268 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

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).

That's not, it's a dissent, I was just mentioning it because it paralleled your own criticism.

The ratio for the case itself breaks down to the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state legislation on the matter, the FAA does not require classwide arbitration and moreover classwide arbitration unduly burdens the corporation and arbiter(s).

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.  

Thank god the "artistic merit" portion of the Miller test is only one means by which one prong of three can be satisfied, and all three of which must be satisfied, to deem a work obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, huh?

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[Nostradamoose]

[quote]leewells wrote...
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.
[/quote]

I guess it was infered by you creating this thread and building upon it. I don't believe you are dumb enough to attempt a law suit either, but the mere thought of it disgusts me.
[/quote]
Not to sound crude, but I've also spent quality hours over a toilet squeezing one out as well.  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.
[/quote]
So people made themselves unrealistic expectations up regarding game designers' commentary during game production.... So bait and switch?

doesn't add up. Hell, I made myself unrealistic expectations of the Da Vinci code due to its hype, but found out it was a basic cliche story-telling from a writer that can't write for ****. So... what are my legal options? Oh well, prescription ran out.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

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).

That's not, it's a dissent, I was just mentioning it because it paralleled your own criticism.

The ratio for the case itself breaks down to the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state legislation on the matter, the FAA does not require classwide arbitration and moreover classwide arbitration unduly burdens the corporation and arbiter(s).

Ahh so the FAA was construed in the decision? (See where I'm going with this? LOL)

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...
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.

I guess it was infered by you creating this thread and building upon it. I don't believe you are dumb enough to attempt a law suit either, but the mere thought of it disgusts me.

Not to sound crude, but I've also spent quality hours over a toilet squeezing one out as well.  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.

So people made themselves unrealistic expectations up regarding game designers' commentary during game production.... So bait and switch?

doesn't add up. Hell, I made myself unrealistic expectations of the Da Vinci code due to its hype, but found out it was a basic cliche story-telling from a writer that can't write for ****. So... what are my legal options? Oh well, prescription ran out.

You made allegations and attempted to state facts that did not exist.  Pardon me if I attempt to call you on this.

It was not unrealistic to expect BioWare to live up to their advertising.  In fact it is lesser of you to expect them NOT TO.

Bait and Switch is a hypathetical theory that hinges on BioWare's decision to release DLC delcaring the ending of ME3 to be indoctrination with the new DLC being the non-dream ending.  If they offer this DLC for MONEY (even $0.01) it is indeed and by law, bait-and-switch.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 01:34 .

[DaosX]

So true! I'll be supporting this by simply boycotting anything else Bioware makes. Much, much easier that way.

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

Ahh so the FAA was construed in the decision? (See where I'm going with this? LOL)

Yes, I'm sorry to say SCOTUS already kicked the argument in the jimmy. That's why and how that stupid arbitration clause ended up in Origin's EULA in the first place.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

Ahh so the FAA was construed in the decision? (See where I'm going with this? LOL)

Yes, I'm sorry to say SCOTUS already kicked the argument in the jimmy. That's why and how that stupid arbitration clause ended up in Origin's EULA in the first place.

Precisely, which means if the FTC codes were not construed... They still APPLY. Thus meaning any attempts to disclaim neglance is an oppresive provision (Assuming the chain of relevancy still applies).

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Kushan101]

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...

Thought I'd seen all these pre-release quotes, but this is gold.

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

Precisely, which means if the FTC codes were not construed... They still APPLY. Thus meaning any attempts to disclaim neglance is an oppresive provision (Assuming the chain of relevancy still applies).

If you think any kind of injunctive relief would possibly come from the FTC, you're fooling yourself. They're generally worthless in this kind of situation. Now, don't get me wrong, if BW were an indie company you'd need to resurrect Carl sagan to count the number of ways they'd be F'ed in the B, but we're talking about EA here.

[bluewolv1970]

excellent topic

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

Precisely, which means if the FTC codes were not construed... They still APPLY. Thus meaning any attempts to disclaim neglance is an oppresive provision (Assuming the chain of relevancy still applies).

If you think any kind of injunctive relief would possibly come from the FTC, you're fooling yourself. They're generally worthless in this kind of situation. Now, don't get me wrong, if BW were an indie company you'd need to resurrect Carl sagan to count the number of ways they'd be F'ed in the B, but we're talking about EA here.

Right, but this doesn't mean that a consumer can't use the laws and codes set by the FTC in seeking remedies for that relief or that a consumer would be netted into not being able to seek remedies because of an oppresive contract (that no one reads).  If, however, it was coshure and legal for there to be no more oppresive clauses in contracts companies could sell your information regardless of their privacy policies leaving the customer with no recourse which is utterly not true.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 01:50 .

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

Right, but this doesn't mean that a consumer can't use the laws and codes set by the FTC in seeking remedies for that relief.

...the right to which the consumer waived by agreeing to the EULA, which is my point. The pedigree or origin of a given statute or regulation doesn't matter in this case.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

Right, but this doesn't mean that a consumer can't use the laws and codes set by the FTC in seeking remedies for that relief.

...the right to which the consumer waived by agreeing to the EULA, which is my point.

Again, which is oppresive and void -- else they could sell your credit card numbers (or email address) to the less shady characters out there without recourse because of a "clause".  This simply can't happen under the precedent you claim.  Likewise, they CAN be held liable for their neglance and wrong-doings criminally and civilly.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[hammerfan]

I must admit, it would be entertaining to watch them try to reconcile the pre-release quotes with what was delivered on a witness stand.

[Sohlito]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

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.

This.

I swear most here fail at reading comprehension in unbelievable ways.

[Baine10]

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

[Davnort]

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...

thats just too funny.
yet i feel sadder now

[D_Dude1210]

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

The purpose was moreover to let BioWare know that their actions (or lack thereof lol) is encroaching on disasterous ground. "FREE" Clarification of the ending or a free DLC of the real ending is the only real choices here to at least remain in the grey.

[sfam]

leewells wrote...

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.

Wow, if you sued someone every time the marketing hype didn't equal the final product, you would be suing people around 30 times a day at least.  And while its fascinating that you spend quality hours squeezing fecal material out, I don't think it equals the same thing as thousands of people working to create a product largely devoid of killer bugs (this was not the case for DA: Origins, for instance) that had an immensely enjoyable 30+ hours of gameplay.  Its just the last 5 minutes that sucked - that's it.  Yeah, they had annoyances like the Tali thing, but seriously - its just the last five minutes.

In terms of replayability, there's a thread on this very forum filled with people that loath the ending but are still playing it 3-5 time times. Perhaps they are like me, on my second play (but plan to stop at the drunken shooting scene before the ending), that they are hoping for a magical fix to come along and make good all their previous plays.  But the fact is, all of us have gotten 30+ hours enjoyment from this title, prior to the last 5 minutes.

There is flat out no case for a lawsuit here. Stating that the marketing doesn't live up to the hype just means that the product has been released, because in virtually all products, the marketing doesn't live up to the reality.

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

You made allegations and attempted to state facts that did not exist. Pardon me if I attempt to call you on this.

It was not unrealistic to expect BioWare to live up to their advertising. In fact it is lesser of you to expect them NOT TO

Bait and Switch is a hypathetical theory that hinges on BioWare's decision to release DLC delcaring the ending of ME3 to be indoctrination with the new DLC being the non-dream ending.  If they offer this DLC for MONEY (even $0.01) it is indeed and by law, bait-and-switch.

So hypothetical theory it is.

Then why the name "Mass effect 3 IS Bait and Switch"... You'll have to forgive me then for calling you out on this. As a name like this is quite misleading if you are solely talking about an hypothetical situation.

So now you are gonna tell me Broken Steel for Fallout 3 is bait and switch as well? You know, as it changed the ending and all and that you had to pay for it.

Right now, I would simply consider an added DLC as nothing more than a piece of equipment designed after release to add a functionnality of a previously bought article. Nothing more nothing less. Following this line of thought, an Xbox should also be considered as bait and switch, I mean, come on, you've got to buy a remote to make it read DVDs.
 
In the case interesting us right now, It's nothing more than an added chapter to a book, a chapter that was not planned before the release of the game. Asking people to pay for it would therefore not be a bait and switch attempt.

As for the expectations Bioware created, civil tradition does hold the test of the reasonable person. So in this case, a reasonable person would be quite reasonable not to take for granted every promises made during development, as too many variables to account still haven't happened yet and, well, the disclaimer is pretty solid there.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 02:12 .

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

Again, which is oppresive and void -- else they could sell your credit card numbers (or email address) to the less shady characters out there without recourse because of a "clause".  This simply can't happen under the precedent you claim.  Likewise, they CAN be held liable for their neglance and wrong-doings criminally and civilly.

Yes, they can -- through individual arbitration. I agree that it's bad law, but that doesn't change the fact it is law.

This is what I was getting at discussing the difference in de jure and de facto exculpation of liability. The consumer nominally still has means at their disposal to seek remedy, but only nominally.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

Again, which is oppresive and void -- else they could sell your credit card numbers (or email address) to the less shady characters out there without recourse because of a "clause".  This simply can't happen under the precedent you claim.  Likewise, they CAN be held liable for their neglance and wrong-doings criminally and civilly.

Yes, they can -- through individual arbitration. I agree that it's bad law, but that doesn't change the fact it is law.

This is what I was getting at discussing the difference in de jure and de facto exculpation of liability. The consumer nominally still has means at their disposal to seek remedy, but only nominally.

To the extent of the damages correct?  I could have sworn this is how it always interpreted.  I'm not sure how nominally plays into that because once damages are determined, you can't place a "nominal" price on it and it doesn't appear this applies to a class-action (the seeking of remedy from all customers) is falls catigorically into this either.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 02:09 .

[D_Dude1210]

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

The purpose was moreover to let BioWare know that their actions (or lack thereof lol) is encroaching on disasterous ground. "FREE" Clarification of the ending or a free DLC of the real ending is the only real choices here to at least remain in the grey.

Quick question: isn't what they did (blatant, false, unrealized, specific promises made by top Bioware creative staff) already falling in the realm of false advertising. And as such already in line with criminal acts of Deceptive Marketing Practices?

[D_Dude1210]

sfam wrote...

leewells wrote...

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.

Wow, if you sued someone every time the marketing hype didn't equal the final product, you would be suing people around 30 times a day at least.  And while its fascinating that you spend quality hours squeezing fecal material out, I don't think it equals the same thing as thousands of people working to create a product largely devoid of killer bugs (this was not the case for DA: Origins, for instance) that had an immensely enjoyable 30+ hours of gameplay.  Its just the last 5 minutes that sucked - that's it.  Yeah, they had annoyances like the Tali thing, but seriously - its just the last five minutes.

In terms of replayability, there's a thread on this very forum filled with people that loath the ending but are still playing it 3-5 time times. Perhaps they are like me, on my second play (but plan to stop at the drunken shooting scene before the ending), that they are hoping for a magical fix to come along and make good all their previous plays.  But the fact is, all of us have gotten 30+ hours enjoyment from this title, prior to the last 5 minutes.

There is flat out no case for a lawsuit here. Stating that the marketing doesn't live up to the hype just means that the product has been released, because in virtually all products, the marketing doesn't live up to the reality.

I don't think you read anything here other than the title and some of the first few posts.