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."

"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."

Comments

Multiplayer test

[nempo]

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.

Get a lawyer

[Sancho]

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.

Re:Get a lawyer

[fmaxwell]

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.

Don't go so far

[Apreche]

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.

Too late. But good luck anyway

[wowbagger]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The "rinse and repeat" technique

[tepples]

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.

Question was "how do I get a lawyer?"

[tepples]

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on Slashdot?

It seems you misunderstood the article. OP wrote:

How does one go about locating a reputable and internationally active law firm that could handle this case?

How else is one supposed to ask the question "how do I find such a lawyer?"

Re:Mod this guy to a Million

[pla]

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.

How about reading-up on the topic first?

[Agram]

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.

Long response from the story's author

[Agram]

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