Angry PS3 Gamers Sue EA Over Broken Battlefield Promise

Recommended Videos

Cid Silverwing

Paladin of The Light
Jul 27, 2008
3,134
0
0
This isn't going to hurt EA in the slightest. I've lost faith in us 99%'ers being able to sue EA out of existence despite their MOUNTAINOUS crimes against their customers.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
mjc0961 said:
Good. This time, the lawsuit is quite justified, and I hope EA loses.

You see, THQ apparently pulled the same false promise thing with Saints Row The Third, but they corrected that by giving PS3 owners a free copy of the second game instead. Now that's compensation. Lose an exclusive game mode, get a full game (a full game that's bigger and better than Saints Row The Third mind you) free? That's how you apologize for a fuck-up, EA. Not by saying "you get to pay for DLC one week early" which they had already offered anyway.
This is the first I'm hearing about getting Saint's Row 2 for free...how exactly do you 'claim' your copy? 'Cause I have the PS3 version of Saint's Row the Third.

Here you go: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/11/16/scea-and-thq-announce-additional-content-for-saints-row-the-third-owners-on-playstation-3/
 

rapidoud

New member
Feb 1, 2008
547
0
0
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/05/blizzard-attempt-to-kill-wow-bot-bad-news-for-copyright-law.ars

An older case of absolutely ridiculous logic trumping an American court.

"All connections to the Game and/or the Service, whether created by the Game Client or by other tools and utilities, may only be made through methods and means expressly approved by Blizzard."

"So you see, any program which creates a "copy" of itself in your system's RAM?and that's every program on your computer?makes you guilty of copyright infringement unless you have a license allowing you to do so."

So according to Blizzard, you can't actually own computer software, only license it (and I know a LOT of people hate this if they hear about it) and the American Law System actually AGREED with this.

Expensive Lawyers trump logic everytime.
 

NerfedFalcon

Level i Flare!
Mar 23, 2011
7,626
1,477
118
Gender
Male
WaruTaru said:
Not that I'm supporting EA, but how is it false advertising if the game was supposed to be "free"? Companies always reserved the right to "substitute free gift A for free gift B" all the time, don't they? There is something very wrong with this lawsuit on both sides.
Yeah, but in this case it's "Free gift A for something you were already getting."
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
arealperson said:
Er, or the money could have been cut from another fraudulent scheme they were cooking up.  Be careful who you play Devil's Advocate for...
Or else what? I'm bringing up a completely valid point, and unless you have something better than the latest buzz from Conspirators Weekly, you aren't doing much against that.

SelectivelyEvil13 said:
You make a good point, don't get me wrong. It would be a shame if some original project with a lower budget ended up being put on indefinite hold in favor of paying the legal fees. However, it would be equally bad for EA to receive a "get out of jail free" card over this issue, and then think that it's okay to treat their customers like this by creating false pretenses for supporting their company.
Except that they've already lost the Get Out of Jail Free Card. You think EA cares about the lawsuit? They don't. So they'll have to make a few cuts here or there, but the company isn't going to suffer for it. At least not on a level that anyone in charge is going to care. You know what they care about? That this got out. The simple fact that they reneged on a deal making the press is what they care about. The lawsuit is just a bothersome itch in a hard to reach part of the back. After finding a nice corner to scratch it against, they'll forget it was even there in the first place.

Not that I'm arguing your point, because the money to fight the lawsuit will come from somewhere that impacts the games people buy and not from the pocket of the deceptive bastards at the top with overfilling wallets.
Which is my point exactly. By all means the people should get the deal they were promised, but at this point they're getting it by taking it out of the pockets of legitimately hard-working developers. It's a real case of wondering whether the ends justify the means, though of course the people in the class action lawsuit will say that it does.
 

arealperson

New member
Oct 1, 2009
91
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
arealperson said:
Er, or the money could have been cut from another fraudulent scheme they were cooking up.  Be careful who you play Devil's Advocate for...
Or else what? I'm bringing up a completely valid point, and unless you have something better than the latest buzz from Conspirators Weekly, you aren't doing much against that.
The elispsis was meant for effect, to make the allusion that as far as game publisher's go, EA might as well be the devil himself. That's hyperbole, obviously, but when I see and hear about all the poor practice that the company makes, I have a tough time supporting the decisions of anyone who decides to work for them. Decimated studios like Bullfrog, Origin, and Westwood; their silly marketing schemes with Dante, Dead Space and Battlefield; their terribly tight development schedules, project $10, online pass; publisher exclusive servers even for things like Mirror's Edge high scores (which they obviously don't monitor for cheating); losing access to your games if you don't maintain your Origin account; bringing down servers after only a couple years; the highest paid exec in gaming (despite years of "losses"); and finally (because you get the point) their entry into the skinner box known as social gaming. No conspiracy (har har).

Heck, a game dying might just be one step closer to ending EA, and I don't think I'd have any issue with that. Of course you have a point that the hard working and good folks would take the brunt of it, but EA's revenue has to come from somewhere. There are other bad publishers and not every move EA makes is the wrong one, but I'm pretty much on the verge of boycott (meaning not buying games I do want) with these guys.

P.S. I tried to avoid calling out sports games, because I don't hate the practice of yearly releases, but I do think it's high time they modernized their release pattern. Allow the import of older or newer rosters, lower the price of a yearly entry compared to other games, anything to recognize that maybe their releases are a bit samey compared to other genres of games.