Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Someone finally snapped.

hobo9766hobo9766 Member UncommonPosts: 457

I found this thread a few moments ago if only everyone burned by fc would follow the example.
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=927504&topic=44510130

«1345678

Comments

  • AranStormahAranStormah Member Posts: 278

    Someone should reply to that thread and give the OP a heads up about the EULA being flawed; the last few paragraphs are currently gibberish.

    I mean it's entirely unreadable and makes no sense. I'm not sure for how many patches the EULA has been like that, but I would think it has some sort of impact in terms of its credibility seeing as you have no idea what the last paragraphs are supposed to say.

    Anyways, sueing over a 50USD purchase is ridiculous... but I agree in principle. If someone ever wins a MMO lawsuit and anulls the EULAs, we're going to see a whole lot fewer MMOs and it could hurt the genre alot. On the other hand it has a slim chance of ensuring we get the same quality products as singleplayer games, so the door could swing both ways.

  • ArckenArcken Member Posts: 2,431
    Originally posted by AranStormah


    Someone should reply to that thread and give the OP a heads up about the EULA being flawed; the last few paragraphs are currently gibberish.
    I mean it's entirely unreadable and makes no sense. I'm not sure for how many patches the EULA has been like that, but I would think it has some sort of impact in terms of its credibility seeing as you have no idea what the last paragraphs are supposed to say.
    Anyways, sueing over a 50USD purchase is ridiculous... but I agree in principle. If someone ever wins a MMO lawsuit and anulls the EULAs, we're going to see a whole lot fewer MMOs and it could hurt the genre alot. On the other hand it has a slim chance of ensuring we get the same quality products as singleplayer games, so the door could swing both ways.



     

    Well even businesses should be held accountable for bad practice. Class action law suits arent a rarity at all. I dont think it will hurt the genre over all, hopefully itll teach companies a bit of accountability. You cant just put a bunch of promises on a box and not have em in the game itself, then expect no one to complain about it,.

  • DarwaDarwa Member UncommonPosts: 2,178

    Just a drunken buffoon with no idea how these things work.

    Did anyone get a box with all these 'promises' on? I just checked mine and it's decidedly lacking.

  • ArckenArcken Member Posts: 2,431
    Originally posted by darwa


    Just a drunken buffoon with no idea how these things work.
    Did anyone get a box with all these 'promises' on? I just checked mine and it's decidedly lacking.



     

    The big one is the DX10 promise they couldnt live up to.

  • GazenthiaGazenthia Member Posts: 1,186

    I think that he actually has a good chance to win it. The best thing that I can say about FunCom is that I find it deceptive as hell, and thats what he is basing the suit on. It isn't strictly limited to the print on the box either.

    As for hurting the genre... are you serious? The only thing this would do is improve the quality of the games we get, and the experience thereafter. If games are closed because of this lawsuit winning, I'd have to say that they were deceptive POCs from the word 'go'.

    ___________________
    Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Member UncommonPosts: 955
    Originally posted by darwa


    Just a drunken buffoon with no idea how these things work.
    Did anyone get a box with all these 'promises' on? I just checked mine and it's decidedly lacking.



     

    Charge into battle on horses and mammoths and lay siege to hostile castles in epic battles ( direct quote from the box )

     

    And just above the system requirements we have 'Enhanced for DirectX 10 & Multi-Core'

     

    As a side note it also says roam king conans world which is also misleading as the game is exceptionaly linear, roaming as it puts it hints at a sandbox type world but that's just being picky I suppose.

  • BakoryoBakoryo Member UncommonPosts: 469

    you've never read the "Online game experience may change during time." on the package?

    Though im not quoting it. But it's there anyhow. And since when should you belive what the package says?

     

    It's like commercials. "This toothpaste gives you white teeth!"

     

    And oh, suing a game for refund on the box bought. It can only happen in the states!

    The speed of the mole and the power of steel is my weapon

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484

    They'll never break the EULA. He might have a case for deceptive marketing but that's about it.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • ImjinImjin Member Posts: 366
    Originally posted by Bakoryo


    you've never read the "Online game experience may change during time." on the package?
    Though im not quoting it. But it's there anyhow. And since when should you belive what the package says?
     
    It's like commercials. "This toothpaste gives you white teeth!"
     
    And oh, suing a game for refund on the box bought. It can only happen in the states!



     

    "Gaming  experience may change" doesnt apply when the feature was never there to be changed BUT was listed on a box. Whether you personally beleive what is on a package is irrelevant doesnt matter in the eyes of the law. It would constitute false advertising ( I am not addressing AOC in particular)

     

    What is damning are the PR sessions where they told people what would be in the game at release. Like most  things in the courts, it depends on the judge and the jurisdiction you get.

    Fungerer som det skal

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Member UncommonPosts: 955
    Originally posted by Bakoryo


    you've never read the "Online game experience may change during time." on the package?
    Though im not quoting it. But it's there anyhow. And since when should you belive what the package says?
     
    It's like commercials. "This toothpaste gives you white teeth!"
     
    And oh, suing a game for refund on the box bought. It can only happen in the states!



     

    Nah it can happen in the UK as well under the trade descriptions act and misrepresentation of goods act.  It is actually more illegal in the UK to claim features on the packaging that are not in the product than it is in the states.  Much of what is on the box can be covered by the online experience yada yada yada, actually claiming DX10 & Multi-Core support when there is no DX10 and only dual core support is a definate no no.

     

    To clarify it for you further here are the four terms of misrepresentation as recognised by law:

     

    • Fraudulent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek) occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly.[20]
    • Negligent misrepresentation at common law occurs when the defendant carelessly makes a representation while having no reasonable basis to believe it to be true. This type of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced to allow damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort. Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108 however, transported the tort into contract law, stating the rule as:
    if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable
    • Negligent misrepresentation under Statute, enacted by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. When dealing with a negligent misrepresentation it is most lucrative[21] (joint with fraudulent misrepresentation, Contributory Negligence notwithstanding[22]) for an action to be brought under statute law as the burden of proof that is required passes to the person who made the statement. So it is for the person who made the negligent statement to prove that the statement was either not one of fact but opinion and that "had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true"[23] - the so-called innocent defence.

    This creates an inconsistency of law due to the low burden and damages being calculated as extensive as those under fraudulent misrepresentation whereby a "wicked mind"[24] is the basis of action. It is, to use the words of Rix J, "a mighty weapon"[25]. Due to academic and judicial criticism in this area, the law is ripe for reform - probably adjusting the measure of damages to that of negligent misrepresentation at common law.[26]

    • Innocent misrepresentation occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.[27] Prior to Hedley Byrne, all misrepresentations that were not fraudulent were considered to be innocent. This type of representation primarily allows for a remedy of rescission, the purpose of which is put the parties back into a position as if the contract had never taken place. Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967, however, allows for damages to be awarded in lieu of rescission if the court deems it equitable to do so. This is judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the claimant from it.
  • beaverzbeaverz Member Posts: 660

    I would love to see this happen. Sure class action for a 50$ product, but then again 50$*the number of non satisfied customers makes a decent pile of cash. Enough to bury Fc for ever and prevent them from releasing hte 360 version pc gamers are currently helping to develop.

    Payback time

    I'm not a no life that sits in front of his computer all day long, I'm an intern that sits in front of his computer all day long.

  • HrothmundHrothmund Member Posts: 1,061

    The vigilante law student doesn't stand a chance. Deceptive marketing, yes he can actually win there, but come on, what are the overall damages for him, fifty bucks? He will get laughed out of court.

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Member UncommonPosts: 955
    Originally posted by Hrothmund


    The vigilante law student doesn't stand a chance. Deceptive marketing, yes he can actually win there, but come on, what are the overall damages for him, fifty bucks? He will get laughed out of court.



     

    If doing it for himself only perhaps, and correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't it possible in the states to sue on behalf of Everyone that bought the Box?

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    Originally posted by Hrothmund


    The vigilante law student doesn't stand a chance. Deceptive marketing, yes he can actually win there, but come on, what are the overall damages for him, fifty bucks? He will get laughed out of court.



     

    Only way it's going anywhere is if it attains class action status and the FTC gets involved. It's not fifty bucks either. The court will have to determine how much of the game's value the lack of DX10 support represents. It may be as little as a dollar a box. The only ones who could make money off this are the lawyers.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • shukes33shukes33 Member Posts: 1,051

    They will simply show proof that they intended these features to be in game and show evidence that these features are at this time being worked on to impliment in the future. And as someone has already quoted the law above..You can see that the missing content/features of the game were actualy planned to be in the game from the very start but due to developing costs/restrictions were not yet implemented....So the box will fall under "innocent misrepresentation"

    But if i'm wrong he will win his case along with thousands of others :). lets just say " we will see!"

  • Devildog1Devildog1 Member Posts: 494

    I honestly hope he does win just to show the developers in the genre that half finished games they push out and tell us that are done, will hopefully stop! And maybe just maybe we'll get a feature complete game with better QA in the future.

  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,445

    Does anyone doubt that some lawyer somewhere will take this on. I hope so cause if it gained any attention at all the gaming industry  would change for the better.

    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • ZorvanZorvan Member CommonPosts: 8,912

    I'd take it through small claims, where the individuals responsible (i.e. Gaute ) have to appear instead of lawyers. Once the first one was won, imagine 50k to 100k people all filing individual small claim suits. Think Funcoms' stocks are low now? Just think if that happened.

  • Devildog1Devildog1 Member Posts: 494
    Originally posted by Zorvan


    I'd take it through small claims, where the individuals responsible (i.e. Gaute ) have to appear instead of lawyers. Once the first one was won, imagine 50k to 100k people all filing individual small claim suits.



     

    Rofl that would be awesome!

  • KallandraKallandra Member Posts: 25
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    Originally posted by Hrothmund


    The vigilante law student doesn't stand a chance. Deceptive marketing, yes he can actually win there, but come on, what are the overall damages for him, fifty bucks? He will get laughed out of court.



     

    Only way it's going anywhere is if it attains class action status and the FTC gets involved. It's not fifty bucks either. The court will have to determine how much of the game's value the lack of DX10 support represents. It may be as little as a dollar a box. The only ones who could make money off this are the lawyers.

    According to the AoC EULA here : http://www.wj173.com/bbs/showtopic-7105.aspx (not sure if it's the up to date one or not  )

    c.Restrictions. You and Funcom agree that any arbitration under this Agreement shall be limited to the Dispute between Funcom and You individually. To the full extent permitted by law, (i) no arbitration shall be joined with any other; (ii) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be arbitrated on a class-action basis or to utilize class action procedures; and (iii) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be brought in a purported representative capacity on behalf of the general public or any other persons.

  • Ascension08Ascension08 Member Posts: 1,980

    On a practical level, I think it's a bit foolish. But the principle of the thing is what counts. He'd be much better off boycotting Funcom products, not just on the internet but telling people in real life how many problems it has if they show any interest in it. Perhaps it wouldn't have the ramifications to Funcom that a legal action would have but if everyone did it, it'd be quite effective. Just as if everyone sued them. 

    --------------------------------------
    A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"

    Order of the White Border.

  • ArzhAngelArzhAngel Member Posts: 427

    Well i dont think that the guy will win, though its usa. :)

    But i damn hope so, i will like to see a player will, in hope of that this will make some of the lies go away. And beside this, if i had the balls, ill sue FunCom to for waisting my time and money.

  • ZorvanZorvan Member CommonPosts: 8,912
    Originally posted by Kallandra

    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    Originally posted by Hrothmund


    The vigilante law student doesn't stand a chance. Deceptive marketing, yes he can actually win there, but come on, what are the overall damages for him, fifty bucks? He will get laughed out of court.



     

    Only way it's going anywhere is if it attains class action status and the FTC gets involved. It's not fifty bucks either. The court will have to determine how much of the game's value the lack of DX10 support represents. It may be as little as a dollar a box. The only ones who could make money off this are the lawyers.

    According to the AoC EULA here : http://www.wj173.com/bbs/showtopic-7105.aspx (not sure if it's the up to date one or not  )

    c.Restrictions. You and Funcom agree that any arbitration under this Agreement shall be limited to the Dispute between Funcom and You individually. To the full extent permitted by law, (i) no arbitration shall be joined with any other; (ii) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be arbitrated on a class-action basis or to utilize class action procedures; and (iii) there is no right or authority for any Dispute to be brought in a purported representative capacity on behalf of the general public or any other persons.



     

    Arbitration being required in order to protect a company from lawsuit and leaving a consumer helpless is being fought and has resulted in success, especially in my state of California.

    http://hffo.cuna.org/32313/article/2000/html

    Although the U.S. Supreme Court traditionally has upheld binding mandatory arbitration clauses, Congress has passed some limited legislation aimed at curbing their use. Consumer advocates also have had success fighting arbitration clauses in some consumer-friendly states such as California. Efforts continue on both the federal and state levels. In the meantime, you can do some things to preserve your rights and add your voice to the debate.

    Also, fighting the EULA regarding the arbitration clause could be a simple matter, as you are not allowed to see the agreement before you purchase the game.

    Want an easy test? Buy the game straight from Funcom. Download it, blah, blah, blah, and then contact Funcom and demand a refund because you disagree with the EULA and therefore refuse to click "Agree". If they don't refund you, the EULA can be beaten easily. Just save all correspondence so when the lawsuit comes up, you can show you never agreed to the EULA, therefore you never agreed to arbitration.

  • Rob_dc84Rob_dc84 Member Posts: 149

    just epic i wonder how it will all pan out. and his point are right they did do false ads. promised a lot and failed to give people what they promised so we will see.

    image
    image

  • LondonMagusLondonMagus Member Posts: 700

    Forget about the lawyers, it's the marketing people you need to talk to.

    Q. Why do you think adverts for detergents use phrase like 'Nothing cleans brigher than Brand X'?

    A. It implies that 'Brand X' is the best product when actually all it says is that it is no worse then the rest.

    The reason why advertising copy is often so vague is that every line contains it's own get out clause.

    Take 'Enhanced for DX10' for example, what exactly does that mean? The box doesn't reference 'DX9' & clearly it does actually work with 'DX10' otherwise no-one with 'Vista' would be able to play at all. The usage of the word enhanced is wondferfully nebulous, it doesn't promise any features that are not available to those usign 'DX9', just that it somehow especially compatible. All that Funcom would have to do is demonstrate that at least one aspect of the game performed better using 'DX10' than 'DX9' even it it wasn't due to Funcom's coding & the claim would still be valid.

    Exactly the same argument applies to 'Dual Core Vs Multi-Core' because the additional benefits of using the latter are not specified, just implied. Since the majority of advertising is about implying products are better than they actually are rather than saying it out loud, unless you can prove that Funcom promised specific benefits from using 'DX10' & 'Multi Core' this legal challenge seems doomed to failure.

    just my opinions of course.

    If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?

Sign In or Register to comment.