won't go up. That's why products like ME3 is delivered as they are. That's why EA is the laughing stock among other supersized videogame publishers. And inevitably that's what will bring them down in the end.

You can only slay this dragon by not buying its products.

Well said.

[D_Dude1210]

By definition, interviews are considered a form of advertising. I'm not gonna dig up all the lies. Just this one tidbit as quoted from Gameinformer (note: that I simply copy/pasted this quote from an existing thread, pls correct me for any innaccuracies):

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson”

Not puffery. Plain lie.

[leewells]

ryuasiu wrote...

DVZ wrote...

leewells wrote...

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....".

Puh-leeze. Sony probably agreed with those rulings because they want to keep trading in the US. I know you Americans like to think your laws apply everywhere, but US judgments are not automatically enforceable in foreign states. Take the UK for example. We have no bilateral enforcement treaty with the US. For a US court judgment to be enforceable, strict conditions have to be met, most prominently, that "the defendant agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court." But my point here isn't really whether or not Bioware is under US jurisdiction; it's that in your OP you talk like some big legal badass, yet your "case" doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let's deconstruct, shall we?

As an American I can say this view does not represent all of us. And I agree that his case has no legs to stand on. A simple case of someone reading up on law and now thinking he is a lawyer and knows the law better than anyone else.

Umm, my uncle has been a lawyer for about 40 years, and a judge for 28(ish) (I forget his actual innogural date).  I don't claim to know the laws, I claim to have common sense and heeding the wisdom of an old man who's weighed in on many upon many of these types of cases.

ryuasiu wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

@ryuasiu:
the difference between your example of a movie/book being an
"action-packed thrill ride" and not delivering and what has happened
here is that Bioware representatives gave SPECIFIC claims on their
products (how it ended, how many endings, what endings NOT to expecg,
etc.) thru interviews, blogs, etc. One is identified in thru industry as
"puffery" (Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and
claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no
"reasonable person" would take literally. See: wikipedia entry), an
unethical but unprosecutable act, the other is reffered to as false
advertising, w/c is illegal and very much prosecutable.

Epic
is subjective. They can argue that it is not an ABC ending since there
are little changes depending on EMS. Every statement they have made can
be easily defended. The 'ABC' arguement would be the strongest statement
you could use and it falls flat, all else is as you called it puffery.
There is not really a case here.

And also convienant.  But the most damning piece is that it is on their website "Retake Earth!" (and I linked to it very nicely for you).  It is just as subjective as the interpretations in the ending, so it comes down to which ending would be more believable in front of a panel: Space magic or indoctrination.  With either one, there is bait and switches there because even with space magic it is a game that was drastically as not advertised.  As that little book I quoted earlier states, it also states 19 pages later that when "the entire product" cannot be examined before purchase, any advertisment on that product has to be precise with disclaimers on the box (especailly for electronic media) where there are limitations or anything (like the ending) that may be a misinterpretation inconsistant with the labeling.

Again, "Batteries Not Included" nuff said.

That is the facts of the matter.  If BioWare would have said "An ending for individual interpretation" they may have been able to get away from this without any legal implications, however no matter how you bake this baby, there is neglance all around.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 10:41 .

[D_Dude1210]

Out of curiosity, are you a lawyer ryuasiu?