Emergency Medical Table. The Solution.

Here we go again. Seriously, drop the condescending attitude. It only harms your argument when you try to give off an air of superiority while in a stance of ignorance.

They are guilty of false advertising in this instance, with the only possible exception being whether or not the loss of cartel coins could be considered damages (which would honestly be left up to a small claims court, if it was ever taken that far)

The item is advertised in-game (yes, in-game advertisements in this case *would* constitute a legal binding agreement ) to be obtainable through a specific purchase. This item, because it is digital, is considered an intellectual property, however the chance to obtain said item is considered to be services rendered after payment - and in this case said services were never received in full.

Just because it is a game and dealing with intellectual properties to which you agree that you do not own, does NOT exempt you from false advertsiing, as SEGA is finding out.

And here is a direct quote from the Terms of Service pertaining to the topic at hand: "nothing contained in this Terms of Service limits BioWare’s and LucasArts liability to you for fraudulent misrepresentations". What does that mean? Should you (the consumer) be coerced into purchasing something on the premise of a promise that did not exist, the provider of the service is guilty of fraudelent misrepesnation (possibly innocent misrepresentation at best - but that only stands in a court of law should the guilty party make remedies that are found to be acceptable).

EDIT: And before you say "yeah, but its cartel coins so it doesn't count" US trade law specifies that anything of actual monetary value can be claimed as virtual property and damages can be claimed. A similar case happened not too long ago where a person in China was banned from a game, and when they returned, the items they had intended to sell had depreciated in value. They sued the game company for over $3,000 and won.

Now, I certainly hope something like this never makes it to a large court case, as it could alter all sorts of definitions dealing with property - real and virtual, and could figuratively wreck the gaming industry (particularly MMOs) as we know it.

Screen shot or it didn't happen. In any event, if you really want to sue BWEA, do it, don't just talk about it here on the forums. You think you're scaring BWEA with legal bluster aimed at other players?

And if you did sue, what would be your damages?

NO they are not. I know that some of you want them to be.. but that does not make it so.

They are guilty of letting a bug escape into the live servers... and they need to fix it. They said they will fix it.. and they will let us know how as soon as they have finalized the fix.

Stop conflating for convenience.

There is no monetary value to any content in this game, not legally.

People illegally sell in game content all the time.. and when they do.. they make it clear that they do not own the content, that it has no real value, and that you are actually purchasing what they feel is fair market value for their time.

I'm actually fairly familiar with commerce laws in China as I have worked with them in the past for companies I consulted for. Please site the court case if you want to discuss this.. otherwise.. it's baseless in the context of commerce law and fair trade practices in Western law.

monetary value is the worth that society places upon a product or service. Yes, digital items do actually have a monetary value. Whether or not a product or service can be legally bought and sold is a separate issue to whether or not it contains monetary value. See EVE and the legal mess that has come from that.

here ya go

As to this MMO property, please refer to your legal acceptance of the EULA under which you play the game. Specifically.....

http://www.swtor.com/legalnotices/euala

Allowing a bug to slip into the game which allowed players to purchase something under false pretense is pretty cut and dry innocent misrepresentation, which could potentially be escalated to fraudulent misrepresentation should acceptable corrective measures not be taken.

No more, or less then patch notes saying one thing.. and game play being something different.

Again.. there is no legal monetary value of anything inside the game because it is all the sole ownership retained by the company.

I don't think you understand the concept of monetary value from a legal stance. Let me point you to some examples in EVE, which, just like with SWTOR, players do not possess actual ownership. Monetary Value can be independent of actual ownership.

example 1

example 2

example 3

with EVE, there is a cut and dry conversation rate for in-game value to real world currency, but it is a much more economically-based game. There are still plenty of ways to factor or estimate the real world value of digital content, independent of actual ownership. The example I gave earlier with the court case is easy evidence of this.

patch notes correct the future issue, however for players that made purchases with the intent of a chance to obtain a digital service that was unavailable, whether intentional or not, is still misrepresentation until a remedy has been issued. I have no doubts that an acceptable one will come, but in the meantime, it is left in limbo.

In terms of the "sole ownership retained by the company".... you keep going back to that phrase, but it really doesn't have nearly as much power as you think it does. Both court cases I mentioned, as well as the monetary figures from EVE provided are proof of this. EA can own it, sure, but if we are paying to use it and it isn't there, it is misrepresentation.