268 réponses à ce sujet

[Nostradamoose]

No deus ex and completely disparate ending waaay too open for litterary interpretation and I have already given you the No need for multiplayer point, so? No need to go ad nauseam on this.

2nd, it's the bloody same list I brought before in the OP of the thread you just linked. There is NOTHING in there.

And please, where did you find the no deus ex ending quote, I'm actually interested in where you found it.

[Thornne]

You're arguing that the ending of ME3 transforms the entire game from a Ferrari to a Pinto? I'll just let that bit go.

leewells wrote...
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.

So you're saying that Bioware deliberately made a poor ending to their game with the intent to sell a 'fixed' one as DLC?

This is what you would need to prove in court to claim 'Bait and Switch', I believe.

[leewells]

Thornne wrote...

You're arguing that the ending of ME3 transforms the entire game from a Ferrari to a Pinto? I'll just let that bit go.

leewells wrote...
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.

So you're saying that Bioware deliberately made a poor ending to their game with the intent to sell a 'fixed' one as DLC?

This is what you would need to prove in court to claim 'Bait and Switch', I believe.

And this would be rather easy to prove... "Epic conclusion to the Mass Effect Series"  // "$9.99 for the real ending!" That appears to be a bait and switch to me, and a JUDGE has already informally said the same .  But sure, if you have higher qualifications, please indulge us.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[Halo Quea]

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.”
 

It's really something reading their statements.   They NEVER had any intention of living up to any of it, and like fools we followed all of their comments on twitter.  Believing that the final product was going to match their statements.

Unless I hear something soon, I guess this is really it for me and Bioware.

[Fenderbaum]

Not sure if this has been mentioned (mainly to the OP, as he appears to live in NA)

But when you installed Origins, you digitally signed away your rights to sue EA lol....tough break right there...

I on the other hand, living in the UK, don't have that restriction, as the EULA was against every Uk/European law in existence lol...which is why the EULA was changed to highlight the fact it's not applicable in my country.

Now then, on to the meat of the matter. If you're quick, before they all get deleted, make copies of everything Jarrett, Casey, Priestley et-al wrote...this is your proof that EA did not release a game that was as advertised. You will win the court case I assure you...

If you can afford to take them to court that is....

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

Modifié par Fenderbaum, 03 avril 2012 - 05:28 .

[anarch1888]

Rephrasing Reuben: "they've got enough lawyers to occupy Paris".
Do you really think that EA's legal department would ever let anything that could even hint towards a successful case against the company be released? US legal system being what it is (and EA IS a US company)...

I'm pretty sure they've got their bases covered. And that the idea of sueing anyone over this is moot point.

[Nostradamoose]

Thornne wrote...

So you're saying that Bioware deliberately made a poor ending to their game with the intent to sell a 'fixed' one as DLC?

This is what you would need to prove in court to claim 'Bait and Switch', I believe.

Yep, this is what it is and the grounds for this are made of sinking soil regarding the clumsy response.

Bona fide is always presumed in law. Anything else has to be proven.

[NAWhisperBlade]

Fire Casey Hudson.

[Bernhardtbr]

About the OP, it´s pretty obvious that in the end Earth WAS retaken, unless Indoctrination was a fact, which most people think it isn´t. Regardless of Spess Magic ™ that you chose, the Reaper threat is over.

[D_Dude1210]

7:30am.... Going to bed. Gonna discuss this topic further tmrow... falling asleep as is... Fascinating topic, tho...

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Thornne wrote...

You're arguing that the ending of ME3 transforms the entire game from a Ferrari to a Pinto? I'll just let that bit go.

leewells wrote...
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.

So you're saying that Bioware deliberately made a poor ending to their game with the intent to sell a 'fixed' one as DLC?

This is what you would need to prove in court to claim 'Bait and Switch', I believe.

And this would be rather easy to prove... "Epic conclusion to the Mass Effect Series" // "$9.99 for the real ending!" That appears to be a bait and switch to me, and a JUDGE has already informally said the same . But sure, if you have higher qualifications, please indulge us.

Not if it is done in good faith after the fact to correct the ending after a fan outcry. Then no, simply no. Following that logic, Broken Steel would be bait and switch as well... As it was advertised as the new "real" ending.

Also, judges can also be wrong and trust me I've seen a whole of jurisprudence showing me just that. But then again, on this case I am not saying the judge you referred to is wrong, because he is right for the question you asked him. But now you are generalising that answer for every other questions, which makes it totally wrong.

As I remember it, you asked the judge if a videogame willingly selling a title with an incomplete conclusion just to sell said conclusion separatedly is a case of bait and switch and then you took that answer and generalised it to all ending modifying DLC, even those made in reaction to an outcry.

This is where you are wrong. Bona Fide is to be presumed here and there was nothing else than bonus dolus in the pre-release advertisement. This is where I am saying your "judgement" went wrong.

[Kushan101]

Very interesting, I'm hoping this all stays academic however, as much as I think Bioware buggered the ending: I wouldn't want to see them taken to court over it.

95% of the game was fantastic - yeah, the crucible was a little bit ropey; I kinda missed getting more choice in conversations; the "fetch quests" were dodgy; the journal system was crap and Tali's face reveal was a flick in the nuts. BUT. I can overlook all these things since the action was great, there were many points in the game where I was verging on "man tears", the characters were as well written as ever; I genuinely agonised over what to do about the Krogan/Salarian choice, as well as the Geth/Quarian one; etc etc.

However, the ending was diabolical. I think it has to be one of the worst endings I have ever seen. Ever. That it still effects me, three weeks after the fact, tells how shattering it was. I can't think it was deliberate, I really can't. Nobody who creates a series like this, with so much genuine care and, dare I say, love could really have meant for an ending like that.

Would I want them sued for it? No. Do I want them to learn a lesson from it? Yes. Do I want it fixed? Hell yeah.

Modifié par Kushan101, 03 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

7:30am.... Going to bed. Gonna discuss this topic further tmrow... falling asleep as is... Fascinating topic, tho...

Well, it didn't end in a flame fest, therefore it was a good topic

[Gibsn]

So what ai got.from this is that BW came release new ending doc with out being sued.

[Ticonderoga117]

Going the legal route won't help here. It'll be nasty and end badly for all involved. Just wait, chill a bit, and keep holding the line. We'll find out soon enough what's coming up.

[leewells]

Fenderbaum wrote...

Not sure if this has been mentioned (mainly to the OP, as he appears to live in NA)

But when you installed Origins, you digitally signed away your rights to sue EA lol....tough break right there...

I on the other hand, living in the UK, don't have that restriction, as the EULA was against every Uk/European law in existence lol...which is why the EULA was changed to highlight the fact it's not applicable in my country.

Now then, on to the meat of the matter. If you're quick, before they all get deleted, make copies of everything Jarrett, Casey, Priestley et-al wrote...this is your proof that EA did not release a game that was as advertised. You will win the court case I assure you...

If you can afford to take them to court that is....

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

NC, North Carolina, and no, you don't sign any of your rights away -- two of us legal guys had a very long perplexing discussion that dug down into the meat of law and concluded that even if the EULA/TOS states you have no rights, it is oppressive in a court of law and VOID.

Not if it is done in good faith after the fact to correct the ending
after a fan outcry. Then no, simply no. Following that logic, Broken
Steel would be bait and switch as well... As it was advertised as the
new "real" ending.

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:07 .

[Fenderbaum]

Not oppressive in the mighty and great US of A

Nothing is oppressive actually....if you AGREE to it....

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

Not sure if this has been mentioned (mainly to the OP, as he appears to live in NA)

But when you installed Origins, you digitally signed away your rights to sue EA lol....tough break right there...

I on the other hand, living in the UK, don't have that restriction, as the EULA was against every Uk/European law in existence lol...which is why the EULA was changed to highlight the fact it's not applicable in my country.

Now then, on to the meat of the matter. If you're quick, before they all get deleted, make copies of everything Jarrett, Casey, Priestley et-al wrote...this is your proof that EA did not release a game that was as advertised. You will win the court case I assure you...

If you can afford to take them to court that is....

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

NC, North Carolina, and no, you don't sign any of your rights away -- two of us legal guys had a very long perplexing discussion that dug down into the meat of law and concluded that even if the EULA/TOS states you have no rights, it is oppressive in a court of law and VOID.

Yep, pretty much every western countries have that policy.

[leewells]

Fenderbaum wrote...

Not oppressive in the mighty and great US of A

Nothing is oppressive actually....if you AGREE to it....

Thats just exactly what the oppressive law is all about.  You can't be trapped into any agreement or contract that has a provision which is oppressive, even if you DO agree to it.  I had a direct link to the PDF of my under-grad text book, did you read it or do you commonly ignore proof?

In case you don't like clicking links:

"if the court. . .finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result."

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:13 .

[jumpingkaede]

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...

I laughed so hard I may have wet myself.

[jumpingkaede]

Fenderbaum wrote...

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

If you paid $20 expecting to get Toy Story and you instead got the Bollywood version of Pulp Fiction you didn't get what you paid for.

You may need to read up on the law.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 03 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[leewells]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

If you paid $20 expecting to get Toy Story and you instead got the Bollywood version of Pulp Fiction you didn't get what you paid for.

You may need to read up on the law.

What he doesn't understand is he's really shooting himself in the foot by declaring that digital media is not art and only leased property which is regulated in most governents WAY diffrently (to the point it would be the demise of many publishers and game developers out there).

[Nostradamoose]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

If you paid $20 expecting to get Toy Story and you instead got the Bollywood version of Pulp Fiction you didn't get what you paid for.

You may need to read up on the law.

In this case it is really not the same thing though