268 réponses à ce sujet

[Super_Angurius]

If EA feels that they would be sued for Bait and Switch if they release a new ending and it's paid DLC, then I don't think they'd bother with a new ending then. That said between this and Capcom's DLC hijinks, I'm starting to fear for the Videogame industry.

Sorta Ironic Nintendo seems to gradually be doing things to tone down Pokemon's one game fro the price of two tendancies.

[Nostradamoose]

What I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation. Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe they are defendable.

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

What I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation. Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe they are defendable.

You can't disclaim an advertisment at the time its advertised.  This is all levels of wrong.  This is like saying "Gas today at $0.10/gal *offer subject to change upon arrival to pump* (hidden in microtext)... No, again bait and switch.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...
Yeah no suing McDonalds because you burned yourself in this state HA HA HA.

Well, the problem -- and the tragedy -- of environmental law is not that the suits in question are frivolous. Quite the opposite in fact. It's that since Chevron the field's become a complete, utter laughingstock.

Generally, what happens is environmental law firms and non-profits will go and find an actual environmental problem. Then, they'll talk all the citizens affected by it into filing a citizen suit with -- you guessed it -- that firm/non-prof representing them. Counsel promptly files the harshest-possible motion for injunctive relief, the defendant offers a bigass out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiffs withdraw the motion. At that point the firm/non-prof stiffs the citizens they claimed to represent and pockets the settlement. If the citizens are lucky, the corporation cleans up the mess as part of the settlement, and since those settlements generally include gag orders the corporation in question gets to play it off as a "we care about the environment!" PR campaign.

Eventually you run into some true believer who thinks they can change the world who doesn't accept the settlement. They get pimp-slapped in appellate court, which creates further precedent that makes the field more of a joke than it was prior.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 04:09 .

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...
Yeah no suing McDonalds because you burned yourself in this state HA HA HA.

Well, the problem -- and the tragedy -- of environmental law is not that the suits in question are frivolous. Quite the opposite in fact. It's that since Chevron the field's become a complete, utter laughingstock.

Generally, what happens is environmental law firms and non-profits will go and find an actual environmental problem. Then, they'll talk all the citizens affected by it into filing a citizen suit with -- you guessed it -- that firm/non-prof representing them. Counsel promptly files the harshest-possible motion for injunctive relief, the defendant offers a bigass out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiffs withdraw the motion. At that point the firm/non-prof stiffs the citizens they claimed to represent and pockets the settlement. If the citizens are lucky, the corporation cleans up the mess as part of the settlement.

Eventually you run into some true believer who thinks they can change the world who doesn't accept the settlement. They get pimp-slapped in appellate court, which creates further precedent that makes the field more of a joke than it was prior.

Yeah where as here you have to prove damages before seeking any restitution or you're laughed out of the filing process by the secretary lol (if you're lucky it will be the secretary and not the janatorial staff ).

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 04:02 .

[D_Dude1210]

Nostradamoose wrote...

What I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation. Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe they are defendable.

Perhaps. But if you lump together the "no deus ex ending", "multiple completely disparate endings", "no need for multiplayer" and the "choices matter in the ending" promises and couple them with the "happy ending" inference, the "DLC was not in the disc" doublespeak and many others, can you seriously say that no case for deceptive marketing can be made here?

Interviews don't come with disclaimers but can be seen as advertising.

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

What I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation. Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe they are defendable.

Perhaps. But if you lump together the "no deus ex ending", "multiple completely disparate endings", "no need for multiplayer" and the "choices matter in the ending" promises and couple them with the "happy ending" inference, the "DLC was not in the disc" doublespeak and many others, can you seriously say that no case for deceptive marketing can be made here?

Interviews don't come with disclaimers but can be seen as advertising.

Deceptive marking could be proven by just one customer saying "if they told me the truth, I wouldn't have bought it".  Read into that a little, because it holds greater meaning that what it first appears .

The legality of disclaimed advertising is that each advertsiment must state its disclaimer and cannot be umbrellaed, else your pharma company could advertise a pill and then state elsewhere the side-effects (disclaimers).  Also, you commonly see "dramatization", "not actual size" etc on TV advertisements?  Thats because EACH advertisement has to be disclaimed 'clearly and appropiately'.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 04:07 .

[Heliosas]

They aren't going to release ending dlc. So this bait and switch things is irrelivant. Nice effort though.

They are going to release 'clarification' dlc. Basically the ending stays he same, but they explain a little more about the space magic and/or give DA style bits that explain what some npcs did next.

Modifié par Heliosas, 03 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[Aleru]

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 how corporations lie    

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

What I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation. Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe they are defendable.

Perhaps. But if you lump together the "no deus ex ending", "multiple completely disparate endings", "no need for multiplayer" and the "choices matter in the ending" promises and couple them with the "happy ending" inference, the "DLC was not in the disc" doublespeak and many others, can you seriously say that no case for deceptive marketing can be made here?

Interviews don't come with disclaimers but can be seen as advertising.

Deceptive marking could be proven by just one customer saying "if they told me the truth, I wouldn't have bought it".  Read into that a little, because it holds greater meaning that what it first appears .

The legality of disclaimed advertising is that each advertsiment must state its disclaimer and cannot be umbrellaed, else your pharma company could advertise a pill and then state elsewhere the side-effects (disclaimers).  Also, you commonly see "dramatization", "not actual size" etc on TV advertisements?  Thats because EACH advertisement has to be disclaimed 'clearly and appropiately'.

I'll remove the disclaimer part for you are right on this.

As for the rest, in this case, the I would not have bought it argument would again not work regarding the appreciation of a litterary work, neither should it for a video game for the same reasons I have clearly stated earlier. Then it would only be refunded at the discretion of the sellor. Courts simply cannot statute on the appreciation of a narrative work unless it pertains to copyrights.

[Chaoswind]

Nostradamoose wrote...

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.

Someone failed to read, bait and switch means advertising a product and then switching it to other inferior product while give the one advertised for more money.

Fallout  didn't bait you with false advertising.

ME3 was hyped on the basis of false advertising, heck 80% of the pre release statements ended as untrue or subversive, that is why charging for the new ending would be illegal.

This pretty much means bioware does it for free or doesn't do it.

[leewells]

Heliosas wrote...

They aren't going to release ending dlc. So this bait and switch things is irrelivant. Nice effort though.

They are going to release 'clarification' dlc. Basically the ending stays he same, but they explain a little more about the space magic and/or give DA style bits that explain what some npcs did next.

I wouldn't bet on that (no ending dlc) should it be clarified that the end is indoctrination.  To be honest, if all they are doing is "CLARIFYING" the ending, it should be a huge give-away that they're not fixing any "plot holes" such as space-magic so this leaves only one other suspect.  With that said, and the ending being a hillucination/dream to not continue that story would be a mistake beyond reconing.

Edit:

You snuk this in there:

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

What
I was stating is that they are defendable even without a retractation.
Also, most of the time those developpers statements come with
disclaimers which are pretty solid. Therefore, this is why I believe
they are defendable.

Perhaps. But if you lump together
the "no deus ex ending", "multiple completely disparate endings", "no
need for multiplayer" and the "choices matter in the ending" promises
and couple them with the "happy ending" inference, the "DLC was not in
the disc" doublespeak and many others, can you seriously say that no
case for deceptive marketing can be made here?

Interviews don't come with disclaimers but can be seen as advertising.

Deceptive
marking could be proven by just one customer saying "if they told me
the truth, I wouldn't have bought it".  Read into that a little, because
it holds greater meaning that what it first appears .

The
legality of disclaimed advertising is that each advertsiment must state
its disclaimer and cannot be umbrellaed, else your pharma company could
advertise a pill and then state elsewhere the side-effects
(disclaimers).  Also, you commonly see "dramatization", "not actual
size" etc on TV advertisements?  Thats because EACH advertisement has to
be disclaimed 'clearly and appropiately'.

I'll remove the disclaimer part for you are right on this.

As
for the rest, in this case, the I would not have bought it argument
would again not work regarding the appreciation of a litterary work,
neither should it for a video game for the same reasons I have clearly
stated earlier. Then it would only be refunded at the discretion of the
sellor. Courts simply cannot statute on the appreciation of a narrative
work unless it pertains to copyrights.

I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree and expect a game of any creative works that is based upon fiction to live up to its hype and advertisment.  As I stated in another thread, if Harry Potter's ending had been about aliens (like ME3's was about space "magic") I believe people whom like that series should have a soap box for demanding the author to make some corrections but only that soap box -- BUT, if Harry Potter was advertised as being "CONCLUSIVE", "DYNAMIC, BITTERSWEET ENDING", etc, and Harry potter not only dies, but Hogwarts and Europe blows up along with everyone associated with it, I would say the customers had a legal ground for deceptive marketing.  And, if just as harry gets knocked unconsious there is a message saying "you can buy the rest of the book / movie for $19.99" they would have a FIRM case for bait and switch.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[Nostradamoose]

Chaoswind wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

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.

Someone failed to read, bait and switch means advertising a product and then switching it to other inferior product while give the one advertised for more money.

Get real, Bioware did not do that, they did not switch you to another product.
2nd : you got the definition wrong.
First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are "switched" to a costlier product.

This is far from a situation of bait and switch.

Fallout  didn't bait you with false advertising.

Mass Effect either, Boastful advertising is not false advertising. But eh, I guess you didn't read the whole thread.

ME3 was hyped on the basis of false advertising, heck 80% of the pre release statements ended as untrue or subversive, that is why charging for the new ending would be illegal.

This pretty much means bioware does it for free or doesn't do it.

Give me clear exemples of flat out lies spoonfed to you by the developpers except the multiplayer as I have stated earlier. I haven't found much at all.

http://social.biowar.../index/10735371

I'm sorry, but following this list, only the rachnis could be taken as that close to a lie and it is quite debatable. Case against is iffy at best.

I see nothing more than boastful claims, nothing crossing the threshold as explained earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the ending as well and I want it changed, I'm just saying that courts should not be brought to this and neither will the act regarding this. Consumer protection in narrative works is.... well... not welcome. If the produce does not work as intended, then it's another thing.

[boardnfool86]

 there is nothing nefarious about BioWare's pricing or advertising - at least youre doing your due diligence I guess

[D_Dude1210]

Using the term "dynamic/conclusive/etc." can still be interpreted as puffery. A better analogy, IMO, would be something as specific as going on an interview and saying "the next book shall end the novel series with Potter and Voldemort battling one last time to decide the fate of all magic, but don't worry, there shall be anhappy ending for all" only to have potter die before even meeting Voldemort in the book and then having Voldemort truimphant in the end. Then going: pls buy the next SET of books in the franchise. :-p

[Thornne]

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.

This is just plain silly.

Seriously.

So everyone who buys a car that is later recalled to the dealer due to a defect can sue for bait and switch?

The thing you're missing is intent.  If they never intended to sell an incomplete product and then charge extra for ending DLC later, then it was just a screw up.  An impressive screw up, to be sure, but it wasn't a bait and switch.

You don't punish a company for making good on  defective product by opening them up to litigation.

Modifié par Thornne, 03 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree and expect a game of any creative works that is based upon fiction to live up to its hype and advertisment.  As I stated in another thread, if Harry Potter's ending had been about aliens (like ME3's was about space "magic") I believe people whom like that series should have a soap box for demanding the author to make some corrections but only that soap box -- BUT, if Harry Potter was advertised as being "CONCLUSIVE", "DYNAMIC, BITTERSWEET ENDING", etc, and Harry potter not only dies, but Hogwarts and Europe blows up along with everyone associated with it, I would say the customers had a legal ground for deceptive marketing.

 And I would write it off as boastful advertising.  
Nothing else than Bonus Dolus, nothing like Malus Dolus. It's boasting, nothing more than that, it should not lead to the nullity of the contract between you and Bioware.


http://www.merriam-w...ary/dolus bonus

Roman, civil, & Scots law

: simple cunning or sagacity in bargaining or in other transactions that is not actionable or punishable as fraud or misrepresentation or ground for rescinding the transaction induced by it 


As opposed to malus dolus
Roman, civil, & Scots law

: fraud and misrepresentation that is actionable and punishable or is ground for rescinding the transaction resulting from it

And, if just as harry gets knocked unconsious there is a message saying "you can buy the rest of the book / movie for $19.99" they would have a FIRM case for bait and switch.

If they intended all along to do this and sold you an incomplete game ending in the middle of the action without advertising it was half a book, then yes, it would be. But in the case at hand, however ****ty and incoherent the conclusion is, it still cannot be seen as incomplete. Their plan was to sell a complete story which they completed their way however incoherent it was in its conclusion.

But adding a DLC in reaction to the fans outcry, I would not go down as a bait and switch, more like an add-on to a book that is not necessary for the game.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 05:04 .

[leewells]

Thornne wrote...
So everyone who buys a car that is later recalled to the dealer due to a defect can sue for bait and switch?

You don't do analogies very well do you?  The better way to describe it is to say "So everyone who orders a Ferri and gets a Pinto in the mail with the Ferri logo...", but coming off the conjecture, you have to use a physical product of non-art and non-literature for comparision..

Again, if you bought an encyclopedia set and "Z" had 200 pages at the end missing with messages on each "Contact sales for these pages", THAT would be bait-and-switch because YOU THOUGHT (because it was advertised) you were getting the "conclusion" of the set -- not half of the conclusion or a portion of the conclusion.

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree and expect a game of any creative works that is based upon fiction to live up to its hype and advertisment.  As I stated in another thread, if Harry Potter's ending had been about aliens (like ME3's was about space "magic") I believe people whom like that series should have a soap box for demanding the author to make some corrections but only that soap box -- BUT, if Harry Potter was advertised as being "CONCLUSIVE", "DYNAMIC, BITTERSWEET ENDING", etc, and Harry potter not only dies, but Hogwarts and Europe blows up along with everyone associated with it, I would say the customers had a legal ground for deceptive marketing.

 And I would write it off as boastful advertising.  
Nothing else than Bonus Dolus, nothing like Malus Dolus. It's boasting, nothing more than that, it should not lead to the nullity of the contract between you and Bioware.


http://www.merriam-w...ary/dolus bonus

Roman, civil, & Scots law

: simple cunning or sagacity in bargaining or in other transactions that is not actionable or punishable as fraud or misrepresentation or ground for rescinding the transaction induced by it 

And, if just as harry gets knocked unconsious there is a message saying "you can buy the rest of the book / movie for $19.99" they would have a FIRM case for bait and switch.

If they intended all along to do this and sold you an incomplete game ending in the middle of the action without advertising it was half a book, then yes, it would be. But in the case at hand, however ****ty and incoherent the conclusion is, it still cannot be seen as incomplete. Their plan was to sell a complete story which they completed their way however incoherent it was in its conclusion.

But adding a DLC in reaction to the fans outcry, I would not go down as a bait and switch, more like an add-on to a book that is not necessary for the game.

And so, from what my OP said, "If they release post-ending dlc" if the Indoc theory is true (meaning it IS A FALSE ENDING) you don't think this qualifies or do you have the inability to ADD?

[Ashilana]

leewells wrote...
PLEASE READ VERY, VERY CAREFULLY: I did not, nor have I ever stated any intention to personally sue BioWare.  I did state that the consumer will have a prema facie case should they release the hypothetical DLC.

Nicely summarized. 

I really do hope that the gaming industry pays attention to this debacle and learns to treat their customers with more respect.  Bioware's attitude of hiding behind "some fans are crazy and mean" and "we are artists" is utterly ridiculous.

[ed87]

leewells wrote...

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).

Indoc theory is speculation, not presumption. Thats like people presuming we will get a changed ending... We cannot confirm or deny that.

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree and expect a game of any creative works that is based upon fiction to live up to its hype and advertisment.  As I stated in another thread, if Harry Potter's ending had been about aliens (like ME3's was about space "magic") I believe people whom like that series should have a soap box for demanding the author to make some corrections but only that soap box -- BUT, if Harry Potter was advertised as being "CONCLUSIVE", "DYNAMIC, BITTERSWEET ENDING", etc, and Harry potter not only dies, but Hogwarts and Europe blows up along with everyone associated with it, I would say the customers had a legal ground for deceptive marketing.

 And I would write it off as boastful advertising.  
Nothing else than Bonus Dolus, nothing like Malus Dolus. It's boasting, nothing more than that, it should not lead to the nullity of the contract between you and Bioware.


http://www.merriam-w...ary/dolus bonus

Roman, civil, & Scots law

: simple cunning or sagacity in bargaining or in other transactions that is not actionable or punishable as fraud or misrepresentation or ground for rescinding the transaction induced by it 

And, if just as harry gets knocked unconsious there is a message saying "you can buy the rest of the book / movie for $19.99" they would have a FIRM case for bait and switch.

If they intended all along to do this and sold you an incomplete game ending in the middle of the action without advertising it was half a book, then yes, it would be. But in the case at hand, however ****ty and incoherent the conclusion is, it still cannot be seen as incomplete. Their plan was to sell a complete story which they completed their way however incoherent it was in its conclusion.

But adding a DLC in reaction to the fans outcry, I would not go down as a bait and switch, more like an add-on to a book that is not necessary for the game.

And so, from what my OP said, "If they release post-ending dlc" if the Indoc theory is true (meaning it IS A FALSE ENDING) you don't think this qualifies or do you have the inability to ADD?

If they create it and release it after the fact in response to the fan outcry, then NO it does NOT qualify as bait and switch.

If it was planned all along, then yes, it is bait and switch. But judging from the reaction of the devs, it is not the case. Adding an uncut edition of the ending and making you pay for it would not be bait and switch either.

And yea, 1 + 1= 11

[D_Dude1210]

How is the: the "no deus ex ending", "multiple completely disparate endings" and "no
need for multiplayer" promises NOT considered misrepresentation??

Also: http://social.biowar.../index/10473356 might be a better thread in terms of enumerating the promises made.

Even if the majority of the claims of "broken promises" are open to literary interpretation, there are a few that are not. Combine them all and I think there may well be a case here.

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree and expect a game of any creative works that is based upon fiction to live up to its hype and advertisment.  As I stated in another thread, if Harry Potter's ending had been about aliens (like ME3's was about space "magic") I believe people whom like that series should have a soap box for demanding the author to make some corrections but only that soap box -- BUT, if Harry Potter was advertised as being "CONCLUSIVE", "DYNAMIC, BITTERSWEET ENDING", etc, and Harry potter not only dies, but Hogwarts and Europe blows up along with everyone associated with it, I would say the customers had a legal ground for deceptive marketing.

 And I would write it off as boastful advertising.  
Nothing else than Bonus Dolus, nothing like Malus Dolus. It's boasting, nothing more than that, it should not lead to the nullity of the contract between you and Bioware.


http://www.merriam-w...ary/dolus bonus

Roman, civil, & Scots law

: simple cunning or sagacity in bargaining or in other transactions that is not actionable or punishable as fraud or misrepresentation or ground for rescinding the transaction induced by it 

And, if just as harry gets knocked unconsious there is a message saying "you can buy the rest of the book / movie for $19.99" they would have a FIRM case for bait and switch.

If they intended all along to do this and sold you an incomplete game ending in the middle of the action without advertising it was half a book, then yes, it would be. But in the case at hand, however ****ty and incoherent the conclusion is, it still cannot be seen as incomplete. Their plan was to sell a complete story which they completed their way however incoherent it was in its conclusion.

But adding a DLC in reaction to the fans outcry, I would not go down as a bait and switch, more like an add-on to a book that is not necessary for the game.

And so, from what my OP said, "If they release post-ending dlc" if the Indoc theory is true (meaning it IS A FALSE ENDING) you don't think this qualifies or do you have the inability to ADD?

If they create it and release it after the fact in response to the fan outcry, then NO it does NOT qualify as bait and switch.

If it was planned all along, then yes, it is bait and switch. But judging from the reaction of the devs, it is not the case. Adding an uncut edition of the ending and making you pay for it would not be bait and switch either.

And yea, 1 + 1= 11

It was made "real clear" that the management was standing behind the "story" written by the writers and published in the game.  This tells you that the way it ended was planned...  Which means they could have even planned for the outcry -- it is not that much of a leap to make before you get to the final stages in the matter that it was also done with malace. Think about it, this is precisely what bait and switch is defined as being -- giving you that higher-priced product in attempts to "appeeze" you.

Now, I will agree that if the DLC is free, there is no argument.

ed87 wrote...

leewells wrote...

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).

Indoc
theory is speculation, not presumption. Thats like people presuming we
will get a changed ending... We cannot confirm or deny that.

The indoc theory is the only theory in the nest of speculation (all around) that best fits the logical outcome of the game.  You have 2 choices of theories on the ending:  Space Magic (seems to be your perfered poison) and Indoc Theory.  Thats it -- the only two.  

Now, tell me, which is easier to (notice the QUOTES) "clarify the ending" on?  Space magic or "indoc theory"?

Need I keep going or do I need to explain how my theory itself is not theory and simple deduction in logic?

To delve just a tiny bit deeper into this, lets look at what must be done and what the devs have stated.  

1) Assuming Indoc - the only thing that needs to be done is it be more "clear" that this is what is happening (as if the slow-motion, dark haze post render effect (like in your DREAMS), aren't enough)... period, end of book, that's it.  (btw this is a less mentioned fact about the indoc theory -- the only time that effect is used (the "glaucoma effect", besides the ending is in your dreams  fyi)

2) Space magic / Plot Holes - things MUST BE ADDED, CHANGED, AND SKEWED in order to meet the logical ending of the ME series.

What did the dev say? "We are not adding content to the ending, we will just be clarifying what is happening".  This REALLY doesn't sound like space magic to me unless they get gandolf to stand in the scene.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 05:21 .