Bah, lawsuits are things that cannot often be applied to the entertainment world. The most one could ever get back is their initial money anyway...that assumes the court doesn't find the whole matter "frivolous". Most serious courts aren't going to be assed with going through all these motions over pocket change. One would be lucky to not be held in contempt for wasting taxpayer money on such things.
The closest act I've ever seen in the gaming industry which could have possibly warranted such a thing was the NGE anyway. The implications there were much more far reaching...and involved a LOT more money. Even then, you'll notice, no success story has been heralded involving someone actually DOING it and winning.
I'm curious. What features were "promised" on the box but not available in the game?
[/quote]
Yea i'm yet to see i "real" suiable missing feature. I mean DX10, it's as far as i'm concerned "an enhancement" it's NOT what i'd say a "game breaking" feature. Trust me DX10 is NOT going to make the game better, if you play a MMO because of the graphics then you're in for a real bad surprise.
And yes, you can take it to your local ADVERTISING AUTHORITY and put in a CLAIM OF FALSE ADVERTISING. Where i live [South Africa] that's what we do, you don't go and SUE, you go to the advertising board and they will do the work. If it was false advertising they will tell whoever prints Funcom's Boxes to REMOVE THE SENTENCE or be liable for a FINE [or worst case, be forced to RECALL products from the shelves]. Simple.
Now, HOWEVER , on my AOC box at the bottom it says :
"*** IMPORTANT : GAME EXPERIENCE MAY CHANGE DURING ONLINE PLAY"
So, i'd say that covers "some" ass right there...
Suing because a game sucks..i'm sorry i would be rich if i had the time to do that. Nevermind MMOs, i have a crapload of games that just plainly SUCKS. It looked good, the box said the game ROCKS, then i played it and it SUCKED...can i sue ? ...if you're STUPID yea.
This is no different than suiing WARNER BROs because they showed a trailer of "THE HULK" and it looked AWESOME, and then you see the movie and it sucked ....and then you sue because that 1 second scene in the TRAILER was not in the MOVIE.....
Only Americans sue people when they cant get their way any other way...
Maybe that's because America's the only place with a legal system that protects its citizens against greedy, lying foreign corporations.
Yea corporations that doesn't warn you that freshly brewed coffee is actually hot or that you shouldn't leave the driver's seat while doing 55 mph...
this made me lol. Damn really? Americans sue beause they got burnt by the hot coffee and nobody told them that coffee is supposed to be hot and can get ou burnt? lolol
They should make laws "if you are deemed an idiot by what you sue someone over, you deserve a finger up yer arse"
The game I play, Camelot, bought out an expansion that was terribly bugged with los issues and almost unplayable due to lag.
I asked for a refund and they said ok. I didn't take them up on their offer (maybe they called my bluff? )and that particular expansion is fine now (as far as I know).
A lot of people seem not to understand the point of lawsuits, particularly class action lawsuits.
Especially in this case, one would not sue in order to get rich. No one expects to make a million dollars off of Funcom's mistakes.
The point of a class action lawsuit is more about punishing the company and setting an example so it doesn't happen again.
Individuals of a certain mindset hear or read the word "lawsuit" and immediately assume the whole thing must be about those "damn liberals" trying to get something for nothing.
On the contrary, the members of a Funcom lawsuit would stand to gain very little -- probably only a fraction of the $50 they lost to the company in the first place. But what the entire gaming community stands to gain is an actual legal precedent wherein a company has to pay out millions of dollars for essentially lying to its customers.
A lot of people seem not to understand the point of lawsuits, particularly class action lawsuits. Especially in this case, one would not sue in order to get rich. No one expects to make a million dollars off of Funcom's mistakes. The point of a class action lawsuit is more about punishing the company and setting an example so it doesn't happen again. Individuals of a certain mindset hear or read the word "lawsuit" and immediately assume the whole thing must be about those "damn liberals" trying to get something for nothing. On the contrary, the members of a Funcom lawsuit would stand to gain very little -- probably only a fraction of the $50 they lost to the company in the first place. But what the entire gaming community stands to gain is an actual legal precedent wherein a company has to pay out millions of dollars for essentially lying to its customers.
Actually, the point of a class action lawsuit is that individual lawsuits for very small amounts (e.g. $50) would not be economically feasible to bring, so the rules allow large numbers of harmed individuals to aggregate their claims in a single lawsuit (without even identifying all of the individual plaintiffs). Without this mechanism, unscrupulous corporations could screw over large numbers of people for very small amounts each and never have to answer for it, because no one would spent the money to file a lawsuit to recover a few dollars.
It is the attorneys who bring the class action suits that stand to gain the most from them, because they typically take the cases on a 30-40% contingency. Hypothetically assuming that a class action judgment or settlement would yield $10 per copy of AoC, at 500K copies, that's about $2 million for the lawyer.
Of course if the lawyer loses he gets nothing. This is probably the single greatest deterrent against frivolous class action suits (although not enough of one, as the Rockstar case clearly demonstrated).
"Punishment" or "deterrence" are achieved by punitive damages.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Not sure it has been mentioned,but every game package/legal document i have read ,clearly states they have the right to change content as they feel whenever they feel.If you do not agree,then do not log onto the game.
All the games use this including the giant HASBRO who wins lawsuits all the time.This nice loophole seems to be legal and allows the game developer virtually no responsibility to it's customer.They can't lie to you if they are allowed to change the game at will whenever they see fit.Even when the giant HASBRO was caught for price fixing[basically scamming the entire public]they were slapped on the wrists,by agreeing to give free toys to needy at christmas.I am still pissed at the GOVERNMENT's decision,as they basically allowed HASBRO to save face by looking like a good guy giving out presents and not getting any stiff jail time or fines for breaking the law.
I am not even sure there is any length of time a game has to keep it's servers open, i would think there bloody well should be,but again it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't.They can shut the doors whenever they want,this is something i have witnessed once again using HASBRO as an example.
Only way to change this nicely worded BS,is for some high tech smart ,intelligent set of lawyers,that are so game saavy,they could prove why it is a flawed set of terms.Game developers should be held accountable for a lot more than they are,that is for sure.I think all they are held accountable for is a working disc,that they can offer a replacement if it doesn't work.
If a game totally changed the concept ,that lead you to buy the game in the first place,such as changing a space sim and turning it into tiger woods golf,would be grounds for a lawsuit,but that was an extreme case,just using an example.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
FIrst, the box and the instruction manual state "Online experience subject to change".
Second, anyone can try to sue over just about anything. You don't even need a lawyer. However, the Judge in such a case does not have to grant your petition for trial.
Point of this, if you feel froggy, go for it....but good luck.
Not sure it has been mentioned,but every game package/legal document i have read ,clearly states they have the right to change content as they feel whenever they feel.If you do not agree,then do not log onto the game. All the games use this including the giant HASBRO who wins lawsuits all the time.This nice loophole seems to be legal and allows the game developer virtually no responsibility to it's customer.They can't lie to you if they are allowed to change the game at will whenever they see fit.Even when the giant HASBRO was caught for price fixing[basically scamming the entire public]they were slapped on the wrists,by agreeing to give free toys to needy at christmas.I am still pissed at the GOVERNMENT's decision,as they basically allowed HASBRO to save face by looking like a good guy giving out presents and not getting any stiff jail time or fines for breaking the law. I am not even sure there is any length of time a game has to keep it's servers open, i would think there bloody well should be,but again it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't.They can shut the doors whenever they want,this is something i have witnessed once again using HASBRO as an example. Only way to change this nicely worded BS,is for some high tech smart ,intelligent set of lawyers,that are so game saavy,they could prove why it is a flawed set of terms.Game developers should be held accountable for a lot more than they are,that is for sure.I think all they are held accountable for is a working disc,that they can offer a replacement if it doesn't work. If a game totally changed the concept ,that lead you to buy the game in the first place,such as changing a space sim and turning it into tiger woods golf,would be grounds for a lawsuit,but that was an extreme case,just using an example.
I'm sure that laws defending the consumer rights are above what they print in the boxes saying they have the right to change the product. When you buy something, you buy what is advertised and they have to give you just that.
Not sure it has been mentioned,but every game package/legal document i have read ,clearly states they have the right to change content as they feel whenever they feel.If you do not agree,then do not log onto the game. All the games use this including the giant HASBRO who wins lawsuits all the time.This nice loophole seems to be legal and allows the game developer virtually no responsibility to it's customer.They can't lie to you if they are allowed to change the game at will whenever they see fit.Even when the giant HASBRO was caught for price fixing[basically scamming the entire public]they were slapped on the wrists,by agreeing to give free toys to needy at christmas.I am still pissed at the GOVERNMENT's decision,as they basically allowed HASBRO to save face by looking like a good guy giving out presents and not getting any stiff jail time or fines for breaking the law. I am not even sure there is any length of time a game has to keep it's servers open, i would think there bloody well should be,but again it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't.They can shut the doors whenever they want,this is something i have witnessed once again using HASBRO as an example. Only way to change this nicely worded BS,is for some high tech smart ,intelligent set of lawyers,that are so game saavy,they could prove why it is a flawed set of terms.Game developers should be held accountable for a lot more than they are,that is for sure.I think all they are held accountable for is a working disc,that they can offer a replacement if it doesn't work. If a game totally changed the concept ,that lead you to buy the game in the first place,such as changing a space sim and turning it into tiger woods golf,would be grounds for a lawsuit,but that was an extreme case,just using an example.
I'm sure that laws defending the consumer rights are above what they print in the boxes saying they have the right to change the product. When you buy something, you buy what is advertised and they have to give you just that.
That's correct. There are a lot of terms that are often placed in contracts, even though they are unenforceable.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
The bottom line is that you can only sue anybody (whether it be a large corporation or individual) if you can prove damages. The only damages you could prove would be the cost of the game. However, the law does not allow you to simply start an action as your first recourse. Not only do you have to prove damages, you also have to prove that you have taken every reasonable step to mitigate those damages before taking the step of legal proceedings.
So, for the current example under discussion - AoC - you would have to seek your money back from Funcom first before you could sue. If you simply filed suit without doing this, you could win the battle but lose the war as you may be successful in getting your money back, but you would probably be ordered to pay the court costs for needlessly taking the matter to court in the first place. A previous poster suggested Funcom could file a counter-suit because you sued them - while that was completely incorrect, the practical effect would be the same.
The only courses of action if you are dissatisfied with the game (as with any product imaginable) are:-
(1) If the product includes false advertising, you can register a complaint with the appropriate governing authority. That authority has the power to force the owner of the product to remove the false advertising, and in some circumstances fine the owner for the false advertising.
(2) If the false advertising induced you to purchase the product, you can seek a refund of the purchase price from the owner. Be careful about that statement though, because it really means that the false advertising was the ONLY or MAIN reason you purchased the product. It would not be sufficient if it were merely one of many reasons you purchased the product.
(3) If the owner of the product refuses to refund you for the return of the product, then you could take the matter to court. But only if you can prove damages / loss and prove that such was because of the false misrepresentation made to you.
You cannot sue simply because you thought it would be better, or you don't like it, or the servers were too laggy, or your computer wasn't able to play it to your personal satisfaction despite meeting minimum system requirements, etc.
As far as EULA's are concerned, because they are now a fairly standard part of any MMO, and established as such over a long period of time, it would be safe to say that they would be found to be legally binding to the extent that any such terms and conditions can be. A contract of that type cannot exclude the application of the law, so they cannot contract out of the application of other laws governing the protection of the community, such as negligence or fraud.
A perfect example from first year law school was the terms and conditions that were put up at car parking stations. Initially these terms and conditions were printed on a sign as you drove in - when this was first challenged in court it was found that those terms and conditions could not form part of a binding contract because the consumer could not adequately read such terms and conditions prior to their "accepting" them (when they drove in).
Car parking stations later began printing terms and conditions on the back of the parking ticket. Further challenge was made to this in the courts. This time the courts ruled that those terms and conditions were binding. The reasoning in that decision was that even though you receive them after you have effectively now made the contract, they were now so well known and "industry standard".
The only way an EULA would ever be successfully challenged in court is if the company involved had in fact breached some law (negligence, fraud, etc) and tried to claim the EULA allowed them to do so - as it never could.
Ok ive seen a couple of refrences that law-suits have been brought against Funcom for what was promised and what came out and was stated on there boxes. Any lawyers out there wanna give there opion.
I am really sick of the "let's sue them" mentality. Soe, Funcom, Turbine, Blizzard, I have seen these sue them threads for all these companies. When you buy an mmo at release you take a risk. Any veteran mmo player knows this. So instead of being an impatient child why not just wait a few weeks and do your research before you buy. If people wait a few weeks they will get the scoop on an mmo by it's players. However I realize a few players or so void of real life activities they have to be the first with that epic gear to prove their worth in the world. So waiting a few weeks would be total agony for them. That is the problem, not a game living up to hype or your own narrow expectations. This is not directed at the OP but at players in general who have this mentality.
We are in a time when people especially americans refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions. We have a crumbling economy. Gas prices going off the chart. A war that is bankrupting the country. A mortgage crisis that is destroying our economy and ruining the lives of many people. Yet people are concerned if they can sue Funcom or SOE over a game. Get a grip people. Games often do not live up to their hype or expectations. Hardly a reason to worry about if you can sue them or not. Just another example of the infantizing of America.
My goodness dude, you get the full +5 from me... I really couldn't have thought this issue at hand through better myself. I see maturity in every point you make.
I have a question. I have no plans for filing a lawsuit against funcom but I'd just like to know if this is grounds for one. I purchased AoC about two or three weeks ago and have been able to play it sparingly. The problem is my graphics card. I know I'm stupid for not knowing this but my nvidia 7300 is crap pretty much but I assumed that since the system requirements for AoC was anything 6600 or better my 7300 would blow the 6600 out of the water. Obviously I failed but have since asked for a refund due to the confusing requirement numbers and was turned down.
Was it my job to do the research and find out that the 7300 was going to be bad for this game? I wonder how many people made the same mistake I did. I'm really wondering though, is this grounds for a lawsuit? They claim that since I attempted to play the game, even though I didn't get far that they're unable to refund the game. I'm tempted to delete my level 12 character and try again but frankly it would be impossible for me to do anything in this game with the amount of video lag I'm getting.
Games companies actually promise very little when you look closely at their EULA. And its the same when it comes to minimum and recommended system requirements. All they are telling you is that if you do not have the minimum you won't be able to play. If you meet or exceed the recommended system requirements then you should be able to play.
But, nowhere do they define what "play" means. You, by your own admission, are able to "play" the game. You can log in, you can experience the game, and you have been able to level a character. Whilst it is true that you have not been able to "play" to a standard that is acceptable to you, that would not be enough to amount to a misrepresentation allowing you to sue, or even get a refund.
And that is assuming that you could prove that the problem was only your video card - that there was no contributory issues with your isp, general internet connection, os or any other part of your computer.
The best that you can achieve realistically is to explain your position to the company, include your system specs, and seek a refund - but as I said I don't believe that you would get one, nor would they be obligated to do so. Otherwise, the only thing you can do is unsubscribe and hope someone will buy it from you 2nd hand so you aren't left completely out of pocket.
The 7300 isn't a bad card. I have it on my desktop and laptop and play several mmos without any problem. Granted, I haven't tried the very recent games, but the card is fine. You probably need to tweak your graphics settings. If you're trying to run the game with all settings maxed out, you're going to have problems. The 7300 just isn't that strong. Try checking on their tech boards for articles about graphics settings. You probably want to reduce your clip plane and rendering distances. You might also want to turn off certain effects, like shadows, reflections and dynamic lighting.
How much RAM do you have and what operating system are you running? If you are running XP, you need at least 2GB RAM - if Vista, at least 3GB. Increasing RAM can make a dramatic difference in the way your system handles games.
You can also expect performance to suffer when you're in an area with lots of players or player modified content. That's because the screen has to be continously updated and rendered.
You can probably get pretty good performance with your 7300 with a little effort. Good luck!
Originally posted by ASmith84 If you sue someone that means all you care about is making money off of something stupid. That is the truth my friends. Yes i mean that in every single case you can come up with. If you get hit by someone all they should pay is the amount of damage that happen not 20thousand extra just because you are pissed. All sueing is is you want to waste some of your time going through the court system to earn some extra money you do not really need you selfish bastard. Pay for the damage and that is it. Funcom should pay you for the game price nothing more at the most. quite being babies about it, it is just a game after all.
That is a stupid opinion....sorry it is. When the Goldmen family sued OJ Simpson did they only care about the money or were they trying to make sure that justice somehow would come their way?
When the families of US citizens killed by terrorists from Algeria sued that country for sponsoring said group of terrorist were they after only money? Suing in itself does not invalidate a legitimate argument or grievance. What about those who were molested by Catholic priests (Of whom were later to be found out that they were protected and sheltered by the Catholic church.) and then sued the Catholic church? Where they only in it for the money? Sometimes suing and attacking the wallets of criminals and organizations which have acted in a criminal fashion if not a negligent manner is the only manner to ensure that punishment is handed out for wrongful acts when the criminal courts have failed to exert proper justice and sentencing.
If a person wrongfully hurts or kills another person they should be held financially accountable for their actions even if the criminal courts do not hold them accountable. As for suing companies...Sometimes lawsuits are good because they force companies to act and change wrongful polices without resorting to enacting government legislation. for example the McDonalds case posted here. McDonalds would much rather deal with a lawsuit then have to deal with government legislation. At least with a lawsuit they can settle out of court and usually for much less then the initial civil court case is demanding. In fact McDonalds managed only to pay for the medical bills of the woman involved in the infamous coffee case and the cup of coffee that was spilled. Of course they have since changed their own policy around how hot they can serve their coffee to better reflect that of the industry standard. Of course that was done at their own behest in order to stave off further lawsuits but not because of forced government legislation which is something no one wants to deal with at all if government is forced to act.
As for the OP he would have to prove or his lawyer would have to prove that Funcom acted in a knowingly dishonest manner with the full knowledge that they were not going to offer any of those features he is complaining are missing. Since Funcom is on the record for saying that they would add these missing features later on in the game's life cycle post-launch it would be very difficult to hold them accountable.
He would also be better served by making his lawsuit into a class action lawsuit which would allow other players to come forward and file a grievance with the courts based on similar complaints. Of course to do that a team of lawyers would have to review his compliant and see if there was even a slight chance of it holding up in court. IMHO I don't think it'll ever get that far mainly though due to the OP's lack of money which is how the system naturally filters out frivolous lawsuits.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Comments
Bah, lawsuits are things that cannot often be applied to the entertainment world. The most one could ever get back is their initial money anyway...that assumes the court doesn't find the whole matter "frivolous". Most serious courts aren't going to be assed with going through all these motions over pocket change. One would be lucky to not be held in contempt for wasting taxpayer money on such things.
The closest act I've ever seen in the gaming industry which could have possibly warranted such a thing was the NGE anyway. The implications there were much more far reaching...and involved a LOT more money. Even then, you'll notice, no success story has been heralded involving someone actually DOING it and winning.
I think there will be no law about software contents especially for virtual items in game. Except they are able to cash money with game provider.
[quote]
I'm curious. What features were "promised" on the box but not available in the game?
[/quote]
Yea i'm yet to see i "real" suiable missing feature. I mean DX10, it's as far as i'm concerned "an enhancement" it's NOT what i'd say a "game breaking" feature. Trust me DX10 is NOT going to make the game better, if you play a MMO because of the graphics then you're in for a real bad surprise.
And yes, you can take it to your local ADVERTISING AUTHORITY and put in a CLAIM OF FALSE ADVERTISING. Where i live [South Africa] that's what we do, you don't go and SUE, you go to the advertising board and they will do the work. If it was false advertising they will tell whoever prints Funcom's Boxes to REMOVE THE SENTENCE or be liable for a FINE [or worst case, be forced to RECALL products from the shelves]. Simple.
Now, HOWEVER , on my AOC box at the bottom it says :
"*** IMPORTANT : GAME EXPERIENCE MAY CHANGE DURING ONLINE PLAY"
So, i'd say that covers "some" ass right there...
Suing because a game sucks..i'm sorry i would be rich if i had the time to do that. Nevermind MMOs, i have a crapload of games that just plainly SUCKS. It looked good, the box said the game ROCKS, then i played it and it SUCKED...can i sue ? ...if you're STUPID yea.
This is no different than suiing WARNER BROs because they showed a trailer of "THE HULK" and it looked AWESOME, and then you see the movie and it sucked ....and then you sue because that 1 second scene in the TRAILER was not in the MOVIE.....
Maybe that's because America's the only place with a legal system that protects its citizens against greedy, lying foreign corporations.
Yea corporations that doesn't warn you that freshly brewed coffee is actually hot or that you shouldn't leave the driver's seat while doing 55 mph...
this made me lol. Damn really? Americans sue beause they got burnt by the hot coffee and nobody told them that coffee is supposed to be hot and can get ou burnt? lolol
They should make laws "if you are deemed an idiot by what you sue someone over, you deserve a finger up yer arse"
i~ku~ra
To OP, ask for your money back first.
The game I play, Camelot, bought out an expansion that was terribly bugged with los issues and almost unplayable due to lag.
I asked for a refund and they said ok. I didn't take them up on their offer (maybe they called my bluff?
)and that particular expansion is fine now (as far as I know).
/salute
A lot of people seem not to understand the point of lawsuits, particularly class action lawsuits.
Especially in this case, one would not sue in order to get rich. No one expects to make a million dollars off of Funcom's mistakes.
The point of a class action lawsuit is more about punishing the company and setting an example so it doesn't happen again.
Individuals of a certain mindset hear or read the word "lawsuit" and immediately assume the whole thing must be about those "damn liberals" trying to get something for nothing.
On the contrary, the members of a Funcom lawsuit would stand to gain very little -- probably only a fraction of the $50 they lost to the company in the first place. But what the entire gaming community stands to gain is an actual legal precedent wherein a company has to pay out millions of dollars for essentially lying to its customers.
Actually, the point of a class action lawsuit is that individual lawsuits for very small amounts (e.g. $50) would not be economically feasible to bring, so the rules allow large numbers of harmed individuals to aggregate their claims in a single lawsuit (without even identifying all of the individual plaintiffs). Without this mechanism, unscrupulous corporations could screw over large numbers of people for very small amounts each and never have to answer for it, because no one would spent the money to file a lawsuit to recover a few dollars.
It is the attorneys who bring the class action suits that stand to gain the most from them, because they typically take the cases on a 30-40% contingency. Hypothetically assuming that a class action judgment or settlement would yield $10 per copy of AoC, at 500K copies, that's about $2 million for the lawyer.
Of course if the lawyer loses he gets nothing. This is probably the single greatest deterrent against frivolous class action suits (although not enough of one, as the Rockstar case clearly demonstrated).
"Punishment" or "deterrence" are achieved by punitive damages.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Not sure it has been mentioned,but every game package/legal document i have read ,clearly states they have the right to change content as they feel whenever they feel.If you do not agree,then do not log onto the game.
All the games use this including the giant HASBRO who wins lawsuits all the time.This nice loophole seems to be legal and allows the game developer virtually no responsibility to it's customer.They can't lie to you if they are allowed to change the game at will whenever they see fit.Even when the giant HASBRO was caught for price fixing[basically scamming the entire public]they were slapped on the wrists,by agreeing to give free toys to needy at christmas.I am still pissed at the GOVERNMENT's decision,as they basically allowed HASBRO to save face by looking like a good guy giving out presents and not getting any stiff jail time or fines for breaking the law.
I am not even sure there is any length of time a game has to keep it's servers open, i would think there bloody well should be,but again it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't.They can shut the doors whenever they want,this is something i have witnessed once again using HASBRO as an example.
Only way to change this nicely worded BS,is for some high tech smart ,intelligent set of lawyers,that are so game saavy,they could prove why it is a flawed set of terms.Game developers should be held accountable for a lot more than they are,that is for sure.I think all they are held accountable for is a working disc,that they can offer a replacement if it doesn't work.
If a game totally changed the concept ,that lead you to buy the game in the first place,such as changing a space sim and turning it into tiger woods golf,would be grounds for a lawsuit,but that was an extreme case,just using an example.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
FIrst, the box and the instruction manual state "Online experience subject to change".
Second, anyone can try to sue over just about anything. You don't even need a lawyer. However, the Judge in such a case does not have to grant your petition for trial.
Point of this, if you feel froggy, go for it....but good luck.
Let's party like it is 1863!
I'm sure that laws defending the consumer rights are above what they print in the boxes saying they have the right to change the product. When you buy something, you buy what is advertised and they have to give you just that.
I'm sure that laws defending the consumer rights are above what they print in the boxes saying they have the right to change the product. When you buy something, you buy what is advertised and they have to give you just that.
That's correct. There are a lot of terms that are often placed in contracts, even though they are unenforceable.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
The bottom line is that you can only sue anybody (whether it be a large corporation or individual) if you can prove damages. The only damages you could prove would be the cost of the game. However, the law does not allow you to simply start an action as your first recourse. Not only do you have to prove damages, you also have to prove that you have taken every reasonable step to mitigate those damages before taking the step of legal proceedings.
So, for the current example under discussion - AoC - you would have to seek your money back from Funcom first before you could sue. If you simply filed suit without doing this, you could win the battle but lose the war as you may be successful in getting your money back, but you would probably be ordered to pay the court costs for needlessly taking the matter to court in the first place. A previous poster suggested Funcom could file a counter-suit because you sued them - while that was completely incorrect, the practical effect would be the same.
The only courses of action if you are dissatisfied with the game (as with any product imaginable) are:-
(1) If the product includes false advertising, you can register a complaint with the appropriate governing authority. That authority has the power to force the owner of the product to remove the false advertising, and in some circumstances fine the owner for the false advertising.
(2) If the false advertising induced you to purchase the product, you can seek a refund of the purchase price from the owner. Be careful about that statement though, because it really means that the false advertising was the ONLY or MAIN reason you purchased the product. It would not be sufficient if it were merely one of many reasons you purchased the product.
(3) If the owner of the product refuses to refund you for the return of the product, then you could take the matter to court. But only if you can prove damages / loss and prove that such was because of the false misrepresentation made to you.
You cannot sue simply because you thought it would be better, or you don't like it, or the servers were too laggy, or your computer wasn't able to play it to your personal satisfaction despite meeting minimum system requirements, etc.
As far as EULA's are concerned, because they are now a fairly standard part of any MMO, and established as such over a long period of time, it would be safe to say that they would be found to be legally binding to the extent that any such terms and conditions can be. A contract of that type cannot exclude the application of the law, so they cannot contract out of the application of other laws governing the protection of the community, such as negligence or fraud.
A perfect example from first year law school was the terms and conditions that were put up at car parking stations. Initially these terms and conditions were printed on a sign as you drove in - when this was first challenged in court it was found that those terms and conditions could not form part of a binding contract because the consumer could not adequately read such terms and conditions prior to their "accepting" them (when they drove in).
Car parking stations later began printing terms and conditions on the back of the parking ticket. Further challenge was made to this in the courts. This time the courts ruled that those terms and conditions were binding. The reasoning in that decision was that even though you receive them after you have effectively now made the contract, they were now so well known and "industry standard".
The only way an EULA would ever be successfully challenged in court is if the company involved had in fact breached some law (negligence, fraud, etc) and tried to claim the EULA allowed them to do so - as it never could.
Not true. There are greedy idiots in pretty much every Country.
+3
I am really sick of the "let's sue them" mentality. Soe, Funcom, Turbine, Blizzard, I have seen these sue them threads for all these companies. When you buy an mmo at release you take a risk. Any veteran mmo player knows this. So instead of being an impatient child why not just wait a few weeks and do your research before you buy. If people wait a few weeks they will get the scoop on an mmo by it's players. However I realize a few players or so void of real life activities they have to be the first with that epic gear to prove their worth in the world. So waiting a few weeks would be total agony for them. That is the problem, not a game living up to hype or your own narrow expectations. This is not directed at the OP but at players in general who have this mentality.
We are in a time when people especially americans refuse to take responsibility for their own decisions. We have a crumbling economy. Gas prices going off the chart. A war that is bankrupting the country. A mortgage crisis that is destroying our economy and ruining the lives of many people. Yet people are concerned if they can sue Funcom or SOE over a game. Get a grip people. Games often do not live up to their hype or expectations. Hardly a reason to worry about if you can sue them or not. Just another example of the infantizing of America.
My goodness dude, you get the full +5 from me... I really couldn't have thought this issue at hand through better myself. I see maturity in every point you make.
I have a question. I have no plans for filing a lawsuit against funcom but I'd just like to know if this is grounds for one. I purchased AoC about two or three weeks ago and have been able to play it sparingly. The problem is my graphics card. I know I'm stupid for not knowing this but my nvidia 7300 is crap pretty much but I assumed that since the system requirements for AoC was anything 6600 or better my 7300 would blow the 6600 out of the water. Obviously I failed but have since asked for a refund due to the confusing requirement numbers and was turned down.
Was it my job to do the research and find out that the 7300 was going to be bad for this game? I wonder how many people made the same mistake I did. I'm really wondering though, is this grounds for a lawsuit? They claim that since I attempted to play the game, even though I didn't get far that they're unable to refund the game. I'm tempted to delete my level 12 character and try again but frankly it would be impossible for me to do anything in this game with the amount of video lag I'm getting.
Unfortunately for you, the answer is no.
Games companies actually promise very little when you look closely at their EULA. And its the same when it comes to minimum and recommended system requirements. All they are telling you is that if you do not have the minimum you won't be able to play. If you meet or exceed the recommended system requirements then you should be able to play.
But, nowhere do they define what "play" means. You, by your own admission, are able to "play" the game. You can log in, you can experience the game, and you have been able to level a character. Whilst it is true that you have not been able to "play" to a standard that is acceptable to you, that would not be enough to amount to a misrepresentation allowing you to sue, or even get a refund.
And that is assuming that you could prove that the problem was only your video card - that there was no contributory issues with your isp, general internet connection, os or any other part of your computer.
The best that you can achieve realistically is to explain your position to the company, include your system specs, and seek a refund - but as I said I don't believe that you would get one, nor would they be obligated to do so. Otherwise, the only thing you can do is unsubscribe and hope someone will buy it from you 2nd hand so you aren't left completely out of pocket.
The 7300 isn't a bad card. I have it on my desktop and laptop and play several mmos without any problem. Granted, I haven't tried the very recent games, but the card is fine. You probably need to tweak your graphics settings. If you're trying to run the game with all settings maxed out, you're going to have problems. The 7300 just isn't that strong. Try checking on their tech boards for articles about graphics settings. You probably want to reduce your clip plane and rendering distances. You might also want to turn off certain effects, like shadows, reflections and dynamic lighting.
How much RAM do you have and what operating system are you running? If you are running XP, you need at least 2GB RAM - if Vista, at least 3GB. Increasing RAM can make a dramatic difference in the way your system handles games.
You can also expect performance to suffer when you're in an area with lots of players or player modified content. That's because the screen has to be continously updated and rendered.
You can probably get pretty good performance with your 7300 with a little effort. Good luck!
That is a stupid opinion....sorry it is. When the Goldmen family sued OJ Simpson did they only care about the money or were they trying to make sure that justice somehow would come their way?
When the families of US citizens killed by terrorists from Algeria sued that country for sponsoring said group of terrorist were they after only money? Suing in itself does not invalidate a legitimate argument or grievance. What about those who were molested by Catholic priests (Of whom were later to be found out that they were protected and sheltered by the Catholic church.) and then sued the Catholic church? Where they only in it for the money? Sometimes suing and attacking the wallets of criminals and organizations which have acted in a criminal fashion if not a negligent manner is the only manner to ensure that punishment is handed out for wrongful acts when the criminal courts have failed to exert proper justice and sentencing.
If a person wrongfully hurts or kills another person they should be held financially accountable for their actions even if the criminal courts do not hold them accountable. As for suing companies...Sometimes lawsuits are good because they force companies to act and change wrongful polices without resorting to enacting government legislation. for example the McDonalds case posted here. McDonalds would much rather deal with a lawsuit then have to deal with government legislation. At least with a lawsuit they can settle out of court and usually for much less then the initial civil court case is demanding. In fact McDonalds managed only to pay for the medical bills of the woman involved in the infamous coffee case and the cup of coffee that was spilled. Of course they have since changed their own policy around how hot they can serve their coffee to better reflect that of the industry standard. Of course that was done at their own behest in order to stave off further lawsuits but not because of forced government legislation which is something no one wants to deal with at all if government is forced to act.
As for the OP he would have to prove or his lawyer would have to prove that Funcom acted in a knowingly dishonest manner with the full knowledge that they were not going to offer any of those features he is complaining are missing. Since Funcom is on the record for saying that they would add these missing features later on in the game's life cycle post-launch it would be very difficult to hold them accountable.
He would also be better served by making his lawsuit into a class action lawsuit which would allow other players to come forward and file a grievance with the courts based on similar complaints. Of course to do that a team of lawyers would have to review his compliant and see if there was even a slight chance of it holding up in court. IMHO I don't think it'll ever get that far mainly though due to the OP's lack of money which is how the system naturally filters out frivolous lawsuits.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)