Angry PS3 Gamers Sue EA Over Broken Battlefield Promise

[Jimijab]

What I have learned from this: EA are shits, they do not care about their customers.

 

[rapidoud]

I think you'll find none of the corporations care about customers, not anymore anyway.

Acti-Blizzard, both halves, nope (WoW is now an annual franchise which defeats the purpose of subscribing)
Valve: They base their business around reputation, they offer sales on Steam to increase the chances of you buying their products (not to mention they haven't developed a game on their own since HL2, rest have been bought out), exactly like how a supermarket works, sell milk at a loss, people buy other things at high markups
bioware: Not releasing TOR in Aus (that is the opposite of disliking your consumers) until much later
Bohemia Interactive: Awesome, free content patches, cheap, in-depth games, realistic shooters unlike arcade BF series.

 

[TornadoADV]

No matter what the EULA says, you cannot remove a customer's right to litigate against your actions if they be illegal.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Good for the litagators! I wish them the best of luck for a solid victory that puts a dent in EA (and their ego). I like to think of this as karmic equalization for EA acting like 5-year olds over "beating" Call of Duty.

Not to be a downer, but I think everyone celebrating needs to pause to consider how businesses work. Fighting this lawsuit is going to cost money, and losing it will cost even more money. The executives are NOT going to take that hit, so they're going to pass it down the chain until eventually they cut funding for some game in development. Now, granted that I've been on my own little boycott against EA for a while now, but this still means that some potentially awesome game is going to get canceled in order to pay for the lawsuit.

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. 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.

On a positive note, there is by far a much lower likelihood of companies like EA or Acti sitting on veritable gold that could end up extinguished to support legal fees or some other game's budget. EA has licenses[footnote]e.g. Star Wars Battlefront 3. Where the hell is it?!?[/footnote] that could print them money if they put a real effort into those projects, but from their practices set time and again, that probably won't happen, 99% chance.

 

[Simalacrum]

How the hell did EA think it could get away with this? Surely they knew that this would happen? Perhaps they thought it would be worth the lawsuit in terms of sales gained from the false offer? Wtf?

 

[Skops]

As a Battlefield fan, I already own 1943. But I support the guys, not because I hate EA, just because I want to bomb them with my plane in 1943 at a later date XD

 

[Nikolaz72]

What I have learned from this: EA are shits, they do not care about their customers.

None of the publishers really care about their customers a whole lot. EA is just the worst at acting like they do care.

 

[Irridium]

I'm not sure I get all this. So they could possibly get away with it if it's in the EULA right? But for console games, you can't see the EULA until you start the game or open it. So wouldn't that void the EULA since it isn't openly displayed or easily accessed by the consumer?

Well yeah, it does rely on the EULA being, well, valid. Which it pretty much isn't. Perhaps the reason AT&T was able to enforce it is because they show the contracts before they have people sign, wheras games just have you agree right when you buy them without even looking at them.

But to challenge it in court would be really, really expensive, and nobody can really afford it without a class-action lawsuit. Which Sony and EA have forbidden.

All EA accounts are now Origin accounts, so it spans across all major platforms.

I believe it only applies to the Origin platform itself, and not the accounts. Maybe it does though, perhaps they changed the EULA recently. But if it does apply to Origin accounts as a whole, and they changed it without giving the customer a choice and then saying they automatically agree to the new EULA, then yeah, I'm pretty sure EA has no leg to stand on. I hope, anyway.

 

[DannyJBeckett]

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.

The problem is that the 'free' gift they put in as substitute wasn't free at all. It was early (not free) access to Battlefield 3 DLC, despite the fact PS3 users were going to get DLC access early anyway. So not only are they pulling a free item from their customers for no reason beyond 'because we want to', they're replacing it with something the customers still have to pay for. It's just an insult to people who bought their game in good faith.

 

[WaruTaru]

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.

The problem is that the 'free' gift they put in as substitute wasn't free at all. It was early (not free) access to Battlefield 3 DLC, despite the fact PS3 users were going to get DLC access early anyway. So not only are they pulling a free item from their customers for no reason beyond 'because we want to', they're replacing it with something the customers still have to pay for. It's just an insult to people who bought their game in good faith.

Okay, you lost me there. Seeing as I refused to buy BF3, you'll have to walk me through that one. From your post, I'm guessing you actually have to pay to get the "early access", yes? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DannyJBeckett]

Okay, you lost me there. Seeing as I refused to buy BF3, you'll have to walk me through that one. From your post, I'm guessing you actually have to pay to get the "early access", yes? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct, yes. 'Early access' only means that users of a particular platform (PS3, XBox 360, PC) get the ability to purchase DLC before others.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

 

[WaruTaru]

Okay, you lost me there. Seeing as I refused to buy BF3, you'll have to walk me through that one. From your post, I'm guessing you actually have to pay to get the "early access", yes? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct, yes. 'Early access' only means that users of a particular platform (PS3, XBox 360, PC) get the ability to purchase DLC before others.

So those poor souls who bought BF3 on PS3 was given the chance to pay for early access to spend money on DLC? Legal hurdles be damned, EA must go down one way or another.

On second thought, I hope EA wins. It'll wake up the schmucks and hopefully enlighten them to never buy from EA again.

 

[Kopikatsu]

EA really have to lose this case or its going to set a very dangerous precedent.

I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

The law has only one rule. That who has the most money makes the rules. Welcome to america.

I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

When it comes to Origin (their crappy version of steam) then yes they have the right because it is included with their EULA. However it is actually pretty specific about what kind of lawsuit is not allowed. You can still sue EA if they release a game on Origin and no one in the world can play it because you know you paid for a product, however something like this false advertising thing they just did they could get away with.

1. EULAs have been shown more than once to be full of holes in the justice system.

2. I actually question whether it is actually legal putting that in the EULA. There are many things that are put into contracts but cannot be held up in court. This seems like it could be one of them

One question: I remember a while ago some twit wrote up a EULA that said something like "By agreeing I now legally own your house" or some stupid shit like that... didn't the courts rules that EULAs were not legally binding?

They aren't contracts, they're agreements. There is no ironclad binding to it. To be a contract, the document must state what is offered in return.

No, what he did was say 'I wrote up this contract. If you want me to continue using your service, you have to agree to me.' Then he sent it by physical mail and waited four days before going all 'IMMA SUE YOU' because they didn't cut his service off.

The problem there is, you don't get to tell the service provider what to do. They tell you what to do. If you don't like it, you go to a different service provider.

 

[Leg End]

All EA accounts are now Origin accounts, so it spans across all major platforms.

I believe it only applies to the Origin platform itself, and not the accounts. Maybe it does though, perhaps they changed the EULA recently. But if it does apply to Origin accounts as a whole, and they changed it without giving the customer a choice and then saying they automatically agree to the new EULA, then yeah, I'm pretty sure EA has no leg to stand on. I hope, anyway.

I believe it does apply. I think. Pretty sure not even EA is that braindead to include only one platform when the technical "service"(and I use the term lightly) is embedded into every online-enabled game they have ever even touched, with some exceptions(one of which is Brutal Legend. Thank you EA for not fucking that up).

So, it's in this case that EA's massive paranoia and legal dickery may have sodomized them.

w00t-hoo.

 

[geizr]

And yet, gamers will continue to buy games from them, by the millions. I no longer have sympathy for people getting screwed by game companies but still just keep buying the games from them(an exception to those joining the class action suit because this is a blatant case of false advertisement, which could not be known a priori). The situation will never change unless you send the one message these companies can never ignore: completely ceasing to buy ANY game from them, at all.

 

[Yopaz]

Makes sense. It is essentially false advertising, which last time I checked is kinda illegal

My thoughts exactly. This isn't just spoiled gamers complaining. This is a company saying something that will increase the sales then retract that as soon as the game gets released. Clearly false advertising and sadly enough, it was probably effective too.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I swear to god, EA, if you keep this up and somehow ruin Dead Space 3 for me, I will dedicate my life to getting on with my life and ignoring you.

 

[Low Key]

I usually have a problem with class action lawsuits since too many of them are over asinine pretenses with an intent to get free money, but this appears to be 100% justified.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

Well, the promised copy of Battlefield 1943 is not truly free. It's part of the purchase just like when you buy a soda pop you also get a cup.

I'm not a legal expert but I do not think that companies do have the right to "substitute free gift A for free gift B" after the purchase date. THQ recently did something similar with Saints Row the Third. There they promised an additional game mode but instead they gave people a free copy of Saints Row 2 (I believe this switch also happened after the release date.) This was also illegal but nobody cared enough to sue since THQ decided to provide a "gift" of even greater value than their original "gift."

EA has committed false advertising by promising to deliver a feature and only rescinding this decision after many people had already purchased their product which did not include the promised feature. They would've been able to get away with this if they had replaced the missing game with something of actual value instead of just the opportunity to give them money sooner than other people,