EllieAnne Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Terms of Service. Everyone here agreed to them. You waived all rights to hold them liable for this change. EXCEPT if it were fraudulent. Ridiculous example (well maybe not so ridiculous the way BW is going) would for them to sell via the CM (so real life dollars being spent) +100 stat color crystal. "Great!" you think and you buy 16 of them (one for each toon). Then BW says "Sorry, too unbalanced. They are now all +45 stats and no you can't get a refund." Let's assume you would not have spent the money on a +45 when you already have a +41. Is it fraud (depends on intent)? Is it misrepresentation? Do they get a free pass because it's in the ToS just after the line that they are allowed to take your firstborn? The ToS/EULA is not a carte blanche and software companies have had them thrown out if they felt consumers were unfairly giving up their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHboy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Blizzard v. Ceiling Fan Software Another case where ToS and a EULA were upheld: MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. Boom goes the dynamite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuriDogshin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I didn't realize the laws in Canada oversaw what a business did in Texas. It can when what you do in Texas affects people in Canada. And vice-versa. Happens all the time. International Shoe applies internationally as well. Seriously, people with no knowledge of how law works need to stop post their assumptions about it to the forums. You're not doing anyone any favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azudelphi Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It can when what you do in Texas affects people in Canada. And vice-versa. Happens all the time. International Shoe applies internationally as well. Seriously, people with no knowledge of how law works need to stop post their assumptions about it to the forums. You're not doing anyone any favors. And seriously, people with nothing better to do than be upset over a slot machine in a video game need to re-evaluate their life's priorities and decision making process. You're doing humanity no favors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrwellworth Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Sueing BioWare and by extension EA? Even if they came into your house, murdered your entire family right in front of you and you had it on tape, from several angles, you'd be hard-pressed to win any lawsuit against them within your lifetime. LOL. This made me laugh. This is my internets winner pick of the day, so far anyway. It is even funnier cause it's probably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Unconscionable? seriously? un·con·scio·na·ble extremely bad, unfair, or wronggoing far beyond what is usual or proper So yeah, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Kaitou-Kid Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Then apparently you missed... Just out of curiosity, does it mention anywhere there or in the patch notes or wherever that they were also going to reduce the drop rate of the Cartel Market Certificates and purple rep items? Because they did that too and that wasn't documented anywhere. The Certificates were never mentioned as possibly being changed, nor were the rep items, and at their current state the Certificates hardly ever drop. Now, don't take this as me saying everybody should get up and sue Bioware. I don't think it'd go anywhere personally and I actually really like this game and would rather not see it get shut down or something due to a lawsuit. But it's pretty clear that more than the Jawa Scraps were touched when everything beforehand had made it seem like it was just the Jawa Scraps that needed readjusting. Especially Eric's post about the slot machines not being an exploit, they didn't mention the Certificates or purple rep items anywhere in that post at all. With that in mind it's a bit misleading, don't you think? To tell everybody it's working 100% as intended and not bugged, keeping in mind that the Jawa Junk rates may be too high, so go buy it and play to your heart's content only for them to turn around a nerf the entire thing? And make up for it with an extremely rare, bugged mount that's a reskin of mounts already in the game? I hope Bioware will at least return the certificate drops to what they were pre-nerf. That would be fair in my opinion and would leave the Slot Machines at what they should be (a way to get rep and items from the rep vendors, which require certificates). Edited January 26, 2015 by The-Kaitou-Kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istanu Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 ooo Forum Lawyers let get the popcorn!!!!! nom nom nom Second second beside the fact that you don't own the game but only lease it, you still haven't shown " Intent to Deceive " Which is what must to shown to any court if you have and chance of legal recourse. Which you have not. so ya good try but better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiaowZedong Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 The thing is, given the ammounts of money in play (hint: not as much as involved in purchasing cars) and the borderline nature of the possible infringement, consumer protection agencies might want to send EA a word of advice, but they probably won't initiate anything serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedip_enguin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Oh lawdy the legal eagles are back to sue Bioware/EA for the slot machine nerf. These threads are a comedy goldmine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickious Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) I think you could probably make the argument that 1. putting a item like that in the CM was really stupid. Barely misses the borderline pay2win 2. putting that high of droprates for a slot machine was really stupid 3. A massive nerf all it once was really stupid. It should have been a gradual and slow nerf where pretty much the slot machine craze has cooled down and not many people would have noticed what has happened. 4. It was really stupid to not inform people that this change was coming. That said, this isn't going anywhere. Good luck with that lawsuit. The lawyers might get some money at least. Edited January 26, 2015 by Nickious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNahash Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 This is sad... Just... sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 The thing is, given the ammounts of money in play (hint: not as much as involved in purchasing cars) and the borderline nature of the possible infringement, consumer protection agencies might want to send EA a word of advice, but they probably won't initiate anything serious. Happy outcome: I get the 2,500 CC that I spent trying to get my 2 slot machines that were misrepresented. You can even take all of the crap that it came stuffed with, thereby freeing up more of my inventory slots. Satisfactory Outcome: The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services sends a nasty-gram to EA. Places EA on their radar as a potential abuser of consumer rights under then False, misleading or deceptive representation and/or Unconscionable representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsillah Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Happy outcome: I get the 2,500 CC that I spent trying to get my 2 slot machines that were misrepresented. You can even take all of the crap that it came stuffed with, thereby freeing up more of my inventory slots. Satisfactory Outcome: The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services sends a nasty-gram to EA. Places EA on their radar as a potential abuser of consumer rights under then False, misleading or deceptive representation and/or Unconscionable representation. Don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malderak Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Happy outcome: I get the 2,500 CC that I spent trying to get my 2 slot machines that were misrepresented. You can even take all of the crap that it came stuffed with, thereby freeing up more of my inventory slots. Satisfactory Outcome: The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services sends a nasty-gram to EA. Places EA on their radar as a potential abuser of consumer rights under then False, misleading or deceptive representation and/or Unconscionable representation. Then you wake up. And maybe get a life: you obviously way too much time on your hands if you find some to post stuff like this over the slot machine nerf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHboy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Don't hold your breath. funny, i was thinking the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Then you wake up. And maybe get a life: you obviously way too much time on your hands if you find some to post stuff like this over the slot machine nerf... That's the thing, it's not about the slot machine, its about the money spent on acquiring the machine that was misrepresented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quraswren Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) I didn't realize the laws in Canada oversaw what a business did in Texas. Actually, you might be shocked at how much better digital rights to consumers are in other countries. Granted I don't know what Canada has Vs the US but I know when Diablo 3 arrived and that failed launch, Korean law superseded over anything blizzard tried to produce as their "so-called " reasonable expectation and we didn't promise anything" BullS**T. blizzard failed to deliver a solid product on what was promoted and their laws make sure consumers do not have to be stuck with similar situations as this and poorly written statements. In that situation, gamers got their money back 2+ weeks after launch and nearly to the point of having the game banned from the country. The US is one country that has poor laws against digital products and consumer rights. Edited January 26, 2015 by Quraswren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHboy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 That's the thing, it's not about the slot machine, its about the money spent on acquiring the machine that was misrepresented. so, your stating that the rarity of the item is in question? Yeah a lawsuit over RNG will go over REAL well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyCharmers Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 No, they are used in conjunction with each other unless the contract laws are deemed unfair. An example being if I agree to a 20 year subscription to a bird watching magazine and on early teermination I need to sacrifice my first born to the devil. That would be classed as an unfair contract and I would be able to successfully argue this. With this game you were told that by playing the game you would be bound by the terms and conditions which you had the full opportunity to read prior to playing. There is nothing "unfair" in these T&C's - all rather straight forward - The game is ours, we can do waht we like with it. While I do agree with what your saying over all, they have been overruled before, SOE were made to change theirs for the Australian Market as they specified no refunds, it is illegal in that country to do business and not offer this service. Steam is currently been dragged into the courts by the Australian Government Consumer agency for a similar matter. Neither of these companies are small fry, but they must of had some pretty clueless people on the legal team when drawing up their T&C's. But, as someone put it earlier, this matter is entirely different and the OP is taking it way too seriously, and I cannot see how they could think to put this before the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azudelphi Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) so, your stating that the rarity of the item is in question? Yeah a lawsuit over RNG will go over REAL well. No, the rarity of the item isn't in question. His lawsuit would be in regards to the item's functionality after release... I'll refrain from commenting on whether he got what he paid for in terms of the decoration or if the ToS had an unreasonable expectation or if the consumer had an unrealistic expectation from our legal council, Mr BuriDogshin. Edited January 26, 2015 by azudelphi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedip_enguin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Actually, you might be shocked at how much better digital rights to consumers are in other countries. Granted I don't know what Canada has Vs the US but I know when Diablo 3 arrived and that failed launch, Korean law superseded over anything blizzard tried to produce as their "so-called " reasonable expectation and we didn't promise anything" BullS**T. blizzard failed to deliver a solid product on what was promoted and their laws make sure consumers do not have to be stuck with similar situations as this and poorly written statements. In that situation, gamers got their money back 2+ weeks after launch and nearly to the point of having the game banned from the country. The US is one country that has poor laws against digital products and consumer rights. You realise Diablo 3 was actually unplayable right? They didnt get their money back because blizzard nerfed the drop rate on the epic sword of killyness, they got it back because they could not access any aspect of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHboy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 snip ...this matter is entirely different and the OP is taking it way too seriously, and I cannot see how they could think to put this before the courts. as with about 90% of eveyrthing on these forums that end up in the great forum war chronicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FantaBuoy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Is the OP implying he might take legal action against BW? AHAHHAHAHAHAHA Wait, seriously now... AHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Wait... AHAHAHAHA AH AH AH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AH AH OP, for now, focus on finishing highschool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOHboy Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Is the OP implying he might take legal action against BW? AHAHHAHAHAHAHA Wait, seriously now... AHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Wait... AHAHAHAHA AH AH AH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AH AH OP, for now, focus on finishing highschool. OP already has law degree obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts