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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
What you SHOULD have done was:
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."
www.eFax.com are spammers
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.
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!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
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.
Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on Slashdot?
It seems you misunderstood the article. OP wrote:
How else is one supposed to ask the question "how do I find such a lawyer?"
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
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)
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.
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
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?
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.
IANAL, but I play one on
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