Slashdot Mirror


Superpoke Players Sue Google

mikejuk writes "SuperPoke Pets is another casualty of Google's aggressive spring cleanup... But unlike other users of Google's trashed software, Superpoke users have decided to fight back with a class action. The aim is to recover the money they spend on virtual gold used as a currency to buy clothes for their virtual pets. The total 'amount in controversy' exceeds $5,000,000 — a sum that is credible given that there were at least 7,000,000 users. So if you are considering adding a virtual currency to your app you might want to think of the future."

32 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. 5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I dont want to live on this planet anymore... But really, unless there was a 'we'll never shut down" clause in the user agreement I dont see the idiots winning this one.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "5 mill on virtual pet cloths?"

      averages out to less than a dollar per person.

      what's the big deal?

    2. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Every minute and every penny Kenja's ever spent has been on something indisputably worthwhile, so he's justified in looking down on these idiots (i.e., meaning everyone but him).

      Hey... history will vindicate me and my collection of porcelain unicorns.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I dont want to live on this planet anymore... But really, unless there was a 'we'll never shut down" clause in the user agreement I dont see the idiots winning this one.

      Problem is the expectations of users. Back a few years ago Google was Shiny, Fun, Friendly, doing good things, going neat places.

      Now Google is yet-another corporation, swaggering and doing the things Corporations do, which is whitewash this, discard that, trample the disires of their customers on the way to where they think the next buck (of saved buck) is.

      I find Google changing things in ways which I'm now finding, not just vexing, but utterly disruptive - it's like they don't want to leave well enough alone.

      Somewhere in that big campus off Charleston Road, there's gotta be someone who asks the question, "Is it right for our users?"

      and is listened to.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by residieu · · Score: 2

      But the lead plaintiff spent $1000, apparently. That's a lot of fake clothes. I wonder what the numbers are like if you ignore all the users who didn't spend anything.

    5. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by lgw · · Score: 2

      It surprised me. Google's early success came entirely from respecting its customers - no monkey punching, just text ads. They made a ton of money keeping to that theme. Departing from it seems stupid, and I fully expect them to depart from their successful track record as a result.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by caution+live+frogs · · Score: 2

      And how much is the lead plaintiff spending on legal fees? With what chance of success, given the legal team Google has on hand? Should have just eaten the $1k. Throwing good money after bad if you ask me.

    7. Re:5 mill on virtual pet cloths? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      Fluoridation is causing the sapping of our precious bodily fluids and will power by the evil powers of communism!

      - Gen. Jack Ripper, Cmdr, Burfelson Air Force Base

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  2. You can have the money back... by asdbffg · · Score: 5, Funny

    but only if you promise to buy REAL clothes this time.

    1. Re:You can have the money back... by kat_skan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please no. The only thing worse than people who buy virtual clothes for their virtual pets would have to be people who buy real clothes for their real pets.

    2. Re:You can have the money back... by aamcf · · Score: 2

      The BBC published an article about that today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16943314

    3. Re:You can have the money back... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      I'd rather have a pet that does bigger poop and can be house trained than have one that poops anywhere it walks

    4. Re:You can have the money back... by ne0n · · Score: 2

      This settlement should be paid with pictures of real and/or virtual currency, and pictures of clothes for real or imagined pets.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    5. Re:You can have the money back... by lgarner · · Score: 2

      How silly that everyone doesn't want mice for pets. How much better the world would be. Hell, how about cockroach pets? No vet bills since the damn things just keep on living!

      Stupid, irrational pet owners!

  3. Implications for EULAs? by Rone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure the SuperPoke EULA had provisions stating that all virtual currency purchased for use in-game was non-refundable, no matter what.

    In light of that, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court. If Google doesn't settle, and loses, we could possibly see an EULA-affecting precedent come out of this.

    1. Re:Implications for EULAs? by lostmongoose · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Google loses, then every F2P MMO that has shut down and had cash shops will have to pay up to the users who bought items and game currency.

    2. Re:Implications for EULAs? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would seem to me digital items are provided as a SERVICE, not a PRODUCT. If I get a contract with a cell company, and then my contract runs out (or they go under or something), I am not entitled to get my money back because I was paying for a service and not a physical product (well I may have paid for my phone but I get to keep it if my contract included paying for it). Similarly when I buy a digital item, there is no physical product. I am buying the service of using this imaginary item. The only issue here is when I buy this service for unlimited usage, should I be compensated when the service is stopped? Even if the answer is yes I doubt the full amount will be refunded, because the users got usage out of the "service".

    3. Re:Implications for EULAs? by 0racle · · Score: 4, Informative
      [citation needed]

      Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

      The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid ... Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable ... No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Implications for EULAs? by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      You also bought the Sharper Image gift card?

  4. A great basis for a lawsuit by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are suing Google because we have no life and are stupid. We can prove, in court, we have no life and are stupid. Pay up Google.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  5. Dumb Idea to Begin With by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why I pay the rent instead of buying fake money with real money.

    1. Re:Dumb Idea to Begin With by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      As far as I'm concerned, if I can take it to the grocery store and buy coke & chips, it's "real". That would include the proper green paper, various sizes of coins, and plastic cards with magnetic strips. And exclude Bitcoins, Linden bucks, and whatever this "Poke" stuff uses for money.

      So what *YOU* use for money is money, but what *OTHER PEOPLE* use for money is not?

      YOU can not take Korean Won or whatever they use in Kurdistan for money to the local 7/11. Does that mean it isn't money?

      These morons trade pooka shells for fluffy goat sex options, thus pooka shells are demonstrably MONEY.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Dumb Idea to Begin With by geekoid · · Score: 2

      So you have a dollar in your hand, and you buy a coke, that's real money.

      But you use that same dollar to buy a digital item, and suddenly it's not money?
      WTF?, over.

      I mean, you DID read the article and understood they spend actual government backed green backs to buy the gold in the game, right? I mean, you wouldn't be one of those douche bags that spouts off without getting informed, correct?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Only one thing I don't get by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The one thing I don't really get, superpoke had a rabbid insanely loyal fanbase... why didn't they just port it to G+, leave it in the games tab just like all of their other games that can't annoy people who don't use it, and basically have millions of people with a reason to sign into g+ on a regular basis? That being said, I also don't see a single way that the users can even expect to have a shot in a million at this, games with microtransactions shut down, it is a fact of life. That is what you get when you buy image files on someone else's server.

  7. Re:So keep it running and make $$$ by Aladrin · · Score: 2

    Because it cost more than $5mil to run it for that time, and/or it didn't look like it would produce a profit in the future?

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  8. Let me see if I understand this correctly? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Superpoke Pets was a game that Google acquired when they acquired Slide. Users can purchase virtual items like clothes with real money. Google has decided to end the game (various reasons). Google has created an export tool but users complain it doesn't work quite right. So now a class action lawsuit to refund users' real money to the amount of $5M for all 7 M users. The main plaintiff personally spent thousands herself. Am I the only one that thinks there is no basis here?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. Re:Precedent by geekoid · · Score: 2

    No. If you bought an item in the game using real money. i.e. a gold purchase through blizzard, then you would have an example. This isn't about time.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Re:oh, and BITCOIN, beeotches! AHAHAHAHAHAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can easily exchange it for beer.

    I'm sorry, is there some other necessary criteria that I wasn't aware of?

  11. Crappy Title by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Just to be clear, this is about SuperPoke! Pets.

    SuperPoke! was a social media application that was made by independent developers and was later acquired by a company called Slide. It allowed social media users to do such things as hurl virtual sheep at their friends instead of just "poking" them. SuperPoke! Pets evolved from this, taking the same artwork and building a virtual pet environment.

    Superpokepets.com was created as a stand alone web application. People could migrate their pets from the social media sites if they wanted. All of this, plus several other social media applications, were owned by Slide when it was acquired by Google. Google allowed Slide to continue to operate semi-autonomously for some time, but has since decided to dissolve/disband it. Employees will be assimilated into the Googleplex and the apps will be shut down. If Google were to continue to support this application, they would have to fund enough servers, databases, support desk, etc. for a 7M+ userbase. Apparently it was not worth it to Google to keep it running.

    I don't believe that the social media versions of this application ever had a virtual currency, but I might be wrong. From what I read, currency was added after the web application was created and I suspect that it was only available there.

    Interestingly, Google did go so far as to create a standalone version of the environment that users could migrate their pets to if they wished to keep playing with them. Apparently this is a bit buggy, and does not support interacting with other users, but it was a good idea. Might be nice if they were to open source either the standalone application, the web application, or even both. From the sound of things it doesn't seem like they are looking to sell it off. My kids loved to play in these sorts of virtual worlds when they were younger, and if I had the code I would have been willing to stand up a small version for my children and their friends.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Crappy Title by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      According to the article:

      Soon afterwards it was acquired by Slide and new features, including the ability to buy virtual gold bars with real money were added by the time it launched on its own website in December 2008.

      So the timeline might be a bit in question. However, from the article comes this tidbit (this appears immediately before the "total amount in controversy..." quote in the summary, which is word for word from the article):

      class action represents thousands of people across the who purchased gold and/or subscribed to a $4.95/month VIP subscription

      So it's not only about people buying clothes for their pets. Furthermore, the article claims users were:

      misled about how long the game would continue

      It also was apparently a game that was accessible to and enjoyed by handicapped users. Given that handicapped users often can't play a lot of other games, and by all accounts this was an enjoyable game, and one which encouraged social interaction (a lot of handicapped people are severely restricted in their ability to get out of the house and/or socialize in the usual ways), I can understand their disappointment in it shutting down. (Not saying that this argument will necessarily hold weight in a lawsuit, but many people - bloggers, website posters, talk show hosts - seem to find it all too easy to forget there's always a human side to these stories.)

  12. This is how business works these days by Sentrion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are countless examples of services people pay for that could leave them high and dry if they are not careful:

    1. Gift Cards. Often have expiration dates or monthly service fees that eat away the value of the card even though the card has been paid for with real cash and the company keeps, and usually reinvests, this cash. And the card is no longer redeemable if the company goes bankrupt.
    2. Overpayments on credit card balances. Just before the banking crisis and TARP bailout, a group of executives at one of the largest banks debated on whether overpayments on credit cards would be a monetary asset belonging to the individual, or free cash for the bank. The executives concluded that they had the full legal right to re-appropriate any overpayments to the corporate asset sheet, but backed away from this plan just before it was about to go forward because of fears about public backlash.
    3. Obsolete products. Think about the 1.3 million customers who bought HD-DVD players and drives. They cannot play their HD-DVD movies on Blu-Ray players and they cannot play Blu-Ray discs on their HD-DVD players. So many of them are stuck with two players and a movie collection divided into two completely different incompatible formats. Over the span of a single lifetime a movie aficionado might have to buy the same movies in five or six different formats just to be able to view their favorite movies with current technology. And support for obsolete technology (such as media, spare parts, repair services) fades quickly.
    4. Legal tender. Want to talk about fake money? How about the US Dollar, which is a FIAT currency backed up with no physical or practical value other than the "full faith and credit" of the US Government. Same can be said as well for most government bonds, certificates of deposit, and other instruments. The potential for a collapse in "real" currency value or a default on government bonds is just as real as the discontinuation of SuperPoke gold.
    5. Coupon books and discount memberships. Do I need to elaborate?
    6. Insurance. Even though there are some government regulations in place and most insurance companies are insured by an even bigger company, like AIG, there is no absolute guarantee that insurance will be available to bail you out when you really need it. If they don't find some way to categorize your claim into one of their many and ambiguous exclusions, there is still the potential that an insurance company and it's backer could both go bankrupt at the same time, leaving you on your own without compensation for your losses. Government may bail you out, as happens with some natural disasters, but this has not always been the case.
    7. Warranties, guarantees, service contracts, and other contractual provisions. Again, if the company goes out of business none of these "fake" products are likely to be available to you. In some cases, even your contractual rights can be violated. If the company you buy from has agreed by contract not to share your personal information with outside parties, that contact can be (and in some instances has been) nullified in bankruptcy. In one recent case the personal information collected under such terms was sold to another company for top dollar in a corporate bankruptcy auction.
    8. Your rights in general. There are no guarantees that your rights, statutory or constitutional, cannot be revoked at any time, either by the legal procedures that already exist, or by illegal actions taken by powerful dictators, corrupt bureaucrats, or foreign invaders. Your rights in a court of law are also hindered by the practical reality that holding your ground and defending your rights in court involves court costs, attorney's fees, legal services (such as process servers or expert witnesses), and potentially a truck load of office supplies, stamps, and clerical services, not to mention your limited time that you might need to earn a living to support a family. Getting help from law enforcement or an attorney general is apparently possible fo

  13. Re:??? Profit? by dropadrop · · Score: 2

    Wait, so Google managed to collect $5M in revenue in exchange for "virtual" goods (basically, nothing) and still couldn't manage to make Superpoke profitable? Hey Mit Romney, what was that you were saying about about how the Government is so inefficient but private enterprise does a better job?

    How long did they run the service for? Did they have big teams working on content / improving the service? At 1$ per player over the lifetime of the service it's not exactly huge revenue, it's not like it was run from somebodies basement...