BW Bait and Switch

[Skoobie]

if you feel that way you dont need to subscribe for november. if you subscribe for november you know what you are getting in november. but in reality this is simply not true. it is a partial overhaul to the fee system. if you continue to subscribe you will have access to the same ops you have now, the same pvp you have now, the same FPs you have now. the difference: more people and new content, probably cash shop adverts on the load screens. none of which is a complete overhaul of the game.

 

It's a complete change of mentality for EA/Bioware. Their focus & business model have both changed. It's much more then a partial overhaul to the fee system, I'm afraid to tell you.

 

We don't even know anything about the direction of the game anymore. Besides it's going F2P. What's after that?

 

We have no idea who's with Bioware anymore. Have all the original "idea" people been let go? The "visionaries"? We just don't know.

 

This game company is a mess right now.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Skoobie

[AshenK]

"Software companies that initially offer software products or services for free (often under a "Beta" moniker) and at a later point make parts or all of the functionality available only in a paid product without communicating that intention from the start are said to employ bait-and-switch tactics."

 

here's some reading for you...

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm

 

(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or implied in the advertisement.

Open World PVP

 

b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time

Secret Space Project

 

But the main point is this: how much of the content that we have been promised WILL BE INCLUDED in our sub fee and how much of it will be available to purchase.

 

 

Our $15 a month goes towards developing content that we expect to have access to, if BW told us before release "Hey, for the next 8 months we're going to charge you $15/Mo and only release one content patch, then sometime in August we're gonna go free to play and additional content that we developed using your $15/Mo subs will cost an additional amount to buy on top of maintaining your sub" most people would have said "eh no..." and walked away.

 

The fact is, we have been maintaining a sub all these months under the assumption that that money would go towards adding additional content and FIXING content that they took out of the game. Now saying "we can't promise you you won't have to pay extra for it..." is going back on the understanding originally founded at purchase and reinforced by their explicit statements that they were not even considering the f2p model.

Okay...

 

One when you started to play this game did you have to click on a yes to this? http://www.swtor.com/legalnotices/termsofservice/ I want you to look up two things on the TOS. The first is under number 4. content and number 6. Updates to the Service; Notices. Two things you should read. First under number 4,

 

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.

 

And under number 6. Updates to the Service:Notices,

 

IMPORTANT: BIOWARE MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE CHANGES TO, OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS TO BALANCE GAME PLAY AND USAGE OF TOR SERVICES. THESE CHANGES OR "RESETS" MAY AFFECT CHARACTERS OR GAMES OR GROUPS UNDER YOUR CONTROL AND MAY CAUSE YOU SETBACKS WITHIN THE RELEVANT GAME WORLD. BIOWARE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND IS NOT LIABLE TO YOU FOR THESE CHANGES.

 

Okay so there go's your case. When you started this game you had to say yes on the TOS in order to play this game. Illum aka Open World PvP was removed we can say both to number 4 and number 6. Going F2P under number 6. So what about this?

 

b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time

Secret Space Project

 

One, did BioWare or anyone working on the game give any full on details about that project? Did they advertise that the Secret Space Project was going to be coming out on X date? Sorry but chances are that would be thrown out in minutes if that is part of any kind of legal case on BioWare. Unless they have shown full on details, given a date, you have nothing. More so then that 'reasonable' go's many ways. "Yes we had to push back that project your honor due to the fact that if we had come out with it on (date here) it wouldn't have worked."

 

Truth is? You have no case, the minute you clicked on "I Accept" to the Terms of Service you said for the most part that you understood that the game can and will change at any time. Be it removing something from the game, making a change to something in the game or ways to make payment. Your case wouldn't last 10 minutes before it gets thrown out.

[Alephen]

It's a complete change of mentality for EA/Bioware. Their focus & business model have both changed. It's much more then a partial overhaul to the fee system, I'm afraid to tell you.

 

We don't even know anything about the direction of the game anymore. Besides it's going F2P. What's after that?

 

We have no idea who's with Bioware anymore. Have all the "idea" people been let go? The "visionaries"? We just don't know.

 

it is much, much less than a 'complete overhaul of the game.' more of a minor tweak.

 

we almost never know the direction of a game . companies tell us and we believe them or not. but things change and so direction changes for every game.

 

we almost never know who is let go. companies have to abide by privacy laws.

 

maybe it will be good, maybe it will be bad. most likely it will be both depending on who is judging. but it is not criminal as this thread suggests. it is not even unethical.

[Natareus]

You forgot when match to chest was removed during beta with a promise of something better to come, then they give us match to chest piece

 

Ah but they added a whole appearance tab! Many long nights were worked at Bioware in the hopes that they could complete a tab after beta! Do you understand the millions of lines of code to add a tab? . Who needs diverse loot as long as we get a tab! And now for only 2000 cartel coins you can have match to helmet! And for another 2000 cartel coins you can unlock a quest line that is required for match to helmet!

[Tuscad]

Ah but they added a whole appearance tab! Many long nights were worked at Bioware in the hopes that they could complete a tab after beta! Do you understand the millions of lines of code to add a tab? . Who needs diverse loot as long as we get a tab! And now for only 2000 cartel coins you can have match to helmet! And for another 2000 cartel coins you can unlock a quest line that is required for match to helmet!

 

Lol yep, even though alot of people were wanting the option to dye armor instead.

[Magathemis]

It's a complete change of mentality for EA/Bioware. Their focus & business model have both changed. It's much more then a partial overhaul to the fee system, I'm afraid to tell you.

We don't even know anything about the direction of the game anymore. Besides it's going F2P. What's after that?

We have no idea who's with Bioware anymore. Have all the original "idea" people been let go? The "visionaries"? We just don't know.

This game company is a mess right now.

That's my problem with SWTOR. I have no idea where they're taking this game, if anywhere at all.

 

Since launch eight months ago, there have been two content updates and one event. That's it. Otherwise the game is essentially static and steadily losing subscribers because once you hit the end of the game, there literally is nothing to do but warzones, FPs, and leveling alts.

 

I loved the Rakghoul outbreak event. I thought, "Finally! Something new has happened!" It was fun and I enjoyed it. Since then? Nada. Meanwhile, over in the game I left to come to SWTOR, they have so many events around the year, you need an in-game calendar to track it all.

 

Anyway, I'll probably stick around through the August update, see whether to me the game is still worth playing and worth the subscription fee. After that, we'll see.

[Zyrious]

if you guys are so sure, file a lawsuit. the objective fact is no court will see goint ftp as a substantive difference to the game. if you pay a scrip you have nearly no difference. even if companies know they are reducing the price of a product in the future they are under no obligation to tell customers.

 

and even if they were, they could argue that since virtually every game has reduced the costs over a period of time, the customers should reasonable expect this price to drop.

 

you got the product you payed for (with the possible exception of the pvp being pulled last minute) you accept that changes will be made (it's in the eula.) buyers remorse =/= bait and switch

 

EULA's cannot and have NEVER been upheld in court. You cannot have a consumer sign away their legal consumer rights as citizens of their respective countries, especially here in the US ( i dont want to speak on behalf of countries that i dont know the legalities of). The US has "Consumer rights" which cannot ever be signed away. You can have a contract that says "At any time we can raid your house and take our stuff back" but that would be thrown out in court. EULA's are simply there as a tool against those who would never bother with court, but once it goes to court EULA's lose all power.

 

Bait and Switch is saying you are offering one thing, and giving something else. Promising something in exchange for your money, and not delivering it. Legally Bait and switch is a broad term, not just dealing with pricing. Technically speaking, if they put too much content into the cash shop and the stipend for a sub is too small, you could sue for a bait and switch, having purchased the game and subscription on the expectation of access to all content and future content updates without further purchases beyond the subscription and future official expansions and that no longer being possible. That's not even covering the actual removal of content and unfulfilled promises since beta.

 

As Stated: HK-51 was IN GAME and FUNCTIONAL in Beta, we already had guides on it.

RWZ's were pulled last minute even after heavy advertisement used to grab costumers, that is definitely fraud.

Ilum is defunct now with no ETA on revival.

The dev's and customer service are MIA.

Over 9 months we've LESS than a handful of flashpoints and 1 warzone added. RIFT had a bigger content release during its first year, well over triple or even quadrouple the content released in the same timeframe.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zyrious

[RazielHex]

Let's review some examples of bait and switch by BW

 

1.2 Ranked WZ are announced to be in the game. Many many many pvpers resub for this sole purpose.

The night before they are set to be in the game, RWZ are pulled from the notes and there is a brief explanation that they will not be in. People leave in droves over it.

 

They weren't working correctly. It was the right thing to pull them. Forumites would have complained either way. When they were put in, the implementation was correct and without much error. The only thing people complain about Rated Warzones is that they can't get enough of them now. That's successful implementation.

 

There is a survey circulating showing that BW is wanting to sell different gaming packages including new content, speeders etc, it shows different pricing models. We are calmly reassured that the content in question WILL NOT be charged for.

 

"Content" is incorrect. Aesthetic items is correct nomenclature. By calling it "content" you imply things like flashpoints, operations, and top tier equipment. This is false.

 

HK was in the game during Beta and pulled, he functioned 100% and there was no explanation as to WHY he was pulled.

5 months later it is announced that he is "finally ready" and will be in the game "soon." Two months after that it is announced that they have no idea when he will be in the game but that it is possible he will be delayed until after f2p goes live and we will be charged for him.

 

This is presumptuous fear-mongering.

 

Content is promised to be released every single month. We've gotten two content patches in 8 months and the next content patch has no release date and may cost us extra money.

 

[Citation Needed]

 

Open world PVP is heavily advertised and marketed telling us about how we're going to participate in enormous battles. It is broken, they pull it from the game and then tell us they are going to "fix it" they have yet to do anything with it.

 

Ilum works fine. You can have all the objectives in the open world that you want, but if players don't do them, that's not the developer's fault. It's up to your community to actively engage in pushing people towards the open world. If Open World PvP is what they want, they'll do it. The problem is that you want to be incentivized with something other than the experience, and players lie through their teeth saying that they just want Open World PvP. That's deceitful. They want gear and weapons and double Valor and commendations from Zerging a smaller faction and being unopposed in a high density populated area. They want rewards for doing as little as possible and want Open World PvP to be that avenue of approach.

 

You want Big Battles? Organize an event, advertise it, speak with guild leaders, and get people involved. Jung Ma does this **** monthly.

 

The "secret space project" has been in the works for 7 months, there is absolutely NO information, not even leaked info on what it actually is and when or even IF it is coming, this is despite it being the number one priority as stated by devs.

 

10 new level-50 space missions. There you go. They look pretty neat, too.

[Alephen]

EULA's cannot and have NEVER been upheld in court. You cannot have a consumer sign away their legal consumer rights as citizens of their respective countries, especially here in the US ( i dont want to speak on behalf of countries that i dont know the legalities of). The US has "Consumer rights" which cannot ever be signed away. You can have a contract that says "At any time we can raid your house and take our stuff back" but that would be thrown out in court. EULA's are simply there as a tool against those who would never bother with court, but once it goes to court EULA's lose all power.

 

Bait and Switch is saying you are offering one thing, and giving something else. Promising something in exchange for your money, and not delivering it. Legally Bait and switch is a broad term, not just dealing with pricing. Technically speaking, if they put too much content into the cash shop and the stipend for a sub is too small, you could sue for a bait and switch, having purchased the game and subscription on the expectation of access to all content and future content updates without further purchases beyond the subscription and future official expansions and that no longer being possible. That's not even covering the actual removal of content and unfulfilled promises since beta.

 

regarding italics: why would they need a tool against those that would never bother with court?

 

regarding bold: F2P will be paying for this content, there has been nothing to suggest that subscribers will pay for these, although they can call a new op an official expansion and according to your assertion, it would be fine to charge subscribers.

 

in general EULAs may or may not be upheld. so maybe they win, maybe they dont. on the box it is posted that assenting to the eula is required to play, thus you are informed of the eula prior to purchase. the most common invalidating of EULAs are for those that are inside the box and so not disclosed until after the sale.

[Zyrious]

regarding italics: why would they need a tool against those that would never bother with court?

 

regarding bold: F2P will be paying for this content, there has been nothing to suggest that subscribers will pay for these, although they can call a new op an official expansion and according to your assertion, it would be fine to charge subscribers.

 

in general EULAs may or may not be upheld. so maybe they win, maybe they dont. on the box it is posted that assenting to the eula is required to play, thus you are informed of the eula prior to purchase. the most common invalidating of EULAs are for those that are inside the box and so not disclosed until after the sale.

 

EULA's/TOS are primarily used to deal with the banning of players exploiting/etc, out of court type stuff. But every single time a game company went to court, the EULA was thrown out. Like i said, a EULA cannot contradict consumer rights or federal law or state law. Infact i recall a famous case some years ago where that happened, of course there were still issues with the army of lawyers a company can throw at you(but cases have been won). And yes, they can package and release an operation as an "Official Expansion" but that will look really bad trying to market that. And yes, subs will need to get things from the cash shop, its why they get a "stipend" of coins, and if that stipen is too small and too large a portion of content is in the cash shop, that IS most definitely grounds for a lawsuit.

 

The problem is, will people care enough to sue or will people just leave and let the game die?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zyrious

[Alephen]

EULA's/TOS are primarily used to deal with the banning of players exploiting/etc, out of court type stuff. But every single time a game company went to court, the EULA was thrown out. Like i said, a EULA cannot contradict consumer rights or federal law or state law. Infact i recall a famous case some years ago where that happened, of course there were still issues with the army of lawyers a company can throw at you(but cases have been won). And yes, they can package and release an operation as an "Official Expansion" but that will look really bad trying to market that. And yes, subs will need to get things from the cash shop, its why they get a "stipend" of coins, and if that stipen is too small and too large a portion of content is in the cash shop, that IS most definitely grounds for a lawsuit.

 

The problem is, will people care enough to sue or will people just leave and let the game die?

 

first you are comparing apples to oranges, if a eula says you give EA the right to harvest your organs, no that wont be upheld.

 

as far as never won? http://www.geekosystem.com/tag/eula/

 

Back in October, Blizzard Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Alyson Reeves and her company Scapegaming, for violating the end user license agreement of World of Warcraft by setting up a private server for her own profit. On Thursday, the California Central District Court ruled in favor of the game maker and ordered Scapegaming to pay back “$3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney’s fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages.”

 

feel free to show me any lawsuit where someone forced a game to keep or not change content.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Alephen

[RazielHex]

first you are comparing apples to oranges, if a eula says you give EA the right to harvest your organs, no that wont be upheld.

 

as far as never won? http://www.geekosystem.com/tag/eula/

 

Back in October, Blizzard Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Alyson Reeves and her company Scapegaming, for violating the end user license agreement of World of Warcraft by setting up a private server for her own profit. On Thursday, the California Central District Court ruled in favor of the game maker and ordered Scapegaming to pay back “$3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney’s fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages.”

 

feel free to show me any lawsuit where someone forced a game to keep or not change content.

 

Don't forget the lawsuit against the Glider software.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_%28bot%29

 

Vivendi/Activision won a six million dollar lawsuit against the makers of Glider for infringing on the EULA.

Edited August 5, 2012 by RazielHex

[Alephen]

Don't forget the lawsuit against the Glider software.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_%28bot%29

 

Vivendi/Activision won a six million dollar lawsuit against the makers of Glider for infringing on the EULA.

 

the good thing about people using always/never everyone/noone is you only need 1 counterexample

[Zyrious]

first you are comparing apples to oranges, if a eula says you give EA the right to harvest your organs, no that wont be upheld.

 

as far as never won? http://www.geekosystem.com/tag/eula/

 

Back in October, Blizzard Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Alyson Reeves and her company Scapegaming, for violating the end user license agreement of World of Warcraft by setting up a private server for her own profit. On Thursday, the California Central District Court ruled in favor of the game maker and ordered Scapegaming to pay back “$3,053,339 of inappropriate profits, $63,600 of attorney’s fees, and $85,478,600 of statutory damages.”

 

feel free to show me any lawsuit where someone forced a game to keep or not change content.

 

That's a case of copyright infringement and has just happens to fall in line with what most companies copy and paste into the EULA. They wouldnt even need the EULA to sue someone for that, simple US copyright law does that for them. Try again.

[Andryah]

The problem is, will people care enough to sue or will people just leave and let the game die?

 

Or, the popular third option: defame, exaggerate, redefine terms on a whim, lie, all to bash a game they apparently don't like but cannot let go of.

 

As for the enforcement of EULAs and ToS. They are in fact enforceable, as long as they do not contradict current laws on the books (just like local laws are not allowed to contradict state laws and state laws are not allowed to contradict federal laws). They are fully enforceable within the hierachy of law. And really, the only time they have been pulled into court is when a company tries to use their terns of service documents to circumvent law. That is not the case in the context of this thread as the OP has simply conflated terms and topic to suit his agenda against the game. We know it and he knows it.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Andryah

[Zyrious]

Or, the popular third option: defame, exaggerate, redefine terms on a whim, lie, all to bash a game they apparently don't like but cannot let go of.

 

As for the enforcement of EULAs and ToS. They are in fact enforceable, as long as they do not contradict current laws on the books. And really, the only time they have been pulled into court is when a company tries to use their terns of service documents to circumvent law. That is not the case in the context of this thread as the OP has simply conflated terms and topic to suit his agenda against the game. We know it and he knows it.

 

The thing is, all a EULA can really do is restate current Law or rules of play (no shoes no shirt no service), a EULA cannot make new laws. Letting people know they will sue for copyright infringement, etc. But saying they can do whatever they want at any time is not something they can do, and a lot of times the EULA has just been thrown out unless its over an issue like copyright infringement or other pre-established law. The EULA becomes even more fragile overseas especially in regions such as asia, and companies have been having trouble pushing some rediculous TOS's over int he EU lately as well.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zyrious

[RazielHex]

That's a case of copyright infringement and has just happens to fall in line with what most companies copy and paste into the EULA. They wouldnt even need the EULA to sue someone for that, simple US copyright law does that for them. Try again.

 

"Even though you just proved that I was wrong with concrete, verifiable evidence, I am going to attempt to change my argument while simultaneously validating what you said, and state that I am right regardless."

[Zyrious]

"Even though you just proved that I was wrong with concrete, verifiable evidence, I am going to attempt to change my argument while simultaneously validating what you said, and state that I am right regardless."

 

So an argument over semantics = i'm wrong? Are you debating my arguments or are you debating me? (Ad hominem, a fools tactic)

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zyrious

[RazielHex]

So an argument over semantics = i'm wrong? Are you debating my arguments or are you debating me? (Ad hominem, a fools tactic)

 

Don't bark at me, I'm just a translator.

[Andryah]

The thing is, all a EULA can really do is restate current Law, a EULA cannot make new laws.

 

NO. What an EULA does is stipulate in writing the rights of the company under current law, and requires that the players agree to those rights as a condition of access to the game. It mitigates legal ambiguity and asserts the rights of the company. If correctly written and enforced, it prevents frivolous lawsuits that would come about along the lines of the silliness of this threads premise.

 

The same is true for employment contracts. They cannot supercede local, state, and federal laws, but the are enforceable, they stipulate in writing the rights of the company under current law and require the employee to agree to those rights and any other legally enforceable stipulations.

 

Corporate law is well defined and practiced in consumer services, so there really is no practcal debate here to be had.

 

The effects of internaltonal laws, and legal binding of corporate documents is a whole other discussion, that is out of scope of this thread.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Andryah

[Rafaman]

Or, the popular third option: defame, exaggerate, redefine terms on a whim, lie, all to bash a game they apparently don't like but cannot let go of.

 

As for the enforcement of EULAs and ToS. They are in fact enforceable, as long as they do not contradict current laws on the books (just like local laws are not allowed to contradict state laws and state laws are not allowed to contradict federal laws). They are fully enforceable within the hierachy of law. And really, the only time they have been pulled into court is when a company tries to use their terns of service documents to circumvent law. That is not the case in the context of this thread as the OP has simply conflated terms and topic to suit his agenda against the game. We know it and he knows it.

 

^This. I am amazed quite frankly that there would be this much ignorance regarding the EULA and ToS. If you don't like the game, fine. Legally you can't sue because you don't like it. lol!

[Alephen]

That's a case of copyright infringement and has just happens to fall in line with what most companies copy and paste into the EULA. They wouldnt even need the EULA to sue someone for that, simple US copyright law does that for them. Try again.

 

i am done with you as you are hot air with no substance. site one case where a player has sued, after signing a eula, to stop a game from changing or taking away content after announcing this change before charging for subscriptions for that period.

 

you cant.

truth does not lie in yelling the loudest

[Zyrious]

i am done with you as you are hot air with no substance. site one case where a player has sued, after signing a eula, to stop a game from changing or taking away content after announcing this change before charging for subscriptions for that period.

 

you cant.

truth does not lie in yelling the loudest

 

I never once said it had been done yet, but i said there is merit both in being angry about it, and in the law itself. The problem is the army of lawyers you have to go against, and i was also clarifying what a bait and switch was which this could most definitely be seen as. I also stated a EULA is not LAW, you are not bound to every single word in it and you ALWAYS have your consumer rights as per local law. Which is FACT. Maybe you should re-read my originall post because apparently reading comprehension is not your forte'.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zyrious

[Gungan]

Yeah, unfortunately EULA's and TOS' pretty much make you unable to sue anybody. A contract is a contract and they don't write them to favor the consumer. Edited August 5, 2012 by Gungan

[Tiberians]

This posting....I have found to be a very interesting read. nice debate, and write-ups guys