needalight Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I want to begin by stating I have been subbed since launch and will remain subbed. Therefore I am not a member of the party of resubbers who signed up for ranked WZ. I'm currently taking business law which focus' on contract law. That said I am not a lawyer, I am an engineering student with a minor in business. None the less what I know about contract law still pertains. When two parties exchange a promise for a promise this is called a contract. In the situation of swtor, the party of BW promises play time on their game if you promise to pay a monthly subscription. Thus, we are dealing with a contract law case. To further develop my post here are some rules that embody contract law. First of all, the main reason people exercise contract law in court is when one party intends to unbind itself from the contract or when one party intends to receive the full obligation from the obligor. In this situation we are dealing with the case that one party wants to unbind itself from the contract. So how does one party unbind itself? Many ways, but in this situation we will look at the theory of deception and what constitutes deception. The two major components of deception are fraud and negligent misrepresentation. To address fraud first, I believe it will help if I define fraud. Fraud is making of a false statement of a past or existing fact, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless indifference as to its truth, with the intent to cause another to rely thereon, and such person does rely thereon and is harmed thereby. I will say that this case doesn't fully fit the profile for fraud. The first reason is because BW did intend and still does intend to release ranked WZ, therefore there is was no falsity in the statement that ranked WZ will be released. However I will note and respect the counter argument that there was falsity in the statement that ranked WZ will be released on April 12 2012. This makes the question of falsity a grey matter. The second and main reason why this is not fraud is because BW did not intend to cause the party of resubbers to rely upon their statement that ranked WZ will come out on April 12, 2012. There was no declared message by a BW agent or representative of any sort that indicated people should resub if they want to experience ranked WZ on April 12, 2012. In fact the only company that I have personally seen make such a message was Blizzard when they released 4.2 rage of the firelands for WoW. I know this because I was unsubbed and received an email from Blizzard saying come back, 4.2 will be everything you’ve waited for. But I digress, and to return to my point, this case is not fraud and fraud cannot be utilized by the resubbing party to gain restitution. However the second major component of deception is negligent misrepresentation. If you have read this far, this is the section you should heed. I will not fully define negligent misrepresentation because in many ways it is similar to fraud; however the key difference is that the claim is predicated on a negligently made false statement. That is, the speaker failed to exercise due care regarding material information communicated to the listener but did not intend to deceive. As noted in the above paragraph regarding fraud, BW did not intend to deceive the party of resubbers. However the pivotal fact here is that BW did fail to exercise due care regarding material information communicated to the listener. This is undeniable. A BW agent of representative never communicated to the swtor community that they were having issues with ranked WZ (please link me the post if I am wrong so I can correct this statement). Furthermore the post to the community regarding that ranked WZ will not be released April 12, 2012 was made in less than 24 hour notice. Interpreting this action is up to the jury or judge as to whether or not it was due or undue care communicating material information. To the defense of BW, releasing content that isn’t ready for implementing would demonstrate falsity in the promise to release working content. The US court system allows both parties in a case to determine if they would rather have an appointed judge or a trial by jury. Let is make this post more constructive by creating a mock trial by jury, with you readers as the jury. Here is the case: Resubbers vs Bioware The party of consumers who resubbed (a promise to pay) with the sole motive to receive the promise of ranked WZ as declared before to launch on April 12 2012 want to unbind themselves from the contract and receive restitution. Their argument is negligent misrepresentation. The party of BW argument is that the content of ranked WZ was not ready for release, and if released would demonstrate falsity in the promise to provide ranked WZ. Who receives judgment? *NOTICE* I am posting this in the PvP forums due to the fact that it relates to subject matter of ranked WZ. I will ask that you please make constructive posts to this thread. Please refrain from trolling or making rash statements. This thread is intended to be educational and to be an unbiased debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtfnonamefree Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yeah, in the first semester of studying law we had simplifications like these going on, too. Thing is, it isn't as simple in reality (and I never found out how complex it really gets firsthand, either, cuz I quit:D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needalight Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 Yeah, in the first semester of studying law we had simplifications like these going on, too. Thing is, it isn't as simple in reality (and I never found out how complex it really gets firsthand, either, cuz I quit:D) This true. None the less the simplifications are the foundation for the details. If they didn't apply they wouldn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobb-Barker Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The old bait and swtich huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoneYoda Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Thanks op for the discussion. I've often wondered why there are not class action lawsuits against Gaming companies that produce MMO's. To my knowledge it is the only product that can be constantly changed, over promised, and under delivered, and still keep consumers. Could you imagine 2 million people pre-buying a brand new Lexus. The car is suppose to have all these great features that are listed by the manufacturer. The car is built, then shipped and has only 3 wheels, no windshield, and no GPS, all of course promised and listed on the box. What kind of lawsuit would Lexus/Toyota face, what kind of repercussions would it have on their brand and buyer loyalty? Worse... 4 months later Lexus says, that was pre-release here I'll give you 4 wheels, and a windshield, but that promised GPS... you'll still have to wait. (Ranked WZs!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lijahrobinson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I want to begin by stating I have been subbed since launch and will remain subbed. Therefore I am not a member of the party of resubbers who signed up for ranked WZ. I'm currently taking business law which focus' on contract law. That said I am not a lawyer, I am an engineering student with a minor in business. None the less what I know about contract law still pertains. When two parties exchange a promise for a promise this is called a contract. In the situation of swtor, the party of BW promises play time on their game if you promise to pay a monthly subscription. Thus, we are dealing with a contract law case. To further develop my post here are some rules that embody contract law. First of all, the main reason people exercise contract law in court is when one party intends to unbind itself from the contract or when one party intends to receive the full obligation from the obligor. In this situation we are dealing with the case that one party wants to unbind itself from the contract. So how does one party unbind itself? Many ways, but in this situation we will look at the theory of deception and what constitutes deception. The two major components of deception are fraud and negligent misrepresentation. To address fraud first, I believe it will help if I define fraud. Fraud is making of a false statement of a past or existing fact, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless indifference as to its truth, with the intent to cause another to rely thereon, and such person does rely thereon and is harmed thereby. I will say that this case doesn't fully fit the profile for fraud. The first reason is because BW did intend and still does intend to release ranked WZ, therefore there is was no falsity in the statement that ranked WZ will be released. However I will note and respect the counter argument that there was falsity in the statement that ranked WZ will be released on April 12 2012. This makes the question of falsity a grey matter. The second and main reason why this is not fraud is because BW did not intend to cause the party of resubbers to rely upon their statement that ranked WZ will come out on April 12, 2012. There was no declared message by a BW agent or representative of any sort that indicated people should resub if they want to experience ranked WZ on April 12, 2012. In fact the only company that I have personally seen make such a message was Blizzard when they released 4.2 rage of the firelands for WoW. I know this because I was unsubbed and received an email from Blizzard saying come back, 4.2 will be everything you’ve waited for. But I digress, and to return to my point, this case is not fraud and fraud cannot be utilized by the resubbing party to gain restitution. However the second major component of deception is negligent misrepresentation. If you have read this far, this is the section you should heed. I will not fully define negligent misrepresentation because in many ways it is similar to fraud; however the key difference is that the claim is predicated on a negligently made false statement. That is, the speaker failed to exercise due care regarding material information communicated to the listener but did not intend to deceive. As noted in the above paragraph regarding fraud, BW did not intend to deceive the party of resubbers. However the pivotal fact here is that BW did fail to exercise due care regarding material information communicated to the listener. This is undeniable. A BW agent of representative never communicated to the swtor community that they were having issues with ranked WZ (please link me the post if I am wrong so I can correct this statement). Furthermore the post to the community regarding that ranked WZ will not be released April 12, 2012 was made in less than 24 hour notice. Interpreting this action is up to the jury or judge as to whether or not it was due or undue care communicating material information. To the defense of BW, releasing content that isn’t ready for implementing would demonstrate falsity in the promise to release working content. The US court system allows both parties in a case to determine if they would rather have an appointed judge or a trial by jury. Let is make this post more constructive by creating a mock trial by jury, with you readers as the jury. Here is the case: Resubbers vs Bioware The party of consumers who resubbed (a promise to pay) with the sole motive to receive the promise of ranked WZ as declared before to launch on April 12 2012 want to unbind themselves from the contract and receive restitution. Their argument is negligent misrepresentation. The party of BW argument is that the content of ranked WZ was not ready for release, and if released would demonstrate falsity in the promise to provide ranked WZ. Who receives judgment? *NOTICE* I am posting this in the PvP forums due to the fact that it relates to subject matter of ranked WZ. I will ask that you please make constructive posts to this thread. Please refrain from trolling or making rash statements. This thread is intended to be educational and to be an unbiased debate. I Image that you signed alot of your rights away by agreeing with their terms of service. also a contract that nullifies alot of players would be rights when the situation goes south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kai-Eurah-Tird Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) They can do this because the customer continues to let them. They're gonna keep doing this until someone stops them. EDIT: Better read that Term of Service again. Edited April 12, 2012 by Kai-Eurah-Tird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Philar Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Your contract with Bioware/EA states that you pay for access to the content that is available on their server. Since the Rated Warzones were never added to the live servers you never paid for them. If you were to sue, you would lose as the terms of the contract were never violated. If you felt you were entitled to receive Rated Warzones as a result of you paying a resubscription fee it was due to your inadequate understanding of the terms you agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irdc Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I Image that you signed alot of your rights away by agreeing with their terms of service. also a contract that nullifies alot of players would be rights when the situation goes south. Ding ding ding. Any court of law will look at the TOS that players click through when they create their account. And, unless the EA legal team is incompetent, there should be provisions in it that protect the company from claims relating to "change in content." Ranked warzones is a CONTENT issue. It is not a SERVICE issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzagheru Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 cool law story bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lijahrobinson Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Except form the mentioned ToS above: I would assume that the quality of ranked warzone was "objeciontable" BioWare and LucasArts reserves the right to remove Content that is objectionable to us for any reason. The decision to remove Content is in BioWare's and LucasArts' sole and final discretion. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, BioWare and LucasArts does not assume any responsibility or liability for Content that is generated by third parties or for the failure or delay in removing any such Content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focustarget Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 cool law story bro pretty much summed it up for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nergalus Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 TOS and the fact that patch notes are always subject to change will probably nullify any claim on this matter. Still though...i feel cheated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktkenshinx Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Verdict: NOT GUILTY I personally am peeved about the ranked WZ exclusion from 1.2, but the question here is about the legality of BWs decision. In regards to Fraud, the OP did an excellent job of summarizing (in layman's terms) why BW has not committed Fraud in any way. His mention of negligent misrepresentation, however, bears further investigation. There are two pieces of evidence that VERY CLEARLY show that BW is not liable for excluding ranked WZs from 1.2, and that there are no legal charges that can be brought against them and sustained in a court of law. 1. Patch Notes explicitly mention that not all content is final The patch notes published for the Public Test Server are not final and are subject to change. (Source: http://www.swtor.com/test-center/patchnotes) If you subscribe or resubscribe based on patch notes, you are doing so with full knowledge of this BW disclaimer. It might be obnoxious game design and customer service to change patch notes at the last minute, and you have every right to personally unsubscribe as a result of this. But there is no legal liability. 2. EA and BW EXPLICITLY discuss this in the EULA, which everyone agreed to. 2. Content EA reserves the right (but has no obligation except as required by law) to remove, block, edit, move or disable UGC for any reason, including when EA determines that UGC violates these terms. The decision to remove UGC or other Content at any time is in EA's sole and final discretion. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, EA does not assume any responsibility or liability for UGC or for removal of, UGC or any failure to or delay in removing, UGC or other Content. (Source: http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section2) This is the killshot, sadly. EA reserves the right to remove any content is in their sole discretion. By agreeing to the EULA, you necessarily alleviate all responsibility and legal liability from EA. Ranked WZs are a part of this content, and EA clearly reserves the rights to remove such content whenever they want. Basically, removing WZs sucks for everyone. Bad business? Yes. Illegal? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeTheDutch Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Lets be honest about 95% of the readers of this thread that you are giving false hope to None of them ( i dont include myself here and ill explain why after ) have the cash to come up with proper representation against a Giant like BW/EA why i dont include myself? 1) this is a prime example of a bad use of the courts system, and tax dollars being wasted 2) you will pay more in legal fees as they tie it up in court for years, then you did for your sub. whats more worth it? 3) i have the money and i would rather spend my $10000 on legal fees on vegas ******s, so i at least get banged for my bucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lythir Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 How do you stop a law student from drowning? Take your foot off the back of his neck. So, firstly, I can't seem to find a legally binding signed contract in my desk that explicitly states they will develop said content for said re-imbursement. Must have misplaced it. Second, I don't have a verbal control with the company to same effect. Damn. All I have is an agreement to pay a given sum each month that entitles me to access to their live servers. There might be an expectation that some of that money goes to new development, but it's not explicitly stated or agreed upon. In fact, the contract appears to be highly one sided in their favour, but I need to agree in order to access the product. Timelines slip all the time in software development - deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerion Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) I want to begin by stating I have been subbed since launch and will remain subbed. Therefore I am not a member of the party of resubbers who signed up for ranked WZ. I'm currently taking business law which focus' on contract law. That said I am not a lawyer... Didn't need to read any further. You really think that EA/Bioware don't have a legal team that could make someone like you look incredibly stupid in a courtroom? Maybe you should have read that long list of terms and conditions you agreed to before you could play the game. Here's the summary - Bioware/EA can do whatever they like and you agree to it. Students, bless em ;-) Edited April 12, 2012 by Scerion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidpop Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Sometimes i wish i was american, so i could sue people for silly reasons to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerion Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Sometimes i wish i was american, so i could sue people for silly reasons to. I think it's possible to be an *** in any country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOvertone Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm amazed this thread is still open. The Forum Police is out in force on the PvP Forums. They have closed almost every thread created in the last 30 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seyyah Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 i am just a graphics designer... not studied laws... but in where i live (not US or Canada) you have a viable argument when you have a written statement of the contents EXISTING in your service agreement about their presence or lack... now if you subscribed prior the patch in HOPES of having "x" feature which was announced as a POSSIBILITY in the notes, and when the patch hits it is not there... well... you do not have a LEGAL argument. I agree on the other hand tricking your customers knowingly or unknowingly with false information is simply... what do you call??? lame... or not cool... BUT if you have those "x" content in your game features written somewhere and you still dont have them you MAY only MAY (as based on EULA that you have signed i beleive you MAY NOT even then) have a legal argument. just my 2 cents sorry for my bad english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancen Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Ding ding ding. Any court of law will look at the TOS that players click through when they create their account. And, unless the EA legal team is incompetent, there should be provisions in it that protect the company from claims relating to "change in content." Ranked warzones is a CONTENT issue. It is not a SERVICE issue. Yep, plus they disclaim things with "while these are our plans, they may change based on..." etc. when speaking for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magisch Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You pay for server access, nothing more, nothing less. According to TOS they could complelty disable and remove any content, you couldnt sue them. Better read what you accept, first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerailis Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Bioware also stated all along that all patch notes are subject to change based on testing. I'd rather wait a little bit and get what's promised when it WORKS than get a half a**ed and poorly executed attempt that fails. /staying subbed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerBeo Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I simply can not believe all the posts regarding this topic and other similar unhappy posts......sub.... unsub.....class nerf whines (when all the clases are great in my opinion...both pve and pvp)...unhappy with this ...unhappy with that.....just enjoy the game and have fun...if you do not enjoy the game then please find something else constructive to help you define your life. Some people sound like thier sole existence on the planet depends upon being endlessly catered to:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts