268 réponses à ce sujet

[D_Dude1210]

Just to add: topic may be inaccurate. This is clearly not a case of bait and switch. More like a blatant in your face case of false advertising.

[leewells]

DVZ wrote...
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?

Oh yes, Sony agreed to pay 3.8 billion class action law suit (about 2 years profits) in the Federal case Pratt vs Sony.  Your logic is mind boggling.

If a UK company establishes any means of "operations" in the US, they are therefor subject to US law while in that operation.  Should your company rip off millions of people in the US that company can be sued and the UK (through those agreements and the extradition treaties) will force said company to honor the judgement of those suits.  You are right about one thing, should a company not pay the judgements, they will not be allowed to have any presence in that country of default.

But there is something really sneaky that the US does on its "judgements" and "decisions"... You see, if Sony decided not to pay, all those tax refunds they would have gotten? Would have been seized until the entire balance was paid, not to mention, all those US bank accounts (which they must legally have in order to process credit cards, debit cards, and e-checks within the USA) would have been suddenly "deposit-only".

DVZ wrote...
EA Exec: Lolwut? *Rolls eyes*
You seriously think an EA executive is, a) going to read this, or give a rat's arse?

So you're going to implicate that BioWare management has no executve steak in EA?  Seriously? *ponders how much DVZ knows about business ops*

DVZ wrote...
"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).

Have you ever looked at a legal "ruling" before?  Let me tell you what it starts with:

"IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT:"

DVZ wrote...
Christ alive. You're actually using a Wikipedia reference. {smilie}

Would you rather me refrence that book I was quoting on deceptive and unfair marketing which paints a much grimer picture for BioWare?  Believe it or not, I'm trying to remain positive here and not jump into deceptive marketing practices... Bait and switch is generally a very simple ordeal and classified as a mistake, however a real pain in the ass could turn around and say it was minitcually planned with mallious intents which throws this baby into a whole new court.

DVZ wrote...
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.

Yeah, you tell that to your BMW dealer next time they give you a pinto after you paid for a BMW M Series afterall they did sell you the chasis, engine, and wheels of a "car".  Oh but its not a "BMW"?  Well, space-magic, singular endings, and lack of player choice is not Mass Effect.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Just to add: topic may be inaccurate. This is clearly not a case of bait and switch. More like a blatant in your face case of false advertising.

Yeah actually, what you are infering to is "Deceptive Marketing" which is on the criminal side of the spectrum...

And you are right, as it stands right now the Bait-and-Switch part is "grey" (no clearly about it yet), but should they release the ending DLC that wrappes up the story and closes the "series" as the main game was advertised to do, then it is indeed bait-and-switch because in order to get what the advertisements promised, you'll have to pay MORE than the advertised price -- "clearly" bait and switch, but hypothetical at the moment.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[D_Dude1210]

Leewells: a few spelling errors there, dude. :-p

I agree with your points, tho.

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Leewells: a few spelling errors there, dude. :-p

I agree with your points, tho.

I'll never (nor have I ever) conciously claimed any expertise in spelling/typing/grammar

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

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.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your business law text is out of date. SCOTUS ruled last year in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (563 US 08-893, 2011) that arbitration clauses in this context aren't unfair provisions.

And, a word about jurisdiction. BW has assets in the United States, and EA is an American company. That establishes jurisdiction and an avenue for justiciability.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...
I hate to burst your bubble, but your business law text is out of date. SCOTUS ruled last year in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (563 US 08-893, 2011) that arbitration clauses in this context aren't unfair provisions.

How does the SCOTUS ruling concerning a diconnect or contract breech penality (admittidly I am not up to speed on modern laws nor did I not speed read that lol) being not "unfair" make it so every company can stipulate in a contract that they are free of any neglance liabilities?  I don't see how setting binding precedent on defining a "fair" practice (or "fair" provision) therefore sets binding precent on all other unfair (or oppresive provisions) pratices as well.  This is not the method or spirit of law.  It fact it is like saying crackers are made of cheese and then assuming the the moon is too.

It is understandable that the book is probably 10 years old now, but the codes and other ruling still exist.

humes spork wrote...
And, a word about jurisdiction. BW has assets in the United States,
and EA is an American company. That establishes jurisdiction and an
avenue for justiciability. 

I could swear that is some under-handed agreement with what I was saying.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 11:43 .

[The man of myth]

Oh, man. No offense but you should look into getting some form of life. If a game really shattered you so much that it affects you so deeply, I feel bad for you.

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

How does the SCOTUS ruling concerning a diconnect or contract breech penality being not "unfair" make it so every company can stipulate in a contract that they are free of any neglance liabilities?  I don't see how setting binding precedent on defining a "fair" practice therefore sets binding precent on all other unfair pratices as well.  This is not the method or spirit of law.  It fact it is like saying crackers are made of cheese and then assuming the the moon is too.

Ask Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Alito, and Anthony Kennedy. They're the ones who unleashed that giant turd of an opinion on the American people.

Your criticism is the point Breyer made in his dissent, more or less -- precluding the right of consumers to class action negates their ability to substantively seek remedy for incurred damages, which may be individually minor but when aggregated major, and that in turn gives corporations much more power to defraud consumers.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

How does the SCOTUS ruling concerning a diconnect or contract breech penality being not "unfair" make it so every company can stipulate in a contract that they are free of any neglance liabilities?  I don't see how setting binding precedent on defining a "fair" practice therefore sets binding precent on all other unfair pratices as well.  This is not the method or spirit of law.  It fact it is like saying crackers are made of cheese and then assuming the the moon is too.

Ask Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Alito, and Anthony Kennedy. They're the ones who unleashed that giant turd of an opinion on the American people.

Your criticism is the point Breyer made in his dissent, more or less -- precluding the right of consumers to class action negates their ability to substantively seek remedy for incurred damages, which may be individually minor but when aggregated major, and that in turn gives corporations much more power to defraud consumers.

This inspired me to read it... From what I'm gathering, the binding precedent set forth was a "mistake" of a single individual working with a company without executive approve or outside the operating proceedures of that company cannot establish liability greater than the actual consequental damages incured.  Is this correct or is there something else this turd established I'm not seeing?

If this is exactly what you're refrenencing then I would argue that the decision on the marketing and advertising was indeed an executive decision, which has been defended by other managers and directors of EA and BioWare which would pull this situation from under this binding precedent's umbrella.  This seems reasonable and prevents a rogue employee that decides to open up the customer database to the public from completely dismantling the company by limiting the liability to the company and placing more liability on that rogue employee.  Again, though I'm not quite seeing how this applies here.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 12:17 .

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

This inspired me to read it... From what I'm gathering, the binding precedent set forth was a "mistake" of a single individual working with a company without executive approve or outside the operating proceedures of that company cannot establish liability greater than the actual consequental damages incured.  Is this correct or is there something else this turd established I'm not seeing?

I'm unsure where you're getting that, the salient legal question in Concepcion was whether individual arbitration clauses constitute unconscionable dealings, not on whose shoulders liability rests. The appeals process up to and including the Supreme Court decision was in regards to the original motion by AT&T to dismiss on the basis of their terms of service agreement's individual arbitration clause.

Breyer's point in the dissent isn't the decision is tantamount to de jure exculpation of liability but rather de facto by way of stripping consumers' rights to seek remedy. That's directly relevant to the topic here, because as was mentioned Origin includes an individual arbitration clause which is considered by the federal government to be a conscionable dealing. Liability doesn't even factor into it at this point, given consumers have waived the right to sue or engage in class action which is a prerequisite for establishing liability.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 12:44 .

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...
Breyer's point in the dissent isn't the decision is tantamount to de jure exculpation of liability but rather de facto by way of stripping consumers' rights to seek remedy.

Which section was this in?  I cannot find this either and I'm looking at the rulings in scribed.

[Nostradamoose]

Oh come on. Bait and switch now?

You based your assumptions on the fact that the indoctrination theory is a fact that the developpers made up to rip us off later. Which is complete total bollocks... IT is a fan-made theory to explain for the ****ty feeling most people got at the end of the game, it has no factual basis, only speculations. The only way you could possibly prove this in a court of law would be to get drafts from the actual writing comity that corroborates your assumptions, which will never happen, since those drafts don't exist.

You infered all this based on false information, so of course your uncle had to follow your logic. Bioware made non-binding promises during the development of the game and those same promises were not respected due to artistic direction.

Unless you find anyway to call foul play by Bioware, any law-suit possibility is a huge waste of your own money and time.

The game fulfills it's promises albeit in a unsatisfactory way, but it still fills them.
What's next, your gonna want to sue the producers of Gigli for breaking promises about it being a good product?

Too many wannabe lawyers here, didn't think it'd be ever like this on BSN. Let's just say I've got enough of this from all the freshmen in my law faculty.

Don't get me wrong, as I do believe that it is right for us consumers to ask for a better ending, but adding courts to the sum is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Because, let's admit it, Bioware would still have the excuse of sucking at writing endings and a DLC attempting to fix this would be legal for 'em to sell as being additionnal content not planned for initial launch.



Edit: And I won't comment on the EULA, as EULAs in the province of Quebec are pretty much a non-binding contract since most contradict the consumer protection law and are de facto void.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[humes spork]

[quote]leewells wrote...

Which section was this in?  I cannot find this either and I'm looking at the rulings in scribed.
[/quote]
http://www.supremeco...0pdf/09-893.pdf 

[quote]Stephen Breyer wrote (emphasis mine)...

Regardless, the majority highlights the disadvantages ofclass arbitrations, as it sees them.  See  ante, at 15–16 (referring to the “greatly increase[d] risks to defendants”;the “chance of a devastating loss” pressuring defendants “into settling questionable claims”).  But class proceedings have countervailing advantages.  In general agreementsthat forbid the consolidation of claims can lead small­dollar claimants to abandon their claims rather than to litigate.  I  suspect that it is true even here, for as the Court of Appeals recognized, AT&T can avoid the $7,500 payout (the payout that supposedly makes  the Concep­cions’ arbitration worthwhile) simply by paying the claim’sface value, such that “the maximum gain to a customer forthe hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 dispute is still just$30.22.”  Laster  v.  AT&T Mobility LLC,  584 F. 3d 849, 855, 856 (CA9 2009).

What rational lawyer would have signed on to representthe Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of feesstemming from a $30.22 claim?   See,  e.g.,  Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F. 3d 656, 661 (CA7 2004) (“The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a luna­tic or a fanatic sues  for $30”).   In California’s perfectly rational view, nonclass arbitration over such sums will also sometimes have the effect of depriving  claimants of their claims (say, for example, where claiming the $30.22were to involve filling out many forms that require techni­cal legal knowledge or waiting at great length while a callis placed on hold).  Discover Bank sets forth circumstances in which  the California courts believe that the terms  of consumer contracts can be manipulated to insulate anagreement’s author from liability for its own frauds by“deliberately cheat[ing] large numbers of consumers out of individually small  sums of money.”   36 Cal. 4th, at 162–163, 113 P. 3d, at 1110.   Why is this  kind of deci­sion—weighing the pros and cons of all class proceedings alike—not California’s to make?

[PSUHammer]

OP: Are you fooking kidding me? You realize it is only a video game, right? You want to sue the developer because you didn't like the ending?

lol...what a world.

[MinatheBrat]

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:
 
“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 "
 
From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:
 
“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”
 
In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:
 
“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”
 

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

 wah! They were so full of it!

[AIR MOORE]

Don't try to explain the law to the individuals on here... I have learned the vast majority have no understanding of the actual law, but their "e-law" degrees are substantial. Failing to convince you on their e-law degrees... you simply have no life because one understands, or can at least present a fairly coherent case on the law in their eyes (or just the opposite).

I tried to explain the legal ramifications of video games not being considered art (they would have MUCH less protection under the law in the US), and the mindless horde (mainly IT believers) went bananas.


Granted your argument is based upon yet-to-happen circumstances, unless one is seeking enjoin them from doing something, one has to wait until everything plays out.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 03 avril 2012 - 01:03 .

[RenascentAnt1]

I like this thread - much more entertaining than most...

[sfam]

Wow, folks have really gotten absurd. They clearly put TONS of quality hours in making this thing. Some parts of the game flat out sing. The developers clearly poured their soul into Mass Effect 3, and for that I salute them.

But the writers flat out blew the ending. The narrative in the last 5 minutes simply doesn't fit with the 3 full games preceding that. Its just that simple.

This is not a suing offense. The idea itself is completely absurd. I don't want my money back - I want them to fix the ending. If they don't I probably won't buy any more of their titles, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of those working on this project poured blood, sweat and tears to make what they hoped was a great title.

[Nostradamoose]

AIR MOORE wrote...

Don't try to explain the law to the individuals on here... 

I can bludgeon pretty hard.

[Shaigunjoe]

RenascentAnt1 wrote...

I like this thread - much more entertaining than most...

+1

I wonder if fable threads are like this everytime a new one of those comes out.

[Nostradamoose]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

RenascentAnt1 wrote...

I like this thread - much more entertaining than most...

+1

I wonder if fable threads are like this everytime a new one of those comes out.

Ok...


That's a good one.

You won.

[D_Dude1210]

I don't know what people are getting upset over. No one here is in the process of suing Bioware at this point of time. Just discussing legal options and implications (w/c is both enlightening and entertaining).

So chill.

Anyway, back on topic. So what you're saying is that EA/Bioware Insulated themselves (by limiting maximum payout of a suit) from legal ramifications via use of the EULA? Pardon my limited knowhow in this arena. Last time I even read up on US business law (I work overseas) was around 12 years ago when I got my MBA. :-p

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

Which section was this in? I cannot find this either and I'm looking at the rulings in scribed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf

Stephen Breyer wrote (emphasis mine)...

Regardless, the majority highlights the disadvantages ofclass arbitrations, as it sees them. See ante, at 15–16 (referring to the “greatly increase[d] risks to defendants”;the “chance of a devastating loss” pressuring defendants “into settling questionable claims”). But class proceedings have countervailing advantages. In general agreementsthat forbid the consolidation of claims can lead small­dollar claimants to abandon their claims rather than to litigate. I suspect that it is true even here, for as the Court of Appeals recognized, AT&T can avoid the $7,500 payout (the payout that supposedly makes the Concep­cions’ arbitration worthwhile) simply by paying the claim’sface value, such that “the maximum gain to a customer forthe hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 dispute is still just$30.22.” Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 584 F. 3d 849, 855, 856 (CA9 2009).

What rational lawyer would have signed on to representthe Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of feesstemming from a $30.22 claim? See, e.g., Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F. 3d 656, 661 (CA7 2004) (“The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a luna­tic or a fanatic sues for $30”). In California’s perfectly rational view, nonclass arbitration over such sums will also sometimes have the effect of depriving claimants of their claims (say, for example, where claiming the $30.22were to involve filling out many forms that require techni­cal legal knowledge or waiting at great length while a callis placed on hold). Discover Bank sets forth circumstances in which the California courts believe that the terms of consumer contracts can be manipulated to insulate anagreement’s author from liability for its own frauds by“deliberately cheat[ing] large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.” 36 Cal. 4th, at 162–163, 113 P. 3d, at 1110. Why is this kind of deci­sion—weighing the pros and cons of all class proceedings alike—not California’s to make?

Ok, yes, this is partially what I was talking about, but I fail to see where the binding precedent is set (the legal term for binding precedent, ie the "burps" the SCOTUS makes that makes precedent that all inferior courts must follow).  I read the entire case, even the rulings from the appelate and district courts... the case seemed to be about an singular employee (made clear) that caused damages to a customer by damaging the service in which the customer sued for $7,000 in damages while only paying $37.00(?).  The SCOTUS basically ruled that you can't ask for more in damages than you paid for that service without going class-action without proving that the damages were of direct result and neglance of the service.  Again, my interpretation would be what I said before, a rogue employee can't cause a company to go into bankruptcy, this is a geat protection, but wherein the track of a company defauds all of its customers is an entirely diffrent story and wouldn't apply to that binding precent in the least.

Hammer6767 wrote...

OP: Are you fooking kidding me? You realize it is only a video game, right? You want to sue the developer because you didn't like the ending?

lol...what a world.

The lack of intelligence is less than humbling if I must say or did you just read what you wanted or can you specifically point out where I said I was suing someone or going to sue someone? K thanks. I digress.

sfam wrote...

They
clearly put TONS of quality hours in making this thing. Some parts of
the game flat out sing.

Not to sound crude, but I've also spent quality hours over a toilet squeezing one out as well.  But it doesn't mean the end-result wasn't fecal.  I agree that the game is a great game (up until the ending) but it was utterly devoided of its hype and marketing -- player choice impact: fail, Endings: fail, Quest Tracking: fail, Replayability: Epic fail.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 01:29 .

[Combine911]

Bump