185 réponses à ce sujet

[ognick23]

thats the spirit, think of ways to take Biowares money you'll really get a Mass Effect fix that way lol some of you sound like spiteful ex girlfriends

[BlacJAC74]

Alerithon wrote...

ognick23 wrote...

if you think its illegal then put your money where your mouth is, have some balls and sue them and let us know how far you get... oh thats right you would only end up going broke yourself tryna pay for your lawyers to sue them over something thats not false advertisement because wether u like them or not there are 17 different endings even if they are minor

I don't need to sue them.  I got my refund from Amazon, and I actually don't feel that the 50+ ours I spent playing were wasted.

But other don't feel that way, and I think the courts are a fine way for them to seek their solution.

You are so not a lawyer.  Nice try though, or not as the case may be.

Claiming to be a lawyer, then advising people to go through the judicial system as to seek a resolution, without exploring other, less costly solutions, is both naive and ridiculous in the extreme.  We're talking about a £40/$60 game here, not 1000's of £'s or $'s

Never understood why people back themselves into a corner by claiming to be something they aren't .  It doesn't make you look good and only comes back to bite you on the ass when pressed.

Modifié par BlacJAC74, 06 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Alerithon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Paulus magintie wrote...

By falsely advertising the game to have and do certain things and then failed to follow up with their statements. That is illegal in the UK and quite frankly I don't think Bioware actually understands what they have actually done.

We see them here telling us "Its the ending we wanted and intended" even though we where told there would be 16 endings (Im sure that was BS anyway) but we where told no A,B,C choices and we got that.

Anyone in the UK could actually file a lawsuit against Bioware for this. So why on earth is Bioware sticking with their guns claim they are listening to the fanbase only to ignore them anyway?

They are in deep water already and some guy in the USA filed a complaint about bioware about their false advertising. Why is it only the fan base that can see this?

No. I'll go through it briefly.

Because those with a legal background realise that to claim false advertising is daft in this situation. And in this case difficult to prove, as what is determined to be a marketing puff, rather than a possible contractual stipulation is nebulous at best. In addition Misrepresentation doesn't appear to part of the issue. There is no Trademark infringement and several criteria are unfulfilled or so minor that they would be ignored in any action.

1) False statement has been made about the goods and or services?

So, does the game function, yes by and large. Do you have an ending, yes. Is it ME, yes. Does it continue the IP to its conclusion? yes. That's it unless it's patently clear that the developer lied about any of the above, the ending issue is irrelevant in any determination.

2+3) The statement is a misrepresentation, ie: it decieved or induced the person to purchase the product or service in question? Or it had the potential to decieve  the purchaser?

Did that single statement induce you to buy the game? Or were there other matters involved? If so you weren't induced to purchase based upon that statement which may or may not be false.

4) Did you suffer an injury or loss?

Well you might get a refund, if somehow one is able to convince the court of this. Although It would never get to court over such a paltry sum. Your costs wouldn't be covered. And punitive damages? pffft. never going to happen. It implied negligence and deliberate fraud. Which you have to prove as the claimant. And you would have to quantify the damage unless you want to go for unquantified damages claim, which you won't win.

False statements made:

Single Player only can access all ending game content: So far, Bioware's only official statement on the matter is that SP can get you the "best" ending.  There's unsubstantiated player statements and hearsay Bioware statements contesting this, but the more direct and clear statement Bioware could make would be to identify the total war assets available in game, the total possible to acquire in game, and declare whether Galactic Readiness can be increased or not using on Single Player.  Until they do that, there'e a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that SP only cannot exceed 4,000 EMS, and you need 4,000 and 5,000 EMS to access certain ending options.

The ending would not be a LOST ending, would not be an A, B, C, ending, and would not leave major  questions and plots unresolved:  This one is less clear, but certainly something that's strong enough to support a claim.  Yes, the endings were not A, B, or C...they were Red, Blue, or Green, and even people that liked the endings admit that mostly they do so because they either don't care about the plot holes and unanswered questions, or they filled in the answers on their own.  EIther way, the game fails to deliver as promised...by the product director only a month away from release.

Potential to deceive the customer?

I'll personally vouch that if Bioware had been truthful about how dependent the endings available were on play outside of SP, I would not have pre-ordered, and would likely have waited until the price dropped to $30 or $20.  I'm sure many others are in the same category as I am.  Likewise, if Hudson had said "we have 3 major choices at the end of the game, with your decisions throughout affecting little details about what you see within those three choices.  But at the end of ME3, everyone's pretty much in the same state," I'm sure many would have held off pre-ordering the game and waiting to see if they felt it was worth the effort.  

Instead, Bioware made statements that were deceptive regarding those two issues.  Again, specifically in my case, I would have held off buying the game when I did, and potentially never bought the game.

Loss or injury?

That depends.  In my case, I stopped playing after 50 hours, notified Amazon that I felt the game was sold using false advertising statements, and have already received my full refund.  However, I've also spent 50+ hours playing a game seeking to get what Bioware promised.  After every mission, I expected to see my GR ratings change.  I kept expecting to see a cut-scene update of the Reaper's invasion.  I kept expecting to see new missions pop up that, if I didn't do them, would lower my GR.  See, I avoided as much pre-game spoilers as I could.  Because I trusted that the project director was right...as a single player only customer, I didn't need to be worried about how my non-multiplayer status was impacting my game.  As I got closer and closer to the final mission, and as I couldn't but help reading about the growing complaints, I started to worry.  And I started to do more research.  And when I found out that despite all my single player efforts, my GR was never going to move, I felt betrayed.  I felt lied to.  Because that's exactly what happened. 

And Amazon agreed with me, as they have with, by all accounts, many others.

Would I seek the time value of the hours I spent playing the game?  Probably not, because I got my purchase price back, and to be honest, up until the point where I realized there was no point in my continuing I had enjoyed, for the most part, playing.  Would I be shocked if people sought to get the time value of their time spent playing, replaying, and re-replaying the game in an effort to prove Bioware's statements true?  Not at all.  And with 50,000+ people on Facebook alone banding together seeking not just a better product, but the product Bioware told us we'd have, I don't think it would take much to form a serious class action group.  Getting event 10% participation from that group would be 5,000 customers.  If each seeks only the value of 50 hours of play, let's say at $20 an hour, that's a total group award of $5 million.  Before considering any kind of punitive award for the intentional nature of Bioware's actions.

Do I think a suit like that would prevail at trial?  I think it has a good enough chance that it won't be hard to find a lawyer willing to take it.  And more importantly, I think the potential for that to occur, simply facing that kind of a suit at all, has Bioware very concerned right now. 

Billy has a strong knowledge of law too, I would not be so quick to dismiss his statement. With regard to Amazon however they would let you return a product for almost anything. Thats just how they are and have been for many years due to size and scale of business. I made a complaint about product bought from them and they told me to keep game and gave me refund. To them such things are tiny issues financially.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[Tazzmission]

Paulus magintie wrote...

By falsely advertising the game to have and do certain things and then failed to follow up with their statements. That is illegal in the UK and quite frankly I don't think Bioware actually understands what they have actually done.

We see them here telling us "Its the ending we wanted and intended" even though we where told there would be 16 endings (Im sure that was BS anyway) but we where told no A,B,C choices and we got that.

Anyone in the UK could actually file a lawsuit against Bioware for this. So why on earth is Bioware sticking with their guns claim they are listening to the fanbase only to ignore them anyway?

They are in deep water already and some guy in the USA filed a complaint about bioware about their false advertising. Why is it only the fan base that can see this?

lol good luck buddy its a open shut case at best

[orangesonic]

L00p wrote...

SeefPanda wrote...

this is getting ridiculous.

really now guys, a class action lawsuit because you didnt like the ending. just trade the damn thing in for another game that youll be equally dissatisfied with.

for the love of god, if this is what we've come to i wish there was a choice to allow earth to be harvested.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. There is nothing wrong with having ethical standards, there is nothing wrong with calling out bad business practices and saving the world, by doing other things, at the same time.

yeah, rrright... let`s stand up for a ending of a video-game... because I have nothing more important to do in my life... (sarcasm)

[Bonaven]

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway.”

Can't stop laughing.

[BlacJAC74]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Paulus magintie wrote...

By falsely advertising the game to have and do certain things and then failed to follow up with their statements. That is illegal in the UK and quite frankly I don't think Bioware actually understands what they have actually done.

We see them here telling us "Its the ending we wanted and intended" even though we where told there would be 16 endings (Im sure that was BS anyway) but we where told no A,B,C choices and we got that.

Anyone in the UK could actually file a lawsuit against Bioware for this. So why on earth is Bioware sticking with their guns claim they are listening to the fanbase only to ignore them anyway?

They are in deep water already and some guy in the USA filed a complaint about bioware about their false advertising. Why is it only the fan base that can see this?

No. I'll go through it briefly.

Because those with a legal background realise that to claim false advertising is daft in this situation. And in this case difficult to prove, as what is determined to be a marketing puff, rather than a possible contractual stipulation is nebulous at best. In addition Misrepresentation doesn't appear to part of the issue. There is no Trademark infringement and several criteria are unfulfilled or so minor that they would be ignored in any action.

1) False statement has been made about the goods and or services?

So, does the game function, yes by and large. Do you have an ending, yes. Is it ME, yes. Does it continue the IP to its conclusion? yes. That's it unless it's patently clear that the developer lied about any of the above, the ending issue is irrelevant in any determination.

2+3) The statement is a misrepresentation, ie: it decieved or induced the person to purchase the product or service in question? Or it had the potential to decieve  the purchaser?

Did that single statement induce you to buy the game? Or were there other matters involved? If so you weren't induced to purchase based upon that statement which may or may not be false.

4) Did you suffer an injury or loss?

Well you might get a refund, if somehow one is able to convince the court of this. Although It would never get to court over such a paltry sum. Your costs wouldn't be covered. And punitive damages? pffft. never going to happen. It implied negligence and deliberate fraud. Which you have to prove as the claimant. And you would have to quantify the damage unless you want to go for unquantified damages claim, which you won't win.

False statements made:

Single Player only can access all ending game content: So far, Bioware's only official statement on the matter is that SP can get you the "best" ending.  There's unsubstantiated player statements and hearsay Bioware statements contesting this, but the more direct and clear statement Bioware could make would be to identify the total war assets available in game, the total possible to acquire in game, and declare whether Galactic Readiness can be increased or not using on Single Player.  Until they do that, there'e a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that SP only cannot exceed 4,000 EMS, and you need 4,000 and 5,000 EMS to access certain ending options.

The ending would not be a LOST ending, would not be an A, B, C, ending, and would not leave major  questions and plots unresolved:  This one is less clear, but certainly something that's strong enough to support a claim.  Yes, the endings were not A, B, or C...they were Red, Blue, or Green, and even people that liked the endings admit that mostly they do so because they either don't care about the plot holes and unanswered questions, or they filled in the answers on their own.  EIther way, the game fails to deliver as promised...by the product director only a month away from release.

Potential to deceive the customer?

I'll personally vouch that if Bioware had been truthful about how dependent the endings available were on play outside of SP, I would not have pre-ordered, and would likely have waited until the price dropped to $30 or $20.  I'm sure many others are in the same category as I am.  Likewise, if Hudson had said "we have 3 major choices at the end of the game, with your decisions throughout affecting little details about what you see within those three choices.  But at the end of ME3, everyone's pretty much in the same state," I'm sure many would have held off pre-ordering the game and waiting to see if they felt it was worth the effort.  

Instead, Bioware made statements that were deceptive regarding those two issues.  Again, specifically in my case, I would have held off buying the game when I did, and potentially never bought the game.

Loss or injury?

That depends.  In my case, I stopped playing after 50 hours, notified Amazon that I felt the game was sold using false advertising statements, and have already received my full refund.  However, I've also spent 50+ hours playing a game seeking to get what Bioware promised.  After every mission, I expected to see my GR ratings change.  I kept expecting to see a cut-scene update of the Reaper's invasion.  I kept expecting to see new missions pop up that, if I didn't do them, would lower my GR.  See, I avoided as much pre-game spoilers as I could.  Because I trusted that the project director was right...as a single player only customer, I didn't need to be worried about how my non-multiplayer status was impacting my game.  As I got closer and closer to the final mission, and as I couldn't but help reading about the growing complaints, I started to worry.  And I started to do more research.  And when I found out that despite all my single player efforts, my GR was never going to move, I felt betrayed.  I felt lied to.  Because that's exactly what happened. 

And Amazon agreed with me, as they have with, by all accounts, many others.

Would I seek the time value of the hours I spent playing the game?  Probably not, because I got my purchase price back, and to be honest, up until the point where I realized there was no point in my continuing I had enjoyed, for the most part, playing.  Would I be shocked if people sought to get the time value of their time spent playing, replaying, and re-replaying the game in an effort to prove Bioware's statements true?  Not at all.  And with 50,000+ people on Facebook alone banding together seeking not just a better product, but the product Bioware told us we'd have, I don't think it would take much to form a serious class action group.  Getting event 10% participation from that group would be 5,000 customers.  If each seeks only the value of 50 hours of play, let's say at $20 an hour, that's a total group award of $5 million.  Before considering any kind of punitive award for the intentional nature of Bioware's actions.

Do I think a suit like that would prevail at trial?  I think it has a good enough chance that it won't be hard to find a lawyer willing to take it.  And more importantly, I think the potential for that to occur, simply facing that kind of a suit at all, has Bioware very concerned right now. 

Billy has a strong knowledge of law, I would not be so quick to dismiss his statement.

B ... But Alerithon is claiming to be a lawyer too.  How dare you miss that little gem.  I'm still waiting on him responding to me so s/he can answer a few of my questions.

If he's a lawyer, I'm a brain surgeon.  Which I'm not!

No doubt s/he is now scouring the net to come up with a good back story and to drop a few legal terms into the conversation.

Modifié par BlacJAC74, 06 avril 2012 - 03:41 .

[orangesonic]

it was cool talking about the ending and Mass Effect... trying to make Bioware listen to some of our ideas... but now it`s just ridiculous...

[Tazzmission]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Paulus magintie wrote...

By falsely advertising the game to have and do certain things and then failed to follow up with their statements. That is illegal in the UK and quite frankly I don't think Bioware actually understands what they have actually done.

We see them here telling us "Its the ending we wanted and intended" even though we where told there would be 16 endings (Im sure that was BS anyway) but we where told no A,B,C choices and we got that.

Anyone in the UK could actually file a lawsuit against Bioware for this. So why on earth is Bioware sticking with their guns claim they are listening to the fanbase only to ignore them anyway?

They are in deep water already and some guy in the USA filed a complaint about bioware about their false advertising. Why is it only the fan base that can see this?

No. I'll go through it briefly.

Because those with a legal background realise that to claim false advertising is daft in this situation. And in this case difficult to prove, as what is determined to be a marketing puff, rather than a possible contractual stipulation is nebulous at best. In addition Misrepresentation doesn't appear to part of the issue. There is no Trademark infringement and several criteria are unfulfilled or so minor that they would be ignored in any action.

1) False statement has been made about the goods and or services?

So, does the game function, yes by and large. Do you have an ending, yes. Is it ME, yes. Does it continue the IP to its conclusion? yes. That's it unless it's patently clear that the developer lied about any of the above, the ending issue is irrelevant in any determination.

2+3) The statement is a misrepresentation, ie: it decieved or induced the person to purchase the product or service in question? Or it had the potential to decieve  the purchaser?

Did that single statement induce you to buy the game? Or were there other matters involved? If so you weren't induced to purchase based upon that statement which may or may not be false.

4) Did you suffer an injury or loss?

Well you might get a refund, if somehow one is able to convince the court of this. Although It would never get to court over such a paltry sum. Your costs wouldn't be covered. And punitive damages? pffft. never going to happen. It implied negligence and deliberate fraud. Which you have to prove as the claimant. And you would have to quantify the damage unless you want to go for unquantified damages claim, which you won't win.

False statements made:

Single Player only can access all ending game content: So far, Bioware's only official statement on the matter is that SP can get you the "best" ending.  There's unsubstantiated player statements and hearsay Bioware statements contesting this, but the more direct and clear statement Bioware could make would be to identify the total war assets available in game, the total possible to acquire in game, and declare whether Galactic Readiness can be increased or not using on Single Player.  Until they do that, there'e a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that SP only cannot exceed 4,000 EMS, and you need 4,000 and 5,000 EMS to access certain ending options.

The ending would not be a LOST ending, would not be an A, B, C, ending, and would not leave major  questions and plots unresolved:  This one is less clear, but certainly something that's strong enough to support a claim.  Yes, the endings were not A, B, or C...they were Red, Blue, or Green, and even people that liked the endings admit that mostly they do so because they either don't care about the plot holes and unanswered questions, or they filled in the answers on their own.  EIther way, the game fails to deliver as promised...by the product director only a month away from release.

Potential to deceive the customer?

I'll personally vouch that if Bioware had been truthful about how dependent the endings available were on play outside of SP, I would not have pre-ordered, and would likely have waited until the price dropped to $30 or $20.  I'm sure many others are in the same category as I am.  Likewise, if Hudson had said "we have 3 major choices at the end of the game, with your decisions throughout affecting little details about what you see within those three choices.  But at the end of ME3, everyone's pretty much in the same state," I'm sure many would have held off pre-ordering the game and waiting to see if they felt it was worth the effort.  

Instead, Bioware made statements that were deceptive regarding those two issues.  Again, specifically in my case, I would have held off buying the game when I did, and potentially never bought the game.

Loss or injury?

That depends.  In my case, I stopped playing after 50 hours, notified Amazon that I felt the game was sold using false advertising statements, and have already received my full refund.  However, I've also spent 50+ hours playing a game seeking to get what Bioware promised.  After every mission, I expected to see my GR ratings change.  I kept expecting to see a cut-scene update of the Reaper's invasion.  I kept expecting to see new missions pop up that, if I didn't do them, would lower my GR.  See, I avoided as much pre-game spoilers as I could.  Because I trusted that the project director was right...as a single player only customer, I didn't need to be worried about how my non-multiplayer status was impacting my game.  As I got closer and closer to the final mission, and as I couldn't but help reading about the growing complaints, I started to worry.  And I started to do more research.  And when I found out that despite all my single player efforts, my GR was never going to move, I felt betrayed.  I felt lied to.  Because that's exactly what happened. 

And Amazon agreed with me, as they have with, by all accounts, many others.

Would I seek the time value of the hours I spent playing the game?  Probably not, because I got my purchase price back, and to be honest, up until the point where I realized there was no point in my continuing I had enjoyed, for the most part, playing.  Would I be shocked if people sought to get the time value of their time spent playing, replaying, and re-replaying the game in an effort to prove Bioware's statements true?  Not at all.  And with 50,000+ people on Facebook alone banding together seeking not just a better product, but the product Bioware told us we'd have, I don't think it would take much to form a serious class action group.  Getting event 10% participation from that group would be 5,000 customers.  If each seeks only the value of 50 hours of play, let's say at $20 an hour, that's a total group award of $5 million.  Before considering any kind of punitive award for the intentional nature of Bioware's actions.

Do I think a suit like that would prevail at trial?  I think it has a good enough chance that it won't be hard to find a lawyer willing to take it.  And more importantly, I think the potential for that to occur, simply facing that kind of a suit at all, has Bioware very concerned right now. 

Billy has a strong knowledge of law, I would not be so quick to dismiss his statement.

B ... But Alerithon is claiming to be a lawyer too.  How dare you miss that little gem.  I'm still waiting on him responding to me so s/he can answer a few of my questions.

If he's a lawyer, I'm a brain surgeon.  Which I'm not!

alot of people claim to be something lately and i have no issue calling bs on it

one poster sated he had like 3 games published and still argued what ops ranting about and thats how i knew the guy was full of crap

i even stated to him no you never had 3 games published


are people this dense about the ending they actually want to try and prosicute bioware?

[Massefeckt]

Iron Spetsnaz wrote...

Actually I thnik it would only work for things that can cause harm to people if some things are not made properly and they are advertised as being safe, and also UK trading standards will hardly give a damn about a video game as they have much more important things to do, although with the UK government as it is I wouldn't be too suprised if a lawsuit did go through and the person who filed it won.

Trading standards would take this up if anyone comlained. You'd get a refund and Bioware would be fined or warned about future conduct. The fine would be less than the money Bioware has down the back of it's sofa though.

Trading standards are good for getting your money back if people refuse or to get a business to back up it's promises. I've used them when a hotel tried to back out of giving me a room at the advertised rate, I got the room, an apology and the company had to change their website to be more honest about their pricing.

[Cadence of the Planes]

KyuzoS7 wrote...

ok ok you take a piece of brown poo and paint it red, green, blue does it change the fact that it's still poo?

Good point, and speaking of colors - remember that tears will remain colorless no matter how hard you cry.

Modifié par Cadence of the Planes, 06 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[billy the squid]

Alerithon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Paulus magintie wrote...

By falsely advertising the game to have and do certain things and then failed to follow up with their statements. That is illegal in the UK and quite frankly I don't think Bioware actually understands what they have actually done.

We see them here telling us "Its the ending we wanted and intended" even though we where told there would be 16 endings (Im sure that was BS anyway) but we where told no A,B,C choices and we got that.

Anyone in the UK could actually file a lawsuit against Bioware for this. So why on earth is Bioware sticking with their guns claim they are listening to the fanbase only to ignore them anyway?

They are in deep water already and some guy in the USA filed a complaint about bioware about their false advertising. Why is it only the fan base that can see this?

No. I'll go through it briefly.

Because those with a legal background realise that to claim false advertising is daft in this situation. And in this case difficult to prove, as what is determined to be a marketing puff, rather than a possible contractual stipulation is nebulous at best. In addition Misrepresentation doesn't appear to part of the issue. There is no Trademark infringement and several criteria are unfulfilled or so minor that they would be ignored in any action.

1) False statement has been made about the goods and or services?

So, does the game function, yes by and large. Do you have an ending, yes. Is it ME, yes. Does it continue the IP to its conclusion? yes. That's it unless it's patently clear that the developer lied about any of the above, the ending issue is irrelevant in any determination.

2+3) The statement is a misrepresentation, ie: it decieved or induced the person to purchase the product or service in question? Or it had the potential to decieve  the purchaser?

Did that single statement induce you to buy the game? Or were there other matters involved? If so you weren't induced to purchase based upon that statement which may or may not be false.

4) Did you suffer an injury or loss?

Well you might get a refund, if somehow one is able to convince the court of this. Although It would never get to court over such a paltry sum. Your costs wouldn't be covered. And punitive damages? pffft. never going to happen. It implied negligence and deliberate fraud. Which you have to prove as the claimant. And you would have to quantify the damage unless you want to go for unquantified damages claim, which you won't win.

False statements made:

Single Player only can access all ending game content: So far, Bioware's only official statement on the matter is that SP can get you the "best" ending.  There's unsubstantiated player statements and hearsay Bioware statements contesting this, but the more direct and clear statement Bioware could make would be to identify the total war assets available in game, the total possible to acquire in game, and declare whether Galactic Readiness can be increased or not using on Single Player.  Until they do that, there'e a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that SP only cannot exceed 4,000 EMS, and you need 4,000 and 5,000 EMS to access certain ending options.


The ending would not be a LOST ending, would not be an A, B, C, ending, and would not leave major  questions and plots unresolved:  This one is less clear, but certainly something that's strong enough to support a claim.  Yes, the endings were not A, B, or C...they were Red, Blue, or Green, and even people that liked the endings admit that mostly they do so because they either don't care about the plot holes and unanswered questions, or they filled in the answers on their own.  EIther way, the game fails to deliver as promised...by the product director only a month away from release.

billy the squid wrote...

Which is irrelevant.

The product still remains a ME IP and functions as a good which it was described as. ie. a game. That is the extent to which the law applies, sale of goods and sale of goods and services Acts. Does it function as intended ie: does it work. The above is irrelevant. You cannot base a claim of false advertising and misrepresentation on a such a narrow point and expect a degree of success.

Prove that the "promise" was part of the contractual clause or a marketing puff, which removes the developer's liability. If you can't then your point is moot.

Potential to deceive the customer?

I'll personally vouch that if Bioware had been truthful about how dependent the endings available were on play outside of SP, I would not have pre-ordered, and would likely have waited until the price dropped to $30 or $20.  I'm sure many others are in the same category as I am.  Likewise, if Hudson had said "we have 3 major choices at the end of the game, with your decisions throughout affecting little details about what you see within those three choices.  But at the end of ME3, everyone's pretty much in the same state," I'm sure many would have held off pre-ordering the game and waiting to see if they felt it was worth the effort.  

Instead, Bioware made statements that were deceptive regarding those two issues.  Again, specifically in my case, I would have held off buying the game when I did, and potentially never bought the game.

billy the squid wrote...

Again, you have to prove that it is misrepresentation and that you were induced to purchase the product. I already explained the criteria for misrepresentation. Your argument is predicated on 2 minor points. It does not have enough weight to make a case paticularly as on the broader points you knew exactly what to expect, after playing the previous 2 installments. And the game delivered to a certain extent on the rest of the points as you stated you enjoyed it.

And as you have already stated you would have bought it, but waited until the price dropped, so it didn't induce you to buy it, you just would have bought it later. That undermines the entire point of misrepresentation, and your case.

Loss or injury?

That depends.  In my case, I stopped playing after 50 hours, notified Amazon that I felt the game was sold using false advertising statements, and have already received my full refund.  However, I've also spent 50+ hours playing a game seeking to get what Bioware promised.  After every mission, I expected to see my GR ratings change.  I kept expecting to see a cut-scene update of the Reaper's invasion.  I kept expecting to see new missions pop up that, if I didn't do them, would lower my GR.  See, I avoided as much pre-game spoilers as I could.  Because I trusted that the project director was right...as a single player only customer, I didn't need to be worried about how my non-multiplayer status was impacting my game.  As I got closer and closer to the final mission, and as I couldn't but help reading about the growing complaints, I started to worry.  And I started to do more research.  And when I found out that despite all my single player efforts, my GR was never going to move, I felt betrayed.  I felt lied to.  Because that's exactly what happened. 

And Amazon agreed with me, as they have with, by all accounts, many others.

Would I seek the time value of the hours I spent playing the game?  Probably not, because I got my purchase price back, and to be honest, up until the point where I realized there was no point in my continuing I had enjoyed, for the most part, playing.  Would I be shocked if people sought to get the time value of their time spent playing, replaying, and re-replaying the game in an effort to prove Bioware's statements true?  Not at all.  And with 50,000+ people on Facebook alone banding together seeking not just a better product, but the product Bioware told us we'd have, I don't think it would take much to form a serious class action group.  Getting event 10% participation from that group would be 5,000 customers.  If each seeks only the value of 50 hours of play, let's say at $20 an hour, that's a total group award of $5 million.  Before considering any kind of punitive award for the intentional nature of Bioware's actions.

Do I think a suit like that would prevail at trial?  I think it has a good enough chance that it won't be hard to find a lawyer willing to take it.  And more importantly, I think the potential for that to occur, simply facing that kind of a suit at all, has Bioware very concerned right now. 

And how would you quantify that loss? You are going for an unquantifiable damages claim. Unless you have some serious evidence that the time played was wasted, and how that incurred any loss to you or financial loss. You're not going to get far.

Let alone, you have to deal with Origin's arbitration clause, no class action law suit unless there is breach of contract.

As to the refund. You have the statutory right to return the Item in question if it does not meet your expectations, within 2 weeks, free of charge. So Amazon is obliged to refund your purchase by law. Doesn't mean that an actual case of misrepresentation will have any baring or chance of success.

Modifié par billy the squid, 06 avril 2012 - 03:54 .

[Moondoggie]

They did not false advertise anything. Production interviews are not advertising. Production is always subject to change so if you expect everything they say in those interviews to be gospel then you are misinformed.

Advertising constitutes any advertisement and commercials for the game such as trailers. Which is why they have to say what is and is not in game footage on them to avoid being called out on false advertising.

[Ice-Whiz]

Before any of you sue, slow down a little, and put yourselves in Bioware's situation. Not because of empathy, but for one simple reason: if someone stated false advertisement, how would you defend yourself? If you can find proper arguements against each of your own points, you can bet that any mediocre lawyer can do the same.
And the lawyers of EA and Bioware? Probably more than one and probably a bit more expensive than the average attorney. Fact is, a lot of the points you argue can be defended by a very simple statement: "They are subjective". When they say 16 different endings, as long as the endings are not directly identical, it is subjective what people expect to be "different".
With the Single player issue, there is an app that only needs one person to fill up the Galaxy readiness, and technically it is possible for them to hide behind it as it does not require the gamer to use multiplayer.
At any rate, if you keep sueing whenever you are dissatisfied with a product instead of just getting your money back, well, you might end up driving gaming companies to the point where they won't tell about the future installment of a series or the gameplay, the storyline, anything, really, out of fear, that if the public does not agree with their statements they'll be sued. Best case scenario: they'll just have a little sign everytime one of them opens their mouth which says: "Any statements made regarding the product are subject to change; the company is not liable for difference in personal experience", or some such. leaving the gamers with the sense that nothing the company says can be taken seriously, in fact they can say whatever they want because of the little sign.

[CARL_DF90]

The stupity of Bioware/EA is really starting to grate my teeth. Oy. *head hurts. takes advil.*

[gmboy902]

Kill the Illusive Man/Let the Illusive Man kill Anderson/Illusive Man blows his head off = 3
Destroy, Control, Synthesis = 3
Cortez Dies/Lives = 2

3 * 3 * 2 = 18 endings.

Whathuh? That seems bogus.

Too bad. BioWare can define "the ending" as pretty much anything past the Cerberus Base mission. Even before. There is no law that states where "the ending" occurs in a story. Thus, such a lawsuit (while I do believe BioWare is guilty of false advertising) would not hold up in any court of law I know of.

[Ice-Whiz]

I am not saying that you don't have the right to be dissatisfied with the product, some tend to turn whateve is said into that, just think for a bit: you are disappointed and angry, but if you see it logically, you know that they can find loopholes in everything they stated earlier and they will have enough lawyers to exploit each and every one of them.
The loser pays it all, and at best you can hope for a full refund with a VERY minor addition in terms of damage repairs, as it is not something that can physically disrupt your daily routine, nor cause any bodily harm.
Honestly if you were the judge or the person called to jury duty, would you really want to listen to this lawsuit? Spend a day on hearing dissatisfied customers' claims against a huge corporation?

[Alerithon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Billy has a strong knowledge of law too, I would not be so quick to dismiss his statement. With regard to Amazon however they would let you return a product for almost anything. Thats just how they are and have been for many years due to size and scale of business. I made a complaint about product bought from them and they told me to keep game and gave me refund. To them such things are tiny issues financially.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm countering it.  To be honest, he has valid points.  I feel mine are just as valid.  Which is why cases are decided out of court more times than not, because neither party really wants to trust a jury or judge to make the correct ruling.  And in many cases, what's legally correct is not clear at all.

However, I do challenge Billy's use of the idea that advertising creates a contract, implied or otherwise.  There's a reason why False Advertising arose...because contract law did not apply.  There's no meeting of the minds, no equal footing, no negotiation.  It fails nearly every test in regards to making a contractual offer.

Advertising is what it is....and in cases where advertising creates a false impression in the consumer, the producer runs the risk of engaging in false advertising.  Whether it occurs in post cards, commercials, or, yes, prouction interviews, is irrelevant.  The statement made, the force it's made with, who made the statement...these are all things that would be considered. 

In this case, Bioware's produciton director...the head of the project...made statements within a month of street release date about what the product would contain.  Those claims appear to be false...the ending does not answer all the big questions, and you can't access all the endings using just single-player. 

A court case would need to examine what the "big questions" are in the ME series.  This may be a subjective thing.  The total amount of War Assets should be factual...Bioware should be able to produce a number that shows total war assets in the game, which also indicates whether and how many of those War Assets are mutually exculsive.  If that final number is less than 10,000, then the statement that you only need single player play to access all endings is false. 

and ....lol...I'm no lawyer.  My law degree and yearly license fee says otherwise.  Although I already acknowledged that there'd be doubters.  Would it help if I posted an image of my degree?  How would anyone know it was actually mine?  Besides, mine's still rolled in the tube it arrived in.  And for some, there's no amount of proof I can offer that's going to sway them.

[Gatt9]

@Billy the Squid (Very interested in engaging you on this topic!)

The statements made prior to release,  even in the days just before release,  were the only information upon which a consumer could base a purchasing decision.  The box itself did not contradict the statements made by the Developers.  So would those statements not become a issue due to the fact that they can,  and likely did,  influence purchasing decisions?  Especially considering that there's no way for the purchaser to determine those statements were false prior to release.

Further,  the issue of SP being able to achieve the best ending.  Stickied to the board even on the day of release,  but technically impossible.  The game has been datamined and determined to be impossible to achieve the best ending.  The best ending being defined as the ending requiring the most war assets by virtue of Bioware's voluntarilly implemented ranking system where increasing points always equals better endings,  with the highest rank unachievable without MP.

As far as Origin goes,  I question if it's a legally binding clause.  We've had this discussion before,  who clicked "I agree"?  Does the burden of proof not lie with EA to demonstrate that the person who agreed is also the person who paid for the game?  Can I not say my 3 year old daughter clicked it when I wasn't looking?  Since it's only present on installation,  can I not claim ignorance?  (Disclosure:  I bought the Xbox version just to make sure I didn't have to agree to the clause,  so I'm devil's advocate here.)

[Anakronist]

Spending 30hours+ on a game and claiming you didn't get value for your money, a product that cost 50$ is ridiculous. You didn't like the ending, can't cater to everyone, suck it up and vote with your wallet next time they release a game.

[Cadence of the Planes]

Anakronist wrote...

Spending 30hours+ on a game and claiming you didn't get value for your money, a product that cost 50$ is ridiculous. You didn't like the ending, can't cater to everyone, suck it up and vote with your wallet next time they release a game.

[vI Demon Iv]

GizmoKodiak wrote...

Actually... Its all legit. I don't think in any of their "official" posters, commercials, or marketing do they actually state things they didn't deliver. I'm not talking interviews or what developers have said. I'm talking actual marketing, like tv commercials and what is on the box. If someone can find anything to the contrary, then they could claim false advertising. Otherwise it's just heresay.

"Actual marketing"?  Anything a dev or company person says in the press, on a site, etc... is advertising.
I'm not going any further with this discussion because EA WILL ban you from their games if they feel any threat of a lawsuit or class action suit.  Organize that stuff on a non-EA site.

[Alerithon]

billy the squid wrote...
And how would you quantify that loss? You are going for an unquantifiable damages claim. Unless you have some serious evidence that the time played was wasted, and how that incurred any loss to you or financial loss. You're not going to get far.

Let alone, you have to deal with Origin's arbitration clause, no class action law suit unless there is breach of contract.

As to the refund. You have the statutory right to return the Item in question if it does not meet your expectations, within 2 weeks, free of charge. So Amazon is obliged to refund your purchase by law. Doesn't mean that an actual case of misrepresentation will have any baring or chance of success.

I already posted somewhere how I'd go about quantifying damages.  If a customer would never have purchased the game in the first place knowing that it was open ended, or that play outside the SP game was necessary for some endings, then every hour spent playing is compensible.  What that hourly rate is would be up for debate.  Minimum wage?  What if the customer is a $150/hour specialist?  Has family?  What's the value of an hour that could have been spent with your kids, but instead was spent playing ME3 seeking a way to raise Galactic Readiness because Bioware made you believe that you could to that just playing single player?

I posted $20 an hour...it could be more, it could be less. 

LoL Origin's Arbitration Clause.  That's about as binding as the statement on the back of you concert ticket that says the venue or act is not responsible for damages you incure at the concert.  I and no consumer has any kind of binding contract with Bioware.  If I can't sue them for breach of contract because they didn't deliver the product they promised, then they can't force me into arbitration just because they say so. 

Not sure where you're getting the statutory right to return for refund within 2 weeks.  Many states do adopt commercial codes, but in many instances they are guidelines.  Returns and refunds are voluntary in most cases.  The big exceptions are literally big...large purchases exceeding a certain amount...usually in the thousands of $....excluding land.  There's an FTC rule about $25+ purchases that has a lot of conditions that need to be met, but I don't think that applies here. 

[billy the squid]

Alerithon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Billy has a strong knowledge of law too, I would not be so quick to dismiss his statement. With regard to Amazon however they would let you return a product for almost anything. Thats just how they are and have been for many years due to size and scale of business. I made a complaint about product bought from them and they told me to keep game and gave me refund. To them such things are tiny issues financially.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm countering it.  To be honest, he has valid points.  I feel mine are just as valid.  Which is why cases are decided out of court more times than not, because neither party really wants to trust a jury or judge to make the correct ruling.  And in many cases, what's legally correct is not clear at all.

However, I do challenge Billy's use of the idea that advertising creates a contract, implied or otherwise.  There's a reason why False Advertising arose...because contract law did not apply.  There's no meeting of the minds, no equal footing, no negotiation.  It fails nearly every test in regards to making a contractual offer.

Advertising is what it is....and in cases where advertising creates a false impression in the consumer, the producer runs the risk of engaging in false advertising.  Whether it occurs in post cards, commercials, or, yes, prouction interviews, is irrelevant.  The statement made, the force it's made with, who made the statement...these are all things that would be considered. 

In this case, Bioware's produciton director...the head of the project...made statements within a month of street release date about what the product would contain.  Those claims appear to be false...the ending does not answer all the big questions, and you can't access all the endings using just single-player. 

A court case would need to examine what the "big questions" are in the ME series.  This may be a subjective thing.  The total amount of War Assets should be factual...Bioware should be able to produce a number that shows total war assets in the game, which also indicates whether and how many of those War Assets are mutually exculsive.  If that final number is less than 10,000, then the statement that you only need single player play to access all endings is false. 

and ....lol...I'm no lawyer.  My law degree and yearly license fee says otherwise.  Although I already acknowledged that there'd be doubters.  Would it help if I posted an image of my degree?  How would anyone know it was actually mine?  Besides, mine's still rolled in the tube it arrived in.  And for some, there's no amount of proof I can offer that's going to sway them.

I didn't say that advertising created an explicit or implied contract verbally or otherwise. The case of the carbollic smoke ball, laid down the case basis for what constitutes a contract and what constitutes an advertising puff or marketing.

If the statement is taken to be of contractual weight then it will be an issue of breach of contract and as such theSale of Goods Act will apply to determine whether the product is fit for purchase. At this point I think it is well established that all marketing and advertising is a "puff" as such it is a point based on misrepresentation.

Thus it will be based upon the point of whether one was induced by the statements to purchase and to what degree are they a misrepresentation. ie: is the product so different from what was advertised that it bare's no relation the product at all. Apart from the issue of the endings which remains vague as to whether they don't constitute a different ending. Or the War asset points. What other areas whould you attempt to bring a claim for misrepresentation under?

[RyuujinZERO]

 Can you guys just sit down two seconds and think how this would play out?

Prosecution: My client accuses Bioware Corperation of promising 16 endings to Mass Effect 3 when in fact there were only 3 to 7 endings, each lasting approximatly 3 minutes each out of a game lasting over 30 hours.
Judge: ...
Jury: ...
Judge: ...security? - How did this man get into this court room?



It'd be incredible difficult to prove that the absence of an unknown, absent, 3 minute long ending held signficiant monetary value to the consumer and was the sole attraction of purchasing a game that lasts over 30 hours. It's sort've like buying a 4 course meal then complaining the chocolate gatuex had run out unexpectedly by the time you go to dessert (And you arn't happy with the other options)

Worst case scenario is Bioware gets a trivial slap on the wrist and you then have to pay your lawyer a fortune

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 06 avril 2012 - 04:34 .