Slashdot Mirror
1503AD and the Rapid Erosion of End-User Rights?
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."
For more details regarding this issue please visit this site."
"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?
For more details regarding this issue please visit this site."
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.
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.
--
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, then you have bought a copy and you retain all rights granted to the owner of a lawfully made copy under U.S. copyright law, including without limitation 17 USC 109 and 117. The MAI v. Peak case ignored 117, but Congress specifically reversed the case's precedent in a rider to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. However, whether a publisher can succeed in claiming that the presentation of the EULA "effectively controls access to" the program under another part of the DMCA (17 USC 1201) has not yet been tested in court.
Before going any further, perhaps it needs to be mentioned that I am the one who is behind this story.
/. 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.
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
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 checking out the box, plesae see my earlier post and/or read-up on the link provided in the original story.
Therefore, in response to your dubiously irrelevant post, please see here and here (the second is the link to their site prior to my announcement of this lawsuit -- the screenshot was taken on the 6th of January 2004)
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).
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 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.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
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 software and only after being presented with the terms and conditons of its use. I find something fundamentaly unfair about the whole situation. It is like me buying a car and only once I get in and turn the igniton key the salesman runs up and says you may only carry one person at a time or one piece of luggage and after 3 years you have to give it back. ANyway I am digressing from the point. The guy should go to the shop where he bought it and get his money back. Do not go after the software publisher. There are two ways of looking at this. 1- You bought the product from a shop and it is defective, you are entitiled to a refund of your money. 2- The shop acted as an agent for the software house.
The correct option will depend on the country. Personaly I prefer the first option. A shop has no interest in setting a precedent and will be more likley to settle before the court. Secondly the shop will be able to punish the software publisher more than you will. THey can threaten with future purchaces and products in all of their brances not just one lousy sale (you). Good luck and dont try for Class action. It is not quick or eficcient.
(I am not a lawyer... blah blah blah)
.
Well, first off, $15 just doesn't jive.
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%.
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.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
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 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)
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 anyone who asks regardless of reason. Taking your money back from the company is often more effective than giving them a black mark with the BBB, and advising people on the mailing list to get their money back could have caused them to actually implement the feature.
Remember this: if you paid with a credit card then no company actually has your money until 60 days later.
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).
Termites are consumers, we are customers .
Unless you start making this distinctions, there is no reason for the companies to treat you this way.
While I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, the term "customer" implies a relationship with a single merchant. For example: "I am a Best Buy customer." "Consumer", on the other hand, is a more generic term that refers to someone who purchases from multiple merchants. An example: "I am a high-end audio consumer."
P.S. Sorry that your post got modded back down as "offtopic." It was not off-topic at all.
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:
/5.jpg
/Engdemo.jpg
the official website's FAQ prior to the announcement of this lawsuit: http://home.fuse.net/slipstreamscapes/1503AD/Legal
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
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