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."
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?
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
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.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
You might as well get pirate copies of the games. The support can't be worse. In some cases, the pirated game is superior to the one you bought: none of those noxious FCKGW-87H45- etc etc etc codes to hassle with.
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.
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.
The important point is that it costs the losing company millions. That's how we discourage false and misleading advertising.
I don't know the specifics of this case but there are some key points that we, as consumers, should consider.
When does a product review become advertising? I purchased a Cendyne CD-ROM drive after reading a review linked-to on their web page. That review revealed that the drive was actually a Lite-On. What I received was a Benq(Acer), a far less desirable drive. Is it fair for Cendyne to link to a review, knowing that the product reviewed is not even close to the same as the product that they ship?
Suppose Microsoft were to hand out pre-release review copies of Office which included support for importing OpenOffice.org files -- even though they knew that the import feature would not be shipped. Would the reviews of those pre-release copies be advertising? I think so.
If a software publisher touts a feature to reviewers and the press, then they should be legally obligated to either provide that feature or to prominently label the package to indicate that the feature is not present.
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.
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.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
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.
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.
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.
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 that Apple advertised about this?
In fact, would Apple ever write anything down about how long a LiIon battery (which is well known for not lasting forever) would last?
Oh, are you saying your have a problem with the fact that Apple advertised the removable battery? Oh, wait, they did not do that, either.
And how would Apple "provide a battery that has the advertised life"? LiIon is going to be about the best technology for something like the iPod. A "replacement battery" is going to have the same overall lifespan as the original.
You do realize all of this, do you not?
So in other words, the iPod class action lawsuit is not a good example. Apple made no claims about the lifespan of the battery, and used the best battery technology for their product. They replaced the battery when it was under warranty.
So you want a class action lawsuit to keep Apple from doing the same thing in the future? What should Apple not do? They never said the battery would last forever. They never said the battery was replaceable. If you do not agree with that business decision, then it is your obligation as the consumer to go elsewhere for your portable MP3 player.
I am tired of hearing people complain about this subject. It is like it is a cool thing to complain about when, in fact, the details are a lot less clear-cut than people would like to make it out.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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?
Early last year I purchased tkcMail 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 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 shows the initial state of the page). 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?
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
It would have hepled if the SUBMITTER had done that. The manufacturer stated that the MP patch would not be out for some time. He went and bought the game anyway, even though he was only interested in the MP functionality.
If I were the judge in his lawsiut, I would heavily fine him for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
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. Witihin a few hours or one day of your posting your warcry, they had their lawyers ALL over covering their rear-end.