638 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Or....just be apathetic.  That's fine too.  Don't make obnoxious gifs if you can't back it up with a rebuttal.  It tends to grate on people.  Including me.

 

O...k?
 

[goishen]

I just saw this on facebook in one of ME subgroups and it made me laugh.  

 

Janitor to leave BioWare.  #RIP_ME

[AlanC9]

A game company which partakes in false advertising is breaking the law. A game company skirting that law is basically bait and switch. This is objective truth. I am not trying to say any one game necessarily contained either of these business transgressions. But you are wrong if you think those two things are just some nebulous idea that has no basis in a civilized society. These are actual terms which still exist in modern business ethics. And they CAN be applied to video games.

I'll play. Can you think of any game ever released where such a claim could actually have been successfully made? Or is this a pure hypothetical?

[lucky5hot]

Electronic Arts is an American corporation, which happens to own BioWare. This means, the jurisdiction of this case would be in the United States and not Canada. Canadian law is in no way germane or relevant to this discussion.

 

Despite the fact you do make good points sometimes, this you are just entirely wrong about and seem to have very little knowledge.

 

When you are dealing with 'contracts law', you correctly said within the contract you can cite in the country in which court proceedings would take place. So living in Australia, I could write a contract saying "if we fight, this gets settled in Aussie courts", and you would have to abide this.

 

However, you are wrong about assuming this applies to trade laws. I'll start with an example because its the easiest way to explain. In Australia, we inherit most of our laws as common law from UK. And we have much more restrictive laws than the US, and all game publishers have to abide OUR laws when they do "trade", here. 

 

The Australian Consumer Law is primarily based on the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (previously known as the Trade Practices Act 1974, it was renamed and updated on 1 January 2011).

 

For instance, in America, there is a much heavier reliance on "Caveat Emptor"... "let the buyer beware". Where as under Australian legislation, (Trade Practices Act 1974). Under Section 52, Quote "Goods must be fit for their purpose", "Goods must be of merchantable quality".

 

Therefore, before starting issueing refunds globally, or during that time when Origin was denying refunds globally, in Australia, they HAD to provide refunds due to our particular trade laws. If Origin sells games through any publisher/distributor than has an entity within our country, they have to abide by OUR Trade Practice laws. Similarly, any marketing for the Game has to go through our marketing laws.

 

So, what I'm concluding here, is every individual country, the publisher has to abide by that individual countries laws. So outcome of a case against EA for alleged misleading statements would be derived for EACH country individually. Further, its often derived for each State within said country individually, as States often have differences/forks in laws.

 

This would be identical in Canada. If they have an entity in that country, the notion of "contracts" you are talking about is entirely irrelevant, they are doing trade/commerce in that country and are bound by any differences in that law.

 

When Australians took Origin to the ACCC (I'm assuming its similar to your BBB but with more power), over trade practices in Australia, it didnt get settled in an American court, they were forced to issue refunds over Sim City here. Citation provided

 

https://www.accc.gov...ds-to-consumers

 

Any implication that you do not have to abide laws of individual countries when selling games is entirely wrong. Something can be illegal in Australia but perfectly legal in the US, and vice versa.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we wouldn't sue because "video game was not what I expected." This is an issue of falsely marketing a product and selling it to consumers to their detriment. Depending on the severity of this breach, it could amount to fraud and be a serious issue for EA if they were to fail to provide what was promised. You don't just state our product offers "A, B, and C" when in actuality it offers "D, E, and F." You will have standing and a right to sue for damages because you were lied to and you will win in the court of law. If corporations could say whatever they want and lie about their products all the time, you better believe they would to make them sound as amazing as they could.

 

> it could amount to fraud and be a serious issue for EA if they were to fail to provide what was promised. 

 

Firstly, using the word fraud here is ridiculous, get your terminologies right. Deception has to go through several qualifiers before it becomes fraud and your nonchalant throwing around of the world demonstrates a lack of understanding on its definition. Namely, fraud relies on the ability to prove it was deliberate deception, which is harder than you think.

 

Secondly, I already provided a big outline in the first part above (contracts law versus trade/marketing law).

 

So, extending on what i said above, one of the most prominent cases of a similar Trade/Marketing law vein is the Gearbox/Sega, "bait and switch", for Aliens: Colonial Marines. This legally equated to "misleading and deceptive conduct". However, one of the only countries in which is was mandated that the communications were misleading was in the UK.

 

The biggest piece of "misleading and deceptive conduct", in games marketing history:

 

- They literally used trailers for a different game to sell the game...

- PR blackout and no reviews before the game release date due to embargo

- If you went to an actual game store, on 1 day, you had a real case here against them.

 

[EDIT - adjusted ]. In my understanding, this is one of the only cases that has been settled in the US, and I dont see any body of evidence anywhere near the level of this for claims being made to EA.

 

There isnt case history here, because it was settled. And if were talking about something said at a conference rather than the massively overwhelming deception above, IMO you would have a MUCH harder time extracting money from a settlement or the outcome of a case. The reason this is lacking s because there is a far greater emphasis on "Caveat Emptor" in the US. In the US, you are literally in one of the worst places in the world to try and argue compensation for misleading marketing communications when there is a large body of information for a product before its launch. You would have an easier time in many third world countries.

 

> You don't just state our product offers "A, B, and C" when in actuality it offers "D, E, and F." 

 

You would have to provide evidence that they did not correct this before the release date, and also keep in mind that assuming you can cancel a pre-order, this doesnt count when you could have cancelled your order but you chose to anyway.

 

Further, the water would entirely be muddied with any subsequent communications where they might have implied all the features the game had but had not mentioned a feature from some time ago that had been removed. In short, your inference that a Q&A section from 3 years before the product launch where said one thing but then it changed slightly, even though they gave a BIG rundown on the game and there were reviews available for the game PRE-RELEASE, means that your 'water tight' case becomes much less so.

 

In short, one thing that IS universal, is the court always has an imaginary scale, and it balances between two components "Social Justice" and "Economic Development". What the courts do not want to do is make a ruling on a frivilous matter that will impede economic development in the future. Like say, entitled gamers whinging about 1/1000 features accidentally not being fully clarified.

 

Courts rule on what is fair justice for the individual, but they dont let whiners **** up entire industries for the rest of us with frivolous cases that will impede economic development in the future because of dangerous precedents.

 

> You will have standing and a right to sue for damages because you were lied to and you will win in the court of law.

 

This is entirely erroneous. If you make a claim about something misleading, you have a right to make a claim, and the courts will gather all the evidence and communications at hand and will make their own determination on who will win. Your confidence in this matter cements how little you know about your legal system.

 

Oh I'm sure even though I've extensively studied contract law, corporations, agency law, etc. and have written opinions for a US District Court Judge. What have you done? Oh, you probably aren't even a legal professional or a lawyer... Which means you have no idea how US courts function and what cases would actually be frivolous or not.

 

> Oh I'm sure even though I've extensively studied contract law, corporations, agency law, etc. and have written opinions for a US District Court Judge. 

 

None of those pieces of legislation are pertinent to the particular thing you are claiming you can sue EA for, another reason you are showing you have NFI what you are talking about.

The "misleading and deceptive" conduct likely isnt pertinent to a sales contract. Unless the literal box for the game has a misleading statement on it, or is Gamestop starts making people sign contracts everytime they buy games, then you have your legislation confused.

 

Its MUCH more likely relevant to the marketing communications that happened in the lead up to the sales launch for the game title.  Its worth clarifying a point on your side for a change, all conferences about the game, statements about the game on forums, even TWEETS from people who work for the company can actually be considered marketing communications. HOWEVER, they will all be considered in their context. And if subsequent superseding feature lists are provided, certain contradictions that you were the only person in the world to notice may be given less weight than you would like.

 

And this is the main thing, before the game launch, there will be final communications about the game, probably a lot of them. You seem to have it in your mind that people who pre-ordered the game have a right to the original product that was outlined, even though the original claims about the game were never guarantees and they could have cancelled their pre-order at any time.

 

Ultimately, the two trailers that have been released about Mass Effect provide almost no information about the game, if we fast forwarded to 1 year in the future and you were sueing EA, I imagine the only real piece of marketing communication a court would consider is the feature list they will provide at E3 this year when they actually show the game and make formal claims about what the game contains. If you told the courts "but 2 years earlier they gave a roadmap of features in a random interview/tweet", the court would paraphrase to say "Get real man".

 

You've made no claim about deception EA actually made, there has been [very little] precedent in your country that such a suit has been won, but you are going around saying you, "will win in the court of law". I mean, common man, stick to things you actually understand when you are making such bold and confident claims.

 

Despite the fact that I only have knowledge of AU law, once you know how one works, you can try and look at the similar system for another country and attempt to make inferences on that countries legislation and case history. I would be interested for you to list me all the evidence you have for EA making a breach of trust/misleading statements during marketing, and which legislation you think they violated.

 

If you do this, I promise I will respond with a researched reply on whether I think you have a claim or not. However, based on the slothful accusations you have made so far that have little basis in actual law, I think its unlikely you have any case thus far.

[LinksOcarina]

Just to muddy the waters a bit further, here is a case of possible fraud going on in the gaming industry, and it involves 38 Studios four years after they shut down.

 

And in this case, it involves actual sums of money and promises by lenders and banks.

[lucky5hot]

Just to muddy the waters a bit further, here is a case of possible fraud going on in the gaming industry, and it involves 38 Studios four years after they shut down.

 

And in this case, it involves actual sums of money and promises by lenders and banks.

 

The key part of this is mentioned just a few paragraphs down:

 

>  that both companies actively lied to investors, defrauding them by not telling 38 Studios how much they needed to complete Project Copernicus. According to the SEC, “We allege that the RIEDC and Wells Fargo knew that 38 Studios needed an additional $25 million to fund the project yet failed to pass that material information along to bond investors, who were denied a complete financial picture.”

 

There are very few such cases in gaming and its interesting to look at everything going on, but this doesnt really have anything to do with the type of case being described here but its more of a corporation/investor/stakeholder issue rather than one to do with marketing games to gamers.

 

I'm not sure what the corresponding US legislation is, but in Australia this might be considered under the Corporations Act, where you make misleading and deceptive statements to your investors, or fail to warn them in time once you know things are going south.

 

Interestingly, unlike the case above where Revan makes the claim "fraud" on EA, (where I would say that it is entirely unlikely that fraud would ever be proven, the misleading statements are likely never going to be proven as deliberate)....

 

Contrasting this, and as I've followed this case for a few years, it seem to be a much clearer case of fraud. People in positions like the CFO literally poured over this information 8 hours a day for years and it seemingly impossible that they would not have been aware of the financial position of the business, yet never communicated it to the stakeholder in the form of the equity provided by Rhode Island.

 

Thus, the SEC actually throws around the word 'fraud' in its legitimate setting. What you are looking for when comparing Revan's outrageous claims are cases similar to the Sega lawsuit settlement, but you wont find much.

 

EA/Bioware doesnt have a responsibility to provide all technical, internal working documents about their products to stakeholders of their publicly listed company. However, once they release certain working documents or PR to their investors, they then have a responsibility to reasonably advise stakeholders when things change. Key word.... REASONABLY. Can summarise some of the duties of the 2 responsibilities as:

 

1) Generate a return on investment, and duely advise stakeholders of how they are planning/projecting against these aims. As well as providing financial reports as the legislated intervals for that country.

2) Ensure that when they make communications to their stakeholders they are accurate. So for instance, if they make a claim about a product in development, then something significant changes about a game, they should duely advise within a reasonable window... so that they have not let a false claim about their product development go too long unchallenged. This responsibility is obviously weighed within reason for what is normal for a business as anybody who has had any exposure to business understand things change. Earlier there was an IGN thread referenced about stakeholders trying to sue EA about Battlefield stakeholder communications which was outright rejected, and rightly so.

 

I'm still wanting to see the evidence that Revan actually has of any deception what so ever. I mean, if he is actually talking about ME:A, you cant sue them for deception over a game that isnt released, because it has yet to be proven what the final retail copy will or wont have, thus you cannot prove any deception has occurred. And it is certainly likely that the due process will be provided to people who pre-order in clarifying exactly what the game has and doesnt have, and they can cancel their pre-order if they so desire.

 

Regarding previous titles, I certainly dont think "From Ashes", DLC was a good practice for DLC, in fact playing every game since their Kotor, it was the first time I ever loss a huge amount of respect for Bioware, but it wasnt illegal. I'm yet to see any evidence of illegality with the ME series that Revan is claiming.

[ChessEffect]

This thread is getting kind of boring.

[Cyonan]

So I can't be asked to read the whole thread to figure out about this legal argument, but is it basically just another "We didn't like the game so we're going to try to sue you" thing that we did after ME3?

[Gileadan]

I'll play. Can you think of any game ever released where such a claim could actually have been successfully made? Or is this a pure hypothetical?

As a guess... Aliens: Colonial Marines. Their "demo" essentially was an entirely different game complete with much better graphics, an apparently at least somewhat capable AI, persistent corpses and a cutscene that wasn't in the final product.

The game that was released had shitty graphics (way beyond running the demo on ultra and locking the final game to lowest), immediately disintegrating corpses and an utterly braindead AI.

Not sure if anyone tried to sue, but if I had to pick a case to try it with, this would be it.

[In Exile]

As a rule I stay away from substantive legal debate. That said:

 

As a guess... Aliens: Colonial Marines. Their "demo" essentially was an entirely different game complete with much better graphics, an apparently at least somewhat capable AI, persistent corpses and a cutscene that wasn't in the final product.

The game that was released had shitty graphics (way beyond running the demo on ultra and locking the final game to lowest), immediately disintegrating corpses and an utterly braindead AI.

Not sure if anyone tried to sue, but if I had to pick a case to try it with, this would be it.

 

The game never interested me, so I never followed it. When you say "demo", was it like the ME3 demo as in playable and available a few days/week before release, or was it just a vertical slice they showed at E3 (or equivalent) years/months before?

[AntiChri5]

As a rule I stay away from substantive legal debate. That said:

 

 

The game never interested me, so I never followed it. When you say "demo", was it like the ME3 demo as in playable and available a few days/week before release, or was it just a vertical slice they showed at E3 (or equivalent) years/months before?

It was something they had someone "play" on a stage. they spent more time and effort whacking together the bullshit demo then they did on the game itself.

[In Exile]

It was something they had someone "play" on a stage. they spent more time and effort whacking together the bullshit demo then they did on the game itself.

 

 

Right, but when? Immediately pre-release? 

[Gileadan]

Right, but when? Immediately pre-release?

It's been a while, but I think it was still shown in official trailers a few days before release. It was also the source of screenshots posted during the pre-release hype - I remember Amazon's preorder page featuring those. Basically there was no way to know what the actual game really looked like until after release.

Technically speaking, I can't come up with any other explanation than the fake demo being a completely different build from the main game, with higher quality assets and a fake AI optimized for the limited number of locations and situations available in that "demo".

Even a few days before release, several Gearbox people including CEO Randy Pitchford gave interviews saying how proud and excited they were to add something awesome to the franchise.

Pretty good attempt at deception in my opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, but when? Immediately pre-release?

This definitely matters. If it wasn't immediately pre-release, then they could have been just over promising, a fairly common thing in the industry.

Also, there are cases where the devs didn't intend to promise the thing the market thought they did. I remember a Spiderman game several years ago which was released on a console, and it was heavily promoted and reasonably well-received. At the same time, the same publisher released a PC game with the same name and the same packaging, but it was in fact acompletely different game - more of a casual game than anything. PC players were livid, but the publisher had never promoted the other game as being on PC.

[Cyonan]

The A:CM demo was a "vertical slice". I believe it was shown at E3 months before launch.

 

We've had plenty of cases where the graphics get toned down between the demo and launch and the devs don't tell us about it but all the promotional material still acts like that's how it will be right up till launch.

 

This was like that, only it was for virtually every aspect of the game. If there were a legitimate case of false advertisement in gaming in recent years, A:CM probably has the strongest argument going for it being that.

 

My understanding is that the demo was purely scripted to act and look like how they were hoping the final game would, but they fell so far short of the mark they couldn't even see the mark anymore.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's been a while, but I think it was still shown in official trailers a few days before release. It was also the source of screenshots posted during the pre-release hype - I remember Amazon's preorder page featuring those. Basically there was no way to know what the actual game really looked like until after release.

Technically speaking, I can't come up with any other explanation than the fake demo being a completely different build from the main game, with higher quality assets and a fake AI optimized for the limited number of locations and situations available in that "demo".

Right, but when was it shown? If that demo was made well before release, then it was a completely different build, likely specifically tailored for what they were showing so they could show it well.

That's how those work.

Even a few days before release, several Gearbox people including CEO Randy Pitchford gave interviews saying how proud and excited they were to add something awesome to the franchise.

Pretty good attempt at deception in my opinion.

All marketing is deception.

[AntiChri5]

Weren't they still using the demo screenshots for marketing even AFTER release?

 

This incident is famous for the most deceptive marketing in (recent?) gaming history. I applaud giving the benefit of the doubt, but this really isn't a nuanced situation.

[Cyonan]

All marketing is deception.

 

Most marketing is deception in that they're trying to trick you into thinking whatever they're selling you is going to vastly improve your life. Marketing for a suit would show a handsome looking man with a bunch of women all over him, trying to get people thinking "If I buy that suit, I'll be just like him!". They aren't exactly lying to you, but they're trying to get you to draw conclusions about their product that aren't true.

 

What A:CM did with their marketing was advertising that suit, but when you buy it all you get is a $5 shirt and pants from wal-mart with a suit design on the front.

 

It goes beyond the simple "It's an unfinished build. Everything is subject to change" argument that even I'm fond of using around these parts.

[Sartoz]

This thread is getting kind of boring.

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Actually, I find it intellectually stimulating. It's rare to find clear and concise text on a subject.

Still, "..different strokes for...."

[UpUpAway]

Weren't they still using the demo screenshots for marketing even AFTER release?

 

This incident is famous for the most deceptive marketing in (recent?) gaming history. I applaud giving the benefit of the doubt, but this really isn't a nuanced situation.

 

Wasn't it settled out of court? which is, IMO, a key point.  An example settlement out of court does not mean a "win in court" and one can't compare "this case" to "that case" simply because "this case" doesn't yet exist.  We're still a year away from possible release. 

 

So, I'd rather just not follow all the lemmings over the cliff, thank you.

[AntiChri5]

Here is JIm Sterling's latest video on the issue, from 7 moths ago. He made a LOT of videos on this, most of them fairly long. This latest one is probably the best "summary" of the situation for those who managed to remain blissfully ignorant.

 

 

It's a bit long, 12 minutes, but it's worth sitting through Sterling's pompous posturing for the information it contains and passion with which it's delivered.

[Sartoz]

It's been a while, but I think it was still shown in official trailers a few days before release. It was also the source of screenshots posted during the pre-release hype - I remember Amazon's preorder page featuring those. Basically there was no way to know what the actual game really looked like until after release.

Technically speaking, I can't come up with any other explanation than the fake demo being a completely different build from the main game, with higher quality assets and a fake AI optimized for the limited number of locations and situations available in that "demo".

Even a few days before release, several Gearbox people including CEO Randy Pitchford gave interviews saying how proud and excited they were to add something awesome to the franchise.

Pretty good attempt at deception in my opinion.

                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Having learned my lesson with DA:I, I no longer pre-order and wait until after the game is launched, then go to the forums for player feedback.

 

To me, that is an informed decision and it ensures that marketing has no influence on my purchasing decisions... creating interest, yes.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

 

Contrary to popular belief, we wouldn't sue because "video game was not what I expected." This is an issue of falsely marketing a product and selling it to consumers to their detriment. Depending on the severity of this breach, it could amount to fraud and be a serious issue for EA if they were to fail to provide what was promised. You don't just state our product offers "A, B, and C" when in actuality it offers "D, E, and F." You will have standing and a right to sue for damages because you were lied to and you will win in the court of law. If corporations could say whatever they want and lie about their products all the time, you better believe they would to make them sound as amazing as they could.

 

First off I'm a realist. The multi-national corps run the world now, and here is a fact for you: most marketing is lying. 

 

A video game is not the same as say poised food or faulty car parts that caused accidents, so unless you're become or already a video game addict or the disc/download causes your console and/or PC to burst into flames and explode I don't see "damages" as you mentioned as anything that a legalized extortion attempt by over-entitled crybabies.    

 

So the game didn't promise you an amazing experience, by that logic I could sue most of Hollywood lets see should I sue Zack Snyder and WB because Man of Steel because I was promised me the greatest Superman film ever and got a movie so bad that it killed all interest in it's sequel a film I had been dreaming since 1989 or how about George Lucas because Star Wars episodes 1 and 4 were huge letdowns to me or how about JJ Abrams because his Star Trek reboot didn't live up to my expectations? 

[AntiChri5]

Wasn't it settled out of court? which is, IMO, a key point.  An example settlement out of court does not mean a "win in court" and one can't compare "this case" to "that case" simply because "this case" doesn't yet exist.  We're still a year away from possible release. 

 

So, I'd rather just not follow all the lemmings over the cliff, thank you.

Im just clarifying some points about what happened with the Aliens situation, I am a long, long, long, long way away from panicking about Andromeda. We don't have anything to panic about at this point.

[UpUpAway]

Here is JIm Sterling's latest video on the issue, from 7 moths ago. He made a LOT of videos on this, most of them fairly long. This latest one is probably the best "summary" of the situation for those who managed to remain blissfully ignorant.

 

 

It's a bit long, 12 minutes, but it's worth sitting through Sterling's pompous posturing for the information it contains and passion with which it's delivered.

 

Im just clarifying some points about what happened with the Aliens situation, I am a long, long, long, long way away from panicking about Andromeda. We don't have anything to panic about at this point.

 

You see... I feel like I've just been mislead... by you.  This does not represent any sort of "summary" of the case.  In fact, the person in the video clearly says they don't care about the legal case and subjects me to a huge string of profanity without warning that you apparently feel is just a passionate delivery.  Furthermore, I fell you're "defending" your action of posting it in the subsequent post you've made to me.

 

So... should I threaten to sue you?  (I don't think so, BTW.)