Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Someone finally snapped.
hobo9766
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
Comments
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,.
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.
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/
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.
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
"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
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:
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]
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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.
MAGA
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.
Rofl that would be awesome!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
I understand what your saying . Vista isnt running AOC in DX10 its using DX9
I would edit that very very quickly. And not because of the rules on this forum.
Fungerer som det skal