Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

1503AD and the Rapid Erosion of End-User Rights? 134

Posted by Cliff from the fight-the-power dept.
Agram asks: "I bought the Sunflowers' 1503AD game practically as soon as it came out, since my wife and I loved to play the old 1602AD together via LAN. 1503AD's expanded multiplayer feature was touted all over the internet, yet when I bought the game, for a costly $52, I was very unpleasantly surprised that it had no multiplayer mode at all. Despite the continuous claims that the company is working on the MP patch, we're now over 7 months away from the initial release, the game now sells for a measly $15, and I have yet to play a single second of it, as I have no interest in the single player experience. My attempts at communication with the company led to nothing but dead-ends and unprovoked mistreatment. Unfortunately, this is not a unique occurrence in today's software entertainment industry, where atrocious lack of support is growing rampant and is increasingly coupled with ridiculous EULA's. I have therefore decided to finally exercise my end-user rights and pursue a class-action lawsuit against the company. I am now asking you, fellow Slashdot reader, for help in seeking answers to the following questions as, well assistance in assembling signatures for the class-action lawsuit."

"Here are my questions:

  • How does one go about locating a reputable and internationally active law firm that could handle this case?
  • What is the required number of the participants for a class-action lawsuit to be instantiated?
  • Do you think that this course of action will yield any results?
If you have this game and feel the same like I do, I would like to urge you to please join the class-action lawsuit. Also, if you feel that you can and are willing to help out in any other shape or form (i.e. website maintenance etc.), please do not hesitate to contact me and/or visit the website stated below. I believe that this can be used to leverage further attempts at forcing the other entertainment software companies to support their product(s) as they ought to, as well as hopefully abolishing the obfuscated EULA's that relinquish them of any responsibility towards consumers. 1503AD is by no means an exception, but rather it is part of an unfortunate growing trend among the entertainment software companies.

For more details regarding this issue please visit this site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1503AD and the Rapid Erosion of End-User Rights? More

1503AD and the Rapid Erosion of End-User Rights?

Comments Filter:

  • good luck (Score:5, Interesting)

    by real_smiff ( 611054 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:24AM (#8279265)
    first i want to say, good luck, certain parts of the industry need some consumers with b*lls to stand up and make a point.

    2nd, i'm not sure how strong your case is. you say "...multiplayer feature was touted all over the internet", but was it touted all over the box?

  • IANAL... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:26AM (#8279278)
    And from how frequently this gets said, apparently neither is anyone else on Slashdot. That said, you may want to try asking one. I've been told they're easily located in the phone book.

    How this got to the front page I'll never know. I could understand if the story was about how common a practice this seems to be, and what our rights are despite hopelssly one-sided EULAs, and advice on what to do in the future. That would have made sense.

    But a story that goes 'Wah, i didn't investigate this before buying', 'Wah, i didn't take it back 6 months ago and now it's too late.', 'Wah, i'm gonna sue. Yeah, that's it, I'll sue!', 'Uh, how do i sue? I'm too cheap/lazy to actually talk to a lawyer, so I'll ask /.'.

    Since you *are* asking those of us who don't really know, here's my opinion. You don't have a case, and definately not grounds for a class action. You should hav simply returned the game 6 months ago.

    • Re:IANAL... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Prior Restraint ( 179698 )

      You should hav [sic] simply returned the game 6 months ago.

      Which retail outlets will take back an opened game? Every one I've been to assumes you're a pirate, so the only option you have is exchange for another copy of the same title. That accomplishes precisely nothing.

      • The "rinse and repeat" technique (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @02:37PM (#8280706) Homepage Journal

        Every one I've been to assumes you're a pirate

        Here's how to get a refund on partially opened but unused retail software: Claim that you didn't agree to a contract that the software's installer presented and that the contract provides for a full refund to those who do not agree. Present a printed copy of the contract.

        the only option you have is exchange for another copy of the same title. That accomplishes precisely nothing.

        Exchange the title, then return it after two days. If they open the exchanged box (like Toys R Us did once), then keep exchanging until they run out. The defect rate for that title will shoot up. If none of the boxes contains what's advertised on their packaging, then they're all defective.

        • I used this technique with keyboards (Yes some keyboards have EULAs) I was buying a fairly expensive keyboard with some "features" that may get in the way. I was indeed correct so I returned the keyboard saying I did not agree to the EULA and got a different keyboard. (All the time I used the keyboard I did not install thier software and so I really never agreed to the EULA)

        • Re:The "rinse and repeat" technique (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          use a credit card.

          the EULA is on your side. if you disagree return it. so return it, and if they refuse, get something that says they took possession of the item back, and simply call your credit card company and remove authorization for the charges. also helps to inform the store of that.
      • Which retail outlets will take back an opened game? Every one I've been to assumes you're a pirate, so the only option you have is exchange for another copy of the same title. That accomplishes precisely nothing.

        Two thoughts to consider:
        1. Most stores will exchange an opened box for a shrinkwrapped box if you have a receipt and complain loudly about it being defective.
        2. Most stores will take a return without a receipt if it's not opened.

        This suggests a course of action that may result in a successful return.

    • Interesting combination - the most intelligent response I have ever read, in the most ignorant thread I have ever seen.

      If ever there was a time I needed mod points, today is the day.

    • How about reading-up on the topic first? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Agram ( 721220 ) <ico AT vt DOT edu> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:40PM (#8281130) Homepage
      Before going any further, perhaps it needs to be mentioned that I am the one who is behind this story.

      First off, it seems that you did not bother reading anything on the website whose link was provided in the story, so isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to complain aboutg my apparent inability to read the info on the retail box of the game?

      In addition, if you had chosen to read the stuff on my website, you'd notice that the demo that is still downloadable from EA (America's distributor), claims multiplayer support on the screen when quitting the game, needless to mention that the demo *has* the multiplayer button in the menu, yet it is missing in the final product.

      There are also links on my website that point to quicktime recordings of live interviews of the game publishers which are touting the multiplayer functionality without any hint of the fact that is missing in the final product, as well as multiple websites and the cached version of the game's official site suggesting that the game is shipping with the multiplayer included.

      If this is not enough, then the fact that right after my lawsuit was announced, the German publisher opted for "reworking" the game website's content in order to adjust their "mis-statements" regarding multiplayer (cached version is available on my website), as well as the continuous ignoring of user inquiries and systematic banning of forum accounts and/or posts that have anything to do with the inquiry regarding the multiplayer, should tell you just how "deep this rabbithole really is."

      Finally, the reference that the multiplayer is soon-to-be-published, posted on the game's website has been untouched literally ever since the game came into being. The only change occured when my legal action was announced on thier forums and the game publishers became aware of my endeavors. Suddenly, the misleading information found on their website was suddenly changed after being intact for months.

      Next time, instead of acting like a smartass, please take some time and read about the topic before making yourself look dumb.

      Finally, someone questioned why I am seeking legal advice from /. in the first place. Please understand that asking about legal issues here is only one of many benefits that come with such action. Other, perhaps more important aspects involve exposure, as well as targetting user group that is most closely associated with the given topic. By doing so, I am hoping that I may find sympathetic soul(s) and/or person(s) who may have some past experience in this field and who may be able to share their valuable info regarding reputable law firms that deal with the INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE-RELATED LAW. Such law firms due to their specific focus are not commonly found in a phonebook, and therefore I have resorted to the place that harbors the largest amount of people who are conceivably the most exposed to this kind of a problem.

      • How about having some patience? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by boarder ( 41071 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:09PM (#8287076) Homepage
        Why did you buy the game in the first place if you KNEW that you would not be able to play multi-player at the time of purchase? Where you unable to wait for the patch to come out? You stated in the blurb that the only reason you want the game is for MP and aren't at all interested in the single player mode. You knew before you bought it that, at the time of purchase, you would have no interest in even using it. If I'm buying a car for driving on the road but the tires aren't available for it yet, I'm not going to buy it now versus when the tires are ready. Stupid analogy? You bet. Is it also stupid to buy a game before you can even play it? I think so. It's like buying Sims Online when you don't have internet access... or buying any computer game when you don't own a computer. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to keep the money in the bank and wait until you can actually play the game.

        Did the game company illegally market this game and therefore this is a viable lawsuit? I have no idea. Are there too many lawsuits in the U.S. because people don't want to take any responsibility for their own stupid/impatient actions? I have an inkling there are.

        • Long response from the story's author (Score:5, Informative)

          by Agram ( 721220 ) <ico AT vt DOT edu> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @11:35PM (#8290753) Homepage
          Your point is somewhat valid. It is true that I did not carefully read the contents on the box. However, having owned the prequel and having had a very good experience with it in terms of support and stability, as well as having been aware of the multiple sources that claimed mp support, such as:

          the official website's FAQ prior to the announcement of this lawsuit: http://home.fuse.net/slipstreamscapes/1503AD/Legal /5.jpg

          online interview with the game developer:
          http://www.gamershell.com/reviews_Anno 1503Intervie w.shtml

          (and I quote)
          What modes are going to be in this game? And will the gamers be able to play it on-line?

          In addition to the tutorial there are a number of different single player missions, an exciting campaign and random generated continuous play games. The multi-player mode can be played over either the Internet or a LAN. This gives players the chance to play against or, in team, with one another.
          (end quote)

          quicktime video interview with the PR guy:
          http://www.fragland.net/index.php?page=newsi tem&ni d=4978

          the game's demo outtro screen that speaks of great multiplayer functionality:
          http://home.fuse.net/slipstreamsca pes/1503AD/Legal /Engdemo.jpg

          and finally the fact that the box DID NOT state that it was missing the multiplayer, which should have been a logical course of action considering that they have been touting it all over the place (both officially and unofficially)-- all this has generated in me a sense of TRUST that I was buying a good product without a grain of doubt as to what awaited me.

          I was unable to return the game in part because I really liked the prequel and I continued to hope that they would provide the functionality soon (something that has become a rather common occurence in the entertainment software industry where a company releases an incomplete product, literally making impulse buyers essentially their beta testers -- something that they should be also held liable for), and in part because shortly thereafter I left for a vacation and did not have much time to deal with this issue. At the time, there was simply no reason for me to doubt their promise as their past actions and products did not suggest any fowl play.

          On the other hand my past experiences have taught me that whenever the company drags their feet on providing a cornerstone feature of their product, that they were never intending to provide one. This, of course, I was unable to ascertain at the time, as it takes time before I can reach this conclusion (kind of a Catch22, if you like). What angers me even more that despite the fact they had been "working" on the multiplayer patch, they somehow never had the time to publish it to us end-users, yet they had plenty of time to release (currently Europe-only) an add-on.

          Anyhow, I am ranting away, but hopefully this answers some of your questions and/or concerns.

          I would just like to also point out that I am not a litigatious person, as a matter of fact this is the first time in my life that I am exercising the right to sue, despite the fact that I own 200+ game titles, quite a few of which have had similar problems like this one (the game was either unstable and never patched, or simply lacked advertised functionality -- for instance, how many games can you think of that advertise "superb AI" and yet you end-up with the dumbest bots that keep getting stuck in the walls etc.?). Basically, the reason why I opted to pursue this one is because I've had enough of this kind of mistreatment by the game makers/publishers, but also because the publishers of this particular title have been extremely rude towards me, erasing my posts on their boards and banning my account, despite the fact that they did not violate the "rules of the forums," as well as ignoring my polite inquiries.

          I've read some (luckilly appropriately rated at 0 and -1) pretty rude replies t

      • You made a HUGE Mistake mentioning... (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        ...your class action lawsuit on that company's forums. You never show your 'enemy' your hand before you are ready to play your hand.

        When you posted your interest in persuing a class-action lawsuit against them were you already within two or three days of having them hit with a summons? No? I didn't think so.

        All you have succeeded in doing at this moment is to provide them the opportunity to build their defenses and prepare to destroy you in a court of law.

        EA is not a little nobody company. Wit
        • Now, that I have gained some experience through this ordeal, this is probably one thing that I would have done exactly the way you said it.

          Yet, I think I still have a very strong case considering just how convincing evidence I have. Therefore, I am not intending on giving up just yet.
      • Wow, an articulate person on Slashdot? Where did you come, my friend? In all seriousness, though, good luck with your lawsuit. Too many buggy pieces of crap are being released these days for $50 plus. DrX

  • Multiplayer test (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nempo ( 325296 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:37AM (#8279333)
    Seems from what I read on the homepage is that they are conducting multiplayer testing atm, or will in the near future and a public beta/test will come before the final multiplayer patch.

    Are you sueing them because they took the decision to not ship multiplayer with the final product and you where to lazy to read some reviews that probably states this before you bought the game? Or are you sueing them because they can't write code (read: develope multiplayer) as fast as you would like ?

    IMO. seems like an extremly weak lawsuit.

    • Re:Multiplayer test (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <[moc.cirtceleknom] [ta] [todhsals]> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @02:33PM (#8280682)
      knowing slashdot he could have submitted this story two months ago. I have had stories sit in the que for 6, 7 or 8 weeks easy.
      • Hey... I have a story from 2002 that was 'accepted', but i still haven't seen it posted yet, nor can i find it by searching. Oh well. It's not really an issue for me now.

    • Re:Multiplayer test (Score:2, Informative)

      by Agram ( 721220 )
      That message has been there since August. It has just been altered a bit (wording mostly), once my lawsuit has been announced on the game's forums. The publishers then swiftly decided to alter the looks of their website in order to remove all the misleading statements regarding the multiplayer functionality (see cached version of their FAQ before the 6th of January 2004 on the story's website).

  • Get a lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sancho ( 17056 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:37AM (#8279334) Homepage
    Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on Slashdot?

    Anyway, I'm sure you know that Class Action lawsuits rarely have a good outcome for the class...usually they get a $5 coupon for some product the company makes, while the lawyers get millions.

    Lastly, I really think it's your fault for purchasing it before a given feature was actually available. Unless the box promised multiplayer, you did this to yourself. The feature that was touted appears to be reviews of the product (i.e. the beef you have is with the reviewers, in that case) and if that's all you based your purchase on, I suspect that you'll be out of luck when you begin discussing this with your lawyer.

    Anyway, what does any of this have to do with EULAs? Reading through your post and links, I found nothing of relevance. Looks to me like you're trying to get Slashdotters to your cause by bringing up a hotly debated part of closed source (and even some open source) software.

  • Don't go so far (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:40AM (#8279345) Homepage Journal
    A class action law suit is a huge deal and will take lots of time money and effort. It isn't worth it for the measly 50 bucks. Go to small claims court. You don't need a lawyer, but you can get one if you want. There are tons of websites written by people who go to small claims court on a daily basis that tell you what you need to do. You do some research, file some papers, go to court once and get some money. Very often the other guy doesn't even show and you get some dough.

    Oh yeah, IANAL.

    • Mod this guy to a Million (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gerf ( 532474 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @02:13PM (#8280555) Journal

      There was a /. article not long ago, where a guy took MS to small claims court to get his $200 back for a copy of WindowsXP (which he did not use, and the EULA promises a refund if not used...). Basically, make sure you're very well prepared with simple, explanatory information for a non-technical person, and you'll get your $50 and court costs back.

      Personally, i think this is why "Pirating" a game to just try it out is a good thing. If you had "tried" it out first, you would have realized how flawed the game was, and not had to go through this hassle.

      • Re:Mod this guy to a Million (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @02:45PM (#8280765) Journal
        Personally, i think this is why "Pirating" a game to just try it out is a good thing. If you had "tried" it out first, you would have realized how flawed the game was, and not had to go through this hassle.

        True indeed... Except, you've also just described the very reason companies (game, software, music, whatever) hate piracy so much. In any other setting, they'd consider it "free advertising", since those who would buy it still will, and those who will never buy don't actually count as a lost sale. But in the "mass consumer content" style industries, "try before you buy" often means "learn how much our product sucks before we have your cash in hand".

        When you consider "piracy" in those terms, it all starts to make sense. It allows small players with good products to displace "the big boys" who consistently produce utter crap (or their one hit repackaged under yet another name). Totally intolerable, to those currently leading the market. Solution? Crack down on all this damned free advertising. Simple as that. Not that such an approach can ever actually work, but on paper, I suppose it looks good to the top-level management.

        • Re:Mod this guy to a Million (Score:5, Interesting)

          by darnok ( 650458 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:22PM (#8283425)
          I think the parent post, and the grandparent, make a very good point.

          I'm one of those people who has neither the time or patience to play 99% of computer games. However, I'm occasionally happy to load up a demo version of a game, play it for 20 minutes, then remove it and never think about it again. If it gets my brain working in some different direction, it actually makes me more productive when I get back to work again.

          There is absolutely no way I'll shell out cash for computer games any more - the demo versions actually exceed my attention span, and these demo versions are on the cover of nearly every computer mag out there. Spend $5-10, and I get a magazine with enough demo games to keep me interested till the next issue comes out...

          The point here is I'm quite certain that there's people out there who have slightly more time and inclination than I do; they'll pirate a game, play it for (say) a few hours to a week, then delete it and never even think of it again. Either they must consider the game is not worthy of further attention, or they don't actually have the time or inclination to get beyond e.g. level 5; why then is the game creator trying to sell that game with 503 levels knowing that it'll take most people 2 years to complete?

          With a few exceptions, I suspect that only a tiny percentage of gamers actually see out the end of most games; most lose interest and try the latest hot game when it comes out. It seems akin to staging a basketball game where everyone leaves at 1/2 time; if that happened, you'd have to think it was a flawed product or delivery model to begin with.
          • I'll continue the chain of back-slapping adulation here and say the parent is correct.

            I have two kids and rarely get more than a few consecutive minutes per day to amuse myself.

            Yet the number of games that allow you to achieve anything rewarding/diistracting in 2-3 minutes are few and far between. Most could barely load the savegame in that amount of time.

            My current favourite is Petite Copter for XBox as I can jump into it in seconds and it requires deep concentration to fly with flair.

            Of course I w

          • It seems akin to staging a basketball game where everyone leaves at 1/2 time

            Wow! You've been to a Lakers game?

        • Um if anything I think the opposite is true. The only reason people really buy games as opposed to say pirating them is that developers make it a living hell in most cases [e.g. cd-keys, checks, lack of updates] for the pirater.

          Sure I know some friends who buy games out of loyalty but they are also the same people who in a pinch will pirate a game for a year than buy it "to not feel guilty" [coincidentally when the price of the game has gone down by 30$]

          Developers do have a form of "free advertising" tho

  • Too late. But good luck anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:54AM (#8279397) Homepage Journal
    It is too late for you to do anything that has a meaningful chance of success, but I wish you luck anyway.

    What you SHOULD have done was:
    1. Verified IN THE STORE that the package specifically mentioned multiplayer gaming. If not, do not buy the game if that is what you want.
    2. Assuming the package mentioned multiplayer, as soon as you got home verified the multiplayer mode. When you found it absent, check online for updates.
    3. When you found no MP updates online, you should have gone back to the store, and demanded your money back. The store would give you a lot of shit over the "no returns unless the game is defective, then only return for store credit or same game". You then point out that the box says multiplayer, the game is not multiplayer, therefor game does not do what it is advertised to do, therefor defective, and since any other copy on the shelf is "defective" as well, store credit or money back.

    I am not saying the above has a 100% chance of success, but at least you would have had some chance to succeed. Furthurmore, should more people do this, the stores will get tired of the returns and will charge back to the distributor, who will in turn go after the manufacturer.

    In short - if you cannot buy what you want TODAY - DON'T. Don't accept promises that "It will do $thing later" - say "Fine - then when it does $thing I will buy it. Until then the money stays in my bank. Good day."

    • Re:Too late. But good luck anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @01:17PM (#8280226)
      Actually, if the game isn't working or doesn't deliver what was promised, it *IS* DEFECTIVE.

      When I returned my copy of Anarchy Online to Amazon.com, my email to them explained "I understand that your policy is not to refund/return software once it has been opened, except to replace it with another working copy in the case of a defective product. Well, this product IS defective - but it isn't the media it has been distributed on that is defective. The actual GAME ITSELF is defective. It is unplayable and unusuable."

      Returning it was not a hassle at ALL. Granted, I spend a LOT of money at amazon.com and I also stressed to them that I plan to do much more business with them in the future, but I think they'd have accepted the return anyway.

      The point is, you have to stand up for your complaint and dont' take shit from anyone for it. People are too willing to give up at the least bit of resistance. Usually, the people who are working at a place are only doing what they are told. If they COULD do what you are asking them to do they WOULD. They're making shitty wages and probably don't give a fuck about the corporation's bottom line - they'd rather make you happy and get you out of their hair than piss you off to save the company a few bucks.

      So, just keep that in mind when dealing with them. Ask to speak to managers as needed. And just make it clear that you're not going away until you get what you want. Someone will eventually have the power to do it for you. In the meantime, just make sure you are not a total prick to the people behind the counter. I always make it clear that I am not trying to be a pain in the ass and that I do not have any problem with them specifically, but that I DO want a refund and will not leave without one.
      • Actually, if the game isn't working or doesn't deliver what was promised, it *IS* DEFECTIVE.

        Oh fuck. So if a game is advertised as "fun" and it isn't then it's defective? Shut up.

        • If you advertise a product (any product, not just a game), your advertisements must be fundamentally factually correct. Fun is subjective so you'd never make a case based on that (and you knew that, you're just acting dumb), but if advertising literature for a game promotes, say, multiplayer funtionality and it's not present in the product then that is false advertising and the publisher is liable (doesn't matter if it's on the actual retail box or not).
        • you know what else is fun? playing in traffic...
    • You are right, I should have gone back and returned the game. However, I bought this game knowing how good its predecessor was and also, right before going for a Summer vacation outside the country where I obtained the game. By the time I had the chance to install the game, I was already thousands of miles away from the nearest EB store. Returning was not any more an option. Besides, I kept hoping that the patch would be out soon, looking forward to playing the game. Yet, that time never came.

      As per checki

  • Lawyers get the cash, you'll get very little (Score:4, Insightful)

    by astrojetsonjr ( 601602 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:55AM (#8279402)
    In a class action, the legal team will collect 60-70% of the money. You and your fellow class action members will split the remaining 30%. You would be very lucky in this case to get more than the cost of the game back.

    Try small claims court if you want your money back.

    Try a bottle of Jack Daniels if you want to 'get even'. You won't but the Jack will take your mind off of it for a few hours.

    Better yet, chalk it up to one of those very good life lessons we all learn, Buyer Beware.

    • Re:Lawyers get the cash, you'll get very little (Score:5, Informative)

      by sabNetwork ( 416076 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @12:59PM (#8280119)

      I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your mentality. Sure, he was stupid to buy it in the first place if he intended to play multiplayer, but this is false advertising.

      Multi-user play is clearly a selling point for this game. The publisher provided the following information to resellers, quoted from Amazon:
      Explore endless single-player gameplay options in Single Scenario mode,Campaign mode,and Open-Ended mode,or challenge your friends in Multiplayer mode (emphasis mine)

      Every time they mention the multiplayer mode, it is their legal obligation to insert a footnote saying "not available at the time of purchase" or "not yet avaiable". So yes, we need people like this guy to get pissed off and do something about it. It might become a trend in the software industry before you know it.

      --

      • Re:Lawyers get the cash, you'll get very little (Score:4, Informative)

        by jackb_guppy ( 204733 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @10:22PM (#8283424)
        As false advertising...

        1) point that out to the store. They do not want to part of a "bait and switch". The store will generally pull all the company products from the shelf immedatily.

        2) point it out to your State AG. They will "help" stores to get it off the shelfs. Fraud is Fraud.

        It worked nicely on Number9 in early 90's for putting out a $300 video card that did not do any of the things print and shown on the box. They claimed that patch was in the works, this was 6 months after the print date of the box. Also at that point, the internet was not "there"... so it was BBS download and long distance. The customer paying for the right to get the right code.

        CA AG had it pulled from the shelfs until it did get fixed. It cut hard into sales.

  • I'm appalled! (Score:5, Funny)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) * on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:23AM (#8279551) Journal
    So, you spent $50 on a video game, and found out it wasn't very good.

    I'm sure that's never happened before in the history of the world! Better sue, or this might become commonplace!

    • Re:I'm appalled! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @01:53PM (#8280445)
      I'm sure that's never happened before in the history of the world!

      After getting burned a couple of times, I've pretty much decided to never buy a game at full price ever again. If a game sucks, well, now I'm never out more than $20. It gives me a warm fuzzy knowing that the kids out there will absorb the hype for me, and after six months, the real market value of the game appears. Some of the really popular games stay at near full price for many months (so, I just wait a little longer), increasing the chances of a great buy when they finally drop below $20.

    • I bought loads of games for the C64 and found that despite the packaging the vast majority were utter crap.

      So in my opinion I've done my bit for the industry and now absolutely DO NOT buy anything I haven't previously tried. If I can't try it, I don't buy it, simple as that. If I can pirate it, and I find I like it, then I buy it, but only after extensive testing. There's getting to be enough stuff out on FOSS that keeps me occupied these days, so most of my games are in that category.

  • Just return the game. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:53AM (#8279721)
    Instead of a lawsuit, why don't you just return the game to the place you bought it from?

    When I purchased Anarchy Online, I tried playing it for a few weeks. The gameplay was attrocious due to severe lag and many bugs. I wasn't a matter of just being slightly difficult to play - it was flat out impossible to play. Two or three frames per second, at best... if you could even stay connected. And it didn't get better for a looong time.

    So, I sent an email to the place I bought the game from (Amazon.com) telling them that I purchased an online game that I expected to be able to play online and that it had failed miserably and since I could not even actually PLAY it, I had not recieved what I had paid for and wished to return the game.

    They obliged and I recieved a refund without any hassles.
    • For the record, AO is working swell now, though the most recent expansion still has it's fair share of bugs.
    • 7 months after he bought it? I doubt that even Amazon is that liberal.

    • Not always so easy (and the BBB) (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gudlyf ( 544445 ) <.moc.ketsilaer. .ta. .fyldug.> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:43AM (#8283933) Homepage Journal
      I have a similar situation to the original poster's predicament, although it doesn't have to do with a game.

      Early last year I purchased tkcMail [thekompany.com] from theKompany.com. At the time I (and many others) purchased this product, the product page stated that IMAP support was "coming soon". That was over a year ago.

      Since purchasing the product, I joined the product's mailing list to listen for updates on when to expect IMAP support for the product. I was certainly not the only one complaining. The president of the company would often come on the list and promise its "soon" arrival, often in rather rude wording.

      Every so often a developer from the company would appear on the list, telling us it was due out the next week. I believe the last time we heard that was last August.

      I and many others tried to get a refund for the product, since we eagerly bought the product in hopes we'd have a useable IMAP client for the Sharp Zaurus [myzaurus.com] and have yet to see it. But we're always promptly reminded that the company website states that sales are "as is". Since the software is downloaded upon purchase, they claim that since there's no way to not have the software, how can they be expect to allow refunds? Good point there, but I still didn't buy that they could advertise a feature as coming soon like they did to bait people into buying something they couldn't get a refund for.

      Last November I had just about had enough of the waiting, the lax promises and the rude replies to fair questions on the IMAP feature arrival. I decided to contact the Better Business Beareau of CA and at least hopefully scare them. The replied to the first round of inquiry, then ignored the second. If I understand the BBB, they at least now have a black mark on their record.

      The company web page has since removed the claim for IMAP support as a future feature of the product (a wave of the magic Wayback Machine [archive.org] shows the initial state of the page [archive.org]). A scary sight for those of us waiting for that support, but it's actually likely a result of people pointing their fingers at it when demanding a refund.

      Sure, we should have all heeded their "as is" policy before buying the product, but isn't there at least something to a sort-of bait-and-switch sorta deal with this? I mean, is there a legal definition for what a company defines as "soon" when promising a future feature? Can an automobile company make a car then, for example, claim on the advertisement that it will run on water as fuel..."soon"? When do they have to make good on that promise?

      • The solution to your problem, should it arise again in the future, is to call your credit card company and dispute the charge. You have, IIRC, 60 days from purchase to do this (or maybe it's 60 days from statement date) which is plenty of time to assess whether a patch is actually coming. As long as you have a reasonable reason for requesting a chargeback, it will be given to you. If a company has a high enough percentage of customers request a chargeback then the credit card companies issue them to any

  • Don't bother with a class action suit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:54AM (#8279724)
    Unless you have a case for a class action RICO (racketeer influenced and corrupt organization, a RICO suit triples the damages that would normally be awarded) suit, don't bother with a class action. Small claims for damages and court costs (minimal, probably like $10) would be the way to go if you actually take legal action. A better idea would be to either go through your credit card company or even to send the legal department of the company a letter insisting on allowing you to get a refund or you will take legal action as well as let everyone know about what happened. Remember that in the USA, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander charges, so don't forget to review the game on sites like epinions.com or even Amazon.
  • I mean really. You end up spending $50+ on a game that sucks and may cost $15 a year later. I look at the year+ old games. Games that are over a year old and still cost over $30 due to demand are probably worth buying.

    As to your original question, did the game box say anywhere that it was a multi-player version or that one was "soon to be available?"

    Was there ever anything but the company saying "We're working on it"? That's not a committment, legal or otherwise.

    No? Forget it. Pay your Stupid Tax a

  • "Consumers" have no "rights" (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Your rights, such as they are, are outlined in the license agreement that you accept. If you do not accept the license agreement, you have no right to use the software. If you use it anyway, you are a felon. This crime is far worse than rape or murder, because it strikes at the heart of the system of natural incentives which drives our free economy. Any "rights" that the vendor chooses to grant you are gifts, pure and simple, and you certainly have not earned them. The vendor has sunk millions of dollars of
    • TIf you use it anyway, you are a felon. This crime is far worse than rape or murder, because it strikes at the heart of the system of natural incentives which drives our free economy.

      I knewthat John Ashcroft is a conservative Pentecostal Christian.

      And I knew that Hillary Rosen is a liberal (apparently Jewish) lesbian.

      What I didn't know was that despite their differences, they managed to mate and have a baby who posts to Slashdot.

      Mod the RIAAReichsBaby +5 funny.

    • Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice. I recognize that the parent comment is a parody of far-right fascism, but I've read this misconception in several other places and feel it in the Slashdot community's best interest that somebody correct this misconception.

      If you do not accept the license agreement, you have no right to use the software.

      This is true only under very limited circumstances. If you have bought an authentic copy of a proprietary software package at retail in the United States,

    • In one way you are right but superficialy: Yes we are bound by the EULA but only to the level that it does not contradict law.

      I may agree with an EULA and it may say that they can enter my house at 3am and rape me but that does not mean that they have the legal right to do so. When you sign a contract the contract is not the whole story. It is the contract and the whole of the legal code of that particular country.

      As regards EULA I am always a little uneasy by the concept of making a purchace of some soft
    • Sorry this post is somewhat off-topic.

      First, I'm part of the politically disenfranchised. I'm very politically aware, but like Diogenes [utm.edu], I scour the polls in vain, in a desperate search for an honest politician. If you're merely making parody for parody's sake, then please forgive the following rant. However, if you're merely a whining liberal who hates any notion of conservatives or any resemblance of limited government, then this rant is specifically for you.

      Heaven forbid that I'm not for the distrib

  • Well. (Score:1, Redundant)

    by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 )

    Did the box say 'multiplayer?' If no, then you fucked up. You got what you bought.

    If yes, then you fucked up; you should have taken it back to the store immediately and demanded your money back.

  • No Class Action Lawsuit Possible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @01:04PM (#8280142)
    The original poster obviously doesn't know much about class-action lawsuits. IANAL, but I do know a thing or two.

    No law firm will pursue such a thing unless the following criteria are met:

    * There has to be a very large class, at least when consumer products issues are concerned, so that any remedy has substantial monetary value. How many people bought this product? Like, 50? I've never even heard of it.

    * There has to be a remedy that easy translates into dollars that makes sense in the case. How do you put a value on providing missing functionality? The only remedy is for a refund... which is problematic, because...

    * There has to be an affirmative representation that justifies the remedy. In this case, it is arguable that there was no such affirmative representation. The packaging of the box DOES NOT mention multi-player, right? And you'd better believe that any judge will agree that it is fair for the specs of a product to change right up until shipping time.

    Class-action lawyers typically do not get paid by a client(and it is possible that they CANNOT get paid by a client - again, IANAL). They make all of their money on a percentage of the value of the remedy, and on recovering their costs.

    The iPod suits that were recently filed fit the bill - millions of members of a potential class, obvious remedy (provide a battery that has the advertised life), and obvious return - millions of users X the cost of the hypothetical battery.

    Bottom line: unless millions of people, literally, bought this game, there isn't a chance in hell of a normal class-action lawsuit. Even if that many people did buy it, it still doesn't look too good.
    • Sunflowers is a german company, there are no class-action lawsuits in Germany. So stop wasting your effort. EA seems to be the US distributor so you could try them instead. But how can they be blamed? Did EA ever advertise multi-player?

      • there are no class-action lawsuits in Germany

        I am not familiar with the German legal system. How do product safety laws get endorsed against German manufacturers? What does Germany have instead of class-action lawsuits?

    • The game is more popular in Europe. Their forums claim to have 50,000+ members (and I don't think that includes all of the banned accounts).

      There is plenty of evidence supporting my case: the demo that is still downloadable from EA does mention multiplayer. Their "cached" version of the website prior to my announcement of the lawsuit mentions no lack of multiplayer, the game publisher's online interviews and even quicktime movies tout the multiplayer functionality. Please read-up on my website for more inf
      • Agram,

        1. None of the above claims that you make on the part of the publishers/distributors of the game would hold up in US courts.

        2. Unless the numbers of buyers (the potential class) is at least several hundred thousand in the US, no American lawyer would touch it. Class action lawsuits are a very American thing :)

        I'd strongly suggest that you find a non-litigous solution to your dilemma. Or just wait for the new release and deal.

        Jonathan
    • The iPod suits that were recently filed fit the bill - millions of members of a potential class, obvious remedy (provide a battery that has the advertised life), and obvious return - millions of users X the cost of the hypothetical battery.

      What the hell are you smoking? iPod's "advertised battery life"? The iPod's battery lasted as long as Apple said it would, "8 hours, depending on use".

      Oh, you mean how long the LiIon battery lasts before it will no longer hold a charge. I am sorry, can you see anything
      • Look, it is an EXCELLENT example since 5 lawfirms have found enough to file suits. Don't shoot the messenger - read the headlines - IANAL, and I didn't file the suits, nor did I suggest that anyone should.

        Get off my case :)

        Jonathan

  • 1. Company releases online game
    2. You buy game hoping to play online
    3. Company pulls all server to save money

    The problem is finding an attorney to understand these cases and be willing to represent us. Otherwise, this is pretty much an open-and-shut case.

    Any slashdot reader who recently graduated from law school and would like to win a class action lawsuit as a career stepping stone? Talk to us.

  • Happens more often. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:09PM (#8280896) Journal
    One of the sequels to Elite had no soundblaster support. At the time soundblaster was practically the only card. The more recent Mafia had problems with logitech force feedback wheels. It was a driving game and there are two makers large makers of force feedback wheels. Guess on of those companies name.

    Saying you should read the reviews is bullshit. Game reviews are not worth the paper they are written on wich for online versions is very bad news indeed. Remember Hidden & Dangerous? Reviewed as the second coming of gameplay. They never got the bugs out.

    The game industry like the computer industry in general is very childish. Would you accept it if you bought a car and one of the cylinders doesn't work? No? Then why are we supposed to accept missing pixels on lcd's? Would accept a book with 30% of the words mispelled but they are gonna fix it anyday now? Then why do you accept buggy software?

    Sueing is considered an evil but sadly it seems to be the only way to get companies to behave. Cars didn't become safe until people sued. Tobacco wasn't labelled as dangerous until people sued. Computer companies will keep selling crap at high prices with no support until we sue.

    Will it happen? I doubt it. Have you ever seen a consumer affairs program touch software?

    About the only real advise I can give this person is put up a site advising everyone against ever buying a product from that company again. Invest time and money in a review site that really reviews games by playing them from start to finish and noting down every bug and crash. That is the way real stuff is tested. You know the stuff someone once sued about.

    My warning. Gathering of Developers, the publishers of Mafia and vietcong, have intresting games but their support is total crap. Buy their software only if you are 100% sure it will run for you. If the demo is buggy then so will the final game be in their case. Note that I had problems only with force feedback but the rest was smooth sailing. Others never even got the game to load. Play the demo. If it sucks then so will the game. THEY WILL NOT FIX ANY BUGS between demo and release time. Patches afterwards are only done by a couple of companies. On a positive note Papyrus of Grand Prix Legends released patches that didn't fix games. They upgraded the game to take advantage of new hardware. Then again the demo played perfectly on my pc also. Mmmm, good demo, good manual, good box, good game, good support. Spotting a trend here.

    • Re:Happens more often. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 )
      Would you accept it if you bought a car and one of the cylinders doesn't work? No? Then why are we supposed to accept missing pixels on lcd's?

      Because only selling 100% perfect LCDs would drive their price up enormously. If there were a market for guaranteed perfect LCDs at a much higher price, then somebody would already be selling them. The fact that nobody is selling them is proof that nobody is willing to pay X times more money for one.

      Would accept a book with 30% of the words mispelled but they are

      • Re:Happens more often. (Score:3, Informative)

        by yamla ( 136560 )
        The actual LCD screen itself, the bit that has the defective pixels, only costs approximately $15 to manufacture. If we assume for a moment that half of these are defective, this means it would only cost an additional $15, on average, to make perfect LCDs with no bad pixels.

        Of course, this is simplifying things somewhat. There probably aren't enough perfect screens to keep up with demand for LCDs, for example.
        • The additional processes needed to sort the close enough lcds from the perfect lcds would add costs to both the perfect lcds and the not so great ones. The manufacturer would then be cut out of the standard lcd market since their prices wouldn't be competitive... and who knows if many people are willing to buy perfect lcds anyhow?

          I'd guess LCD manufacturers are counting on process improvements to improve overall quality, so they don't have to add more sorting

        • Re:Happens more often. (Score:4, Informative)

          by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot@org.gmail@com> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:13PM (#8282084) Homepage Journal
          Well, first off, $15 just doesn't jive [theinquirer.net].

          I'm willing to say maybe $150... anyways...

          >If we assume for a moment that half of these are defective, this means it would only cost an additional $15, on average, to make perfect LCDs with no bad pixels.

          Well, at one point (a long while ago, but I digress) the success rate with LCDs was 10%.

          It's now 18% [itmanagersjournal.com].

          That's at the current max 10 dead pixel rates (depends on who makes it). I would think you can chop those numbers by 10 or more if you want perfection. That makes a $150 LCD $1500 to make perfect, not to mention disposal costs.

          Most consumer products cost about 20% - 50% of the original price to manufacture (or so it seems from my poking about), which would mean the $1500 LCD becomes a $3000 - $7500 LCD when it's on the shelves of your local Best Buy. And that's for a 15" LCD.

          Who the hell will pay that much for one? I sure wouldn't.

  • Uru (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Radu Lycan ( 534150 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:01PM (#8281241) Homepage
    Uru (newest Myst game) had the main function of it being an online mode (aka "Live"), requiring it to access much of the content of the game by interacting with others.

    Apparently, the online function of the game WAS on the game packaging itself, as well as mentioned on the official site.

    But Ubi effectively scammed everyone who paid for it for the online function by shutting the Live part down claiming a low amount of subscribers, even though they limited it to 30 people max on a mere 2 servers, while Live function still being buggy and laggy as it was basically still in Beta testing.

    Thankfully, one of the founders of Cyan (company who started the series) posted a letter to the fans saying it was basically shutdown down indefinitely until/if they can fix the bugs to make it reasonably playable. And also mentioned that they will switch to the back-up plan of releasing expansions via online and possibly in-store downloads, with the first one being free.

    I'd hope if they fix the bugs that Cyan would choose a better company then Ubi to run the game servers, apparently the Uru Live lag was somehow greatly affecting all the other games hosted on Ubi servers.

    • Re:Uru (Score:2)

      by EMR ( 13768 )
      You didn't have to pay anything to get into the Live portion of the game at the time.. As they were having a "public beta". When they ever finished the beta they were going to have people sign up and pay.
      They also have had 3 servers for the past 2 or 3 weeks. And unfortunatly most of the "Lag" issue is on the client side due to having to render all of those nicely detailed player characters. As when you got over 20 people in your neighborhood the game started to crawl. I was once in a neighbrohood with 5

  • that's nothing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by theMerovingian ( 722983 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:43PM (#8281510) Journal

    I bought a first generation Xbox ($300) just so I could play Nightcaster.

    I should get an award for pain and suffering, in addition to my $350 being refunded.

  • Blame (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Andy Smith ( 55346 ) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:59PM (#8282310)
    I hate to say it but to take a pragmatic view of the issue, game developers and publishers are not to blame for poor quality games. The blame must lie with the consumers.

    Three or four years ago I wrote for several gaming web sites and my pet subjects were false advertising and, more importantly, the EULAs that allow developers to rip-off consumers.

    Time and again, developers and publishers made it clear (by their actions) that they didn't want consumers to have any rights, that they wanted to be able to release unfinished, bug-ridden products, and they didn't want to accept any responsibility for fixing their products.

    And time and again, consumers said the same thing: That's fine with us!

    I can't count the number of flames and hate messages I received in response to the articles I wrote. Thousands? Tens of thousands, more like. Not from developers but from game players. Comments sections of web sites were flooded with the most personal abuse. My inbox filled up with everything from unresearched "you're wrong because blah-blah company r0cks" messages to juvenile death threats. All because I had dared to suggest that consumers should be entitled to products that work as advertised.

    Eventually I re-focussed my efforts and most of what I wrote from then on tried to make one point: If you keep telling developers and publishers that you'll forgive them for ripping you off then they'll keep on doing it, and eventually it will reach a stage that you *do* want the situation changed. But by then it will be too late.

    Maybe it's too late now?

    • Re:Blame (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )
      In capitolism, it is never "too late". If the public is really outraged enough, these companies will start hemmoraging money, and either they will give in to what they public wants, or they will die. The problem is not being "too late", rather, the problem is that most of the public are sheep, and completely willing to continue to accept the abuse.

  • Here is a quiz for you: (Score:4, Funny)

    by green_crocadilian ( 717907 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:24AM (#8283875)
    one of these lawsuits is completely frivolous. Can you guess which one?
    1. You sue the police department because in a case of mistaken identity, they knock down your door and release the dogs, who badly maul you and your sleeping wife.
    2. You sue the hospital because they totally fsck up a routine operation and make your right arm unusable for a year, and then pretend nothing happened.
    3. You sue a game company because you like bought into the hype and wasted $50 on a bad game, just like the last 3 times when you bought games without actually checking a reliable review site.
  • I bought Battlecruiser Millennium, at the time there was no multiplay option available. There was a "multiplayer" option at the main menu, and the reviews of the game that I read online stated that Derek Smart had promised a free multiplay patch when it was available.

    I put the game on the shelf for a while and when I started to look into it I saw that you had to buy "Battlecruiser Millennium Gold" to get multiplayer.

    At that point I pretty much gave up on it and put the game away. I wish you luck with your
  • let me know if this is successful and then we can go take on microsoft!
  • I don't know if you will get much relief from your past purchases, but you are doing the right thing by letting the rest of us know how crappy the company is. The next time they come out with a game, drop them an email letting them know why you won't be purchasing it. Or send them a link to this story. "You suck, and here is who knows about it..."
  • There are over 300 messages on their message boards concerning MP. Additionally MP is supposedly in beta since October. So IMHO they are aware there is a problem. Unfortunately, in all likelyhood, the company isn't doing well enough to afford the class action suit.

    Rather than a suit or other damaging (or disparaging) claims, perhaps an on-line petition , where the company could verify that X% of registered users are dissatisfied might be considered 'constructive criticism,' when compared to a class actio

  • The first thought that popped into my head was "that sucks". The second one was "why the hell would you sue?". Do you have any idea how much of a crackpot/greedy bastard you will look like if you sue a video game company for making false claims? In that case I am looking for a lawyer to take my pro bono case, I am suing EVERY COMPANY THAT HAS SOLD ANYTHING, EVER! They lied to you, plain and simple. Chalk it up to experience, and don't add to our litigation obsessed society, wherein even the slightest infrac
  • I'm in a class action lawsuit against a TV maker for selling millions of faulty TVs. I paid almost a grand for it. The laywers are getting 6 to 7 million dollars and we are getting a coupon for for 25$ off another crappy TV from this company!
  • why are 70 % of the people replying to this thread not reading what the poster has written? the box DID state multiplayer according to the poster. Why bag someone for trying to stand up for the rest of us against obviously dodgy practice by a games publisher? how many places do you need to see a feature advertised before you can accept that it is actually implemented? it was "advertised" on the website, in reviews, in demo videos, on the box, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close