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
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).
The game is more popular in Europe. Their forums claim to have 50,000+ members (and I don't think that includes all of the banned accounts).
There is plenty of evidence supporting my case: the demo that is still downloadable from EA does mention multiplayer. Their "cached" version of the website prior to my announcement of the lawsuit mentions no lack of multiplayer, the game publisher's online interviews and even quicktime movies tout the multiplayer functionality. Please read-up on my website for more info.
In addition, if a law firm would step forward to do this case it would be conceivable that such relationship could be extended to include class-action suits for other games that were released as crippleware. I can certainly think of at least a half-dozen without a hitch. Therefore, this long-term relationship could be the "carrot" the law firm would need to do this case.
Unfortunately it seems I am dealing with an immature person without manners, yet, I'll play along at least for this one round.
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)
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.
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.
It is quite interesting to see various reactions to this announcment. Yet, I find no problem in such action. Tampering other person's computer is immoral and more importantly illegal even if the OS they utilize is ridden with security holes. It's kind of like saying human body has numerous weaknesses, so to show the humanity just how "fragile" their bodies are we'll infect them with something bad. Now, who would do something like that? A pharmaceutical company comes to mind in order to boost its sales perhaps (or in the case of the aforementioned, perhaps one of the anti-virus companies)...
It will be interesting to see how and why these "individuals" did what they did. Although I seriously doubt that, assuming they ever get caught, they will reveal the big brother behind them...
Slashdot Mirror
Now, that I have gained some experience through this ordeal, this is probably one thing that I would have done exactly the way you said it.
Yet, I think I still have a very strong case considering just how convincing evidence I have. Therefore, I am not intending on giving up just yet.
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
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).
The game is more popular in Europe. Their forums claim to have 50,000+ members (and I don't think that includes all of the banned accounts).
There is plenty of evidence supporting my case: the demo that is still downloadable from EA does mention multiplayer. Their "cached" version of the website prior to my announcement of the lawsuit mentions no lack of multiplayer, the game publisher's online interviews and even quicktime movies tout the multiplayer functionality. Please read-up on my website for more info.
In addition, if a law firm would step forward to do this case it would be conceivable that such relationship could be extended to include class-action suits for other games that were released as crippleware. I can certainly think of at least a half-dozen without a hitch. Therefore, this long-term relationship could be the "carrot" the law firm would need to do this case.
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)
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.
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
It will be interesting to see how and why these "individuals" did what they did. Although I seriously doubt that, assuming they ever get caught, they will reveal the big brother behind them...