185 réponses à ce sujet

[Alerithon]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

 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

I don't think you've understood a word I've posted

[Rynocerous]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

 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

I'd be interested if anyone can find ANY case ever filed against any game producer that didn't end up with a 15 minute dismissal or arbitration. While it wouldn't be as hilarious as stated above, Billy earler in the thread is correct, the requirements to demonstrate loss are simply not going to line up with sadi issues.

That being said, large scale litigation, while expensive for plaintiffs, would also be expensive and horrifically bad PR for Bioware. 

[arne1234]

has it been stated that this has actually allready happenend and that fans have filed complaints with the federale trade commision and the better business bureau.
(date of complaint 19 march)

Source:http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-19-mass-effect-3-publisher-hit-with-ftc-complaints-over-game-ending
link of interests:FTC:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
link of intrest BBB http://en.wikipedia....Business_Bureau

[Alerithon]

billy the squid wrote...
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?

You did raise the issue on contracts, but I see now that it was more of a contrast statement rather than a comparrison. 

In my opinion, as a gamer and a lawyer, a product that would not require outside play to access critical ending scenes and a product that ties key ending scenes into outside single player play are, in fact, two different products.  As are one where the ending resolves all major plot issues, and one that leaves major plot issue up for speculation.

Aside from those two points?  I don't know of any that I find to be valid claims.  Many want a refund because they were unhappy with the ending...tough for them.  And honestly, I spent a lot of time thinking about why I wanted my refund.  I admit, I hate the endings, all of them.  But if that's all it was, if all I had to hold on to was that I didn't like the direction they went it, I'd still have the game sitting on my shelf.

Here's something else to consider:  In February, Casey Hudson was saying how there would be no LOST ending, how they were able to craft very different endings because they were not going to need to have all the characters in place for a sequel.  Then it comes out that Bioware may have intentionally created an ending that was designed to generate "lots of speculation."  A product that answer questions, and one that generates speculation, appear to be mutually exclisive to me. 

[billy the squid]

Alerithon wrote...

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. 

So if at £150 an hour, then was work time lost? Or was it free time, are you considering making an application for unquantified damages based upon the loss of free time but using the quantum for working time to calculate the damages? Whilst I could have spent the time with my children, but I spent it instead on a game? Frivolous lawsuit springs to mind.

Binding arbitration does not take place for breach of contract. Breach of contract will either render the EULA void or rules of severance apply which are dicey at best. You established the contract via purchase of the item.  Contracts do not require negotiation. See contracts of adhesion. And there are exclusion clauses which are available, to prevent liability for loss and personal injury.

You can't sue them for breach of contract initially. You have to prove misrepresentation, which will be done at the level of arbitration. If that is accepted then remedies for breach of contract apply as you formed the contract based upon the premise in the statement. You cannot sue for breach of contract until you have proved misrepresentation and what damage did you suffer for the breach? quantifiable £40 whilst unquantifiable as I explained is going to be vague and dodgy. This will be done at the arbitration stage after you may proceed to a full court action, but considering you won/lost at arbitration what point would you have to make for a legal case.

As to the returns issue. In Europe. you are required to accept returns for faulty or unsatisfactory items which are not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods Act, within 2 weeks. Some stores give more.

Modifié par billy the squid, 06 avril 2012 - 04:56 .

[rachellouise]

lol. Some lawyers should be sued, if that's where you're getting your legal advice

[BlacJAC74]

billy the squid wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

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. 

So if at £150 an hour, then was work time lost? Or was it free time, are you considering making an application for unquantified damages based upon the loss of free time but using the quantum for working time to calculate the damages? Whilst I could have spent the time with my children, but I spent it instead on a game? Frivolous lawsuit springs to mind.

Binding arbitration does not take place for breach of contract. Breach of contract will either render the EULA void or rules of severance apply which are dicey at best. You established the contract via purchase of the item.  Contracts do not require negotiation. See contracts of adhesion. And there are exclusion clauses which are available, to prevent liability for loss and personal injury.

You can't sue them for breach of contract initially. You have to prove misrepresentation, which will be done at the level of arbitration. If that is accepted then remedies for breach of contract apply as you formed the contract based upon the premise in the statement. You cannot sue for breach of contract until you have proved misrepresentation and what damage did you suffer for the breach? quantifiable £40 whilst unquantifiable as I explained is going to be vague and dodgy. This will be done at the arbitration stage after you may proceed to a full court action, but considering you won/lost at arbitration what point would you have to make for a legal case.

As to the returns issue. In Europe. you are required to accept returns for faulty or unsatisfactory items which are not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods Act, within 2 weeks. Some stores give more.

In the UK we have 28 days to return faulty, not as described and not fit for purpose items.  The 'sale of goods act' offers consumers a realistic time frame.  It's in no way or form restricted to just 28 days.

I dunno how it works elsewhere, but store warranties, manufacturers warranties and store polices aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Modifié par BlacJAC74, 06 avril 2012 - 05:09 .

[Kinkaku]

Then w/e the hell Peter Molyneux did was 1k times worse when it came to his games...I asked...NAY.. DEMANDED THOSE DYNAMICALLY GROWING TREES

[billy the squid]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

As to the returns issue. In Europe. you are required to accept returns for faulty or unsatisfactory items which are not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods Act, within 2 weeks. Some stores give more.

In the UK we have 28 days to return faulty, not as described and not fit for purpose items.  Then you have the 'sale of goods act' which offers consumers even more protection for a greater period of time.  

I dunno how it works elsewhere, but store warranties, manufacturers warranties and store polices aren't worth the paper they are written on.

It's different depending on the different countries in The EU and the Eurozone. The UK it is 28 days. The Sale of Goods Act stipulations are based upon whether the item is fit for purpose or a point to that effect. i don't have inclination to dig out the statute book and qoute the sections at the moment.

Store warranties apply to the minimum standard of the Sale of Goods Act, regarding refunds warranties etc. Although they are poorly worded as to what rights you actually have, The Sale of Goods Act is far clearer and worth a read.

Modifié par billy the squid, 06 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Kinkaku]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Kinkaku wrote...

Then w/e the hell Peter Molyneux did was 1k times worse when it came to his games...I asked...NAY.. DEMANDED THOSE DYNAMICALLY GROWING TREES

You can't go to court for something that a dev or another said when the product is not release as it is subject to change. You know the small text they write on everything even the demo. 

I'm still sad over it...DON'T RUB IT IN!!! *cries*

[T-Bone101]

well do something about it

[Cutlass Jack]

demersel wrote...

Ok, so make them refund the money. I do want my money back. And my time. My time is worth a lot, and i spent like 70 hours of it.

Yes it was horribly criminal the way they kept you busy for 70 hours before you decided you wanted your money back. All games should be so criminal.

Meanwhile, I'll be suing games that advertise 'fun for the whole family!' Because Grandma did not enjoy them.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 06 avril 2012 - 05:24 .

[Alerithon]

So if at £150 an hour, then was work time lost? Or was it free time, are you considering making an application for unquantified damages based upon the loss of free time but using the quantum for working time to calculate the damages? Whilst I could have spent the time with my children, but I spent it instead on a game? Frivolous lawsuit springs to mind.

Binding arbitration does not take place for breach of contract. Breach of contract will either render the EULA void or rules of severance apply which are dicey at best. You established the contract via purchase of the item.  Contracts do not require negotiation. See contracts of adhesion. And there are exclusion clauses which are available, to prevent liability for loss and personal injury.

You can't sue them for breach of contract initially. You have to prove misrepresentation, which will be done at the level of arbitration. If that is accepted then remedies for breach of contract apply as you formed the contract based upon the premise in the statement. You cannot sue for breach of contract until you have proved misrepresentation and what damage did you suffer for the breach? quantifiable £40 whilst unquantifiable as I explained is going to be vague and dodgy. This will be done at the arbitration stage after you may proceed to a full court action, but considering you won/lost at arbitration what point would you have to make for a legal case.

As to the returns issue. In Europe. you are required to accept returns for faulty or unsatisfactory items which are not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods Act, within 2 weeks. Some stores give more.

Billy, I respect your opinon.  You're making well-stated points. But am I wrong in interpreting that you're view is based on European law?  I'm in the US, and some of the things you state don't stike me as accurate in terms of how to approach things here.

Also, I'm a 360 player...I don't recal hitting "OK" on any EULA agreement at all for ME3.  Maybe I did while signing up for the Origin account, but I'd be hard pressed to say that agreeing to arbitration for an on-line account applies to everything I buy from Bioware until the end of time.

And the US is (in)famous for allowing claims that other legal systems decry as frivolous.  We're known for it!  Courts here actually do consider things like how valuable an hour of time spent with your kids is...and also that, yes, somone's professional salary is a decent ruler to determine how much their time is worth.  In economics it's called Opportunity Cost, and many courts will accept evidence on that when considering the value of time lost.

[Alerithon]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

demersel wrote...

Ok, so make them refund the money. I do want my money back. And my time. My time is worth a lot, and i spent like 70 hours of it.

Yes it was horribly criminal the way they kept you busy for 70 hours before you decided you wanted your money back. All games should be so criminal.

Meanwhile, I'll be suing games that advertise 'fun for the whole family!' Because Grandma did not enjoy them.

See, this argument misses the point.  It's the difference between saying "our car is the most comfortable ride you'll ever have," and "our car comes with 4 wheels," when in fact it only has 3.  One is a matter of opinion, and the subject of fluff or puffery.  The second is a false claim about the content of the car.

[Corrupt Feces]

I try to applaud pandemonium where sense is to be had. To this, however, I disdain.

[Cutlass Jack]

Alerithon wrote...

See, this argument misses the point.  It's the difference between saying "our car is the most comfortable ride you'll ever have," and "our car comes with 4 wheels," when in fact it only has 3.  One is a matter of opinion, and the subject of fluff or puffery.  The second is a false claim about the content of the car.

You're missing my point. If you spent 70 hours playing a game, it couldn't have been that horrible. If it took you 100k miles before you noticed it was one wheel shy it probably was a damn good car, all things considered.

[ShiftyEffect]

Perhaps no one cares besides me, but during the pre-order period Origin advertised the game with the AT12 Raider Shotgun for any and all pre-orders. Never stating that it was PC only content. They corrected the "error" after the game's launch, like it's okay. Every time I ask them, they can't show me proof showing they are right. So in the end, EA/Origin lied to me to get my money, then never honored the agreement. Sending us an apology email with a couple items I don't want and they expect me to be happy. Insulting and disrepectful.

Isn't that false advertising? I supppose it's a small issue but it really ticks me off.

I own the game, haven't played the single-player portion due to backlog, but I doubt the ending will be good like the other ME games. Both of my newphews beat the game, they liked the game, disliked the conclusion.

[Aesieru]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

 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

It'd be more like.

Lawyer: My client is filing a claim against the EA Company brand named BioWare which made the game "Mass Effect 3", under false advertising and unreal expectations due to such advertising. My client is actively representing a movement consisting of hundreds of thousands of people that had the same experience with variations based on this product.

*List false advertising*

That's more what the lawsuit would go about.

[duckley]

Lets have them arrested!

[Alerithon]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

See, this argument misses the point.  It's the difference between saying "our car is the most comfortable ride you'll ever have," and "our car comes with 4 wheels," when in fact it only has 3.  One is a matter of opinion, and the subject of fluff or puffery.  The second is a false claim about the content of the car.

You're missing my point. If you spent 70 hours playing a game, it couldn't have been that horrible. If it took you 100k miles before you noticed it was one wheel shy it probably was a damn good car, all things considered.

Except for some people, they'd have never bought the car in the first place if they'd known it was a three-wheeler. 

And of course the analogy breaks down as you look at it, because you couldn't tell that ME3 had speculative endings until you reached the end...or that GR cannot be raised in SP only without playing it. 

Or waited for those that did buy early and played through and reported it.  But that's the point...without those false pre-release claims by Bioware, many people would have waited.  And by the reactions posted, many would not have bought the game as it is now.  Meaning they would not have spent hours playing it.  Certainly there's room for the other side, that the total time was not wasted because some entertainment value was derived while playing.  I agree, and in my Amazon review, while I rated the game a 1, on fun factor I rated it a 3, because the end and other issues did not totally erase my experience up to that point.

[ShiftyEffect]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

See, this argument misses the point.  It's the difference between saying "our car is the most comfortable ride you'll ever have," and "our car comes with 4 wheels," when in fact it only has 3.  One is a matter of opinion, and the subject of fluff or puffery.  The second is a false claim about the content of the car.

You're missing my point. If you spent 70 hours playing a game, it couldn't have been that horrible. If it took you 100k miles before you noticed it was one wheel shy it probably was a damn good car, all things considered.

Actually without using metaphors, I can relate. I can play a game for 70 hours, finish it, experiencing a depressing, disappointing or anti-climatic ending and feel like the game was somewhat ruined. Simply put the journey was good, but the conclusion was...something else entirely. This would make my overall opinion of a game change drastically overall.

[Alerithon]

ShiftyEffect wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alerithon wrote...

See, this argument misses the point.  It's the difference between saying "our car is the most comfortable ride you'll ever have," and "our car comes with 4 wheels," when in fact it only has 3.  One is a matter of opinion, and the subject of fluff or puffery.  The second is a false claim about the content of the car.

You're missing my point. If you spent 70 hours playing a game, it couldn't have been that horrible. If it took you 100k miles before you noticed it was one wheel shy it probably was a damn good car, all things considered.

Actually without using metaphors, I can relate. I can play a game for 70 hours, finish it, experiencing a depressing, disappointing or anti-climatic ending and feel like the game was somewhat ruined. Simply put the journey was good, but the conclusion was...something else entirely. This would make my overall opinion of a game change drastically overall.

That explains your dissatisfaction with the product...but doesn't rise to the level of having a claim for at least a refund.  As in "sorry you didn't like it, I hope we get it right next time!"

ME3 goes so far beyond that.  And the "it's the journey" line doesn't even work.  If you get on a cruise advertised as docking in Cancun, it does you little good if you have a great time on the boat, but when you get off you're in Fukishima. 

[byzantine horse]

I would love it if everyone always sued companies who didn't live up to their statements pre-release. I tell you, the gaming industry would go bankrupt and be forced to close within a week, no game every lives up to what the developers intended.

And that goes not only for games, but all industries. Sue Bioware all you like, but "dissapointment" is not a very good reason nor argument in court.

Edit: Just as an example, look at the immensly popular and successful MMO World of Warcraft. How many times haven't a developer claimed that they are doing something but then either scrapped the feature entirely or changed it so much from what they said initially that it is no longer recognizable? Dance Studio? Path of the Titans? "More content than ever before"? These are things that were in trailers for the expansions but weren't in on release, and still aren't. If you can sue Bioware you can burn down Blizzard HQ without any trouble.

Modifié par byzantine horse, 06 avril 2012 - 06:20 .