Emergency Medical Table. The Solution.

The source for this source is 404.. so it is difficult to verify as something other then internet legend.

But let's go with it for a moment as though it is a factual statement, because in China there is merit and it could indeed happen. In China, game content is owned by the player to a large degree, as China law has little or no IP protection rights for the content on the part of the game company. Eventually this will change.. but games are played and regulated very differently in China. From the amount of the judgement... it was clearly a player operating an actual business... using the games virtual contents and time spent as the business generation mechanism. Which, as far as I know.. is legal in China at this time. It is however NOT legal in most of Asia and nowhere that I am aware of in Western nation. Rather.. the EULAs of MMOs in the west (and most of Asia) specifically prohibit the practice.

So.. the claim you site is not about content promised, but due to a bug.. not present. It is also nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of alleged false advertising. It is in fact based on one company interfering with another companies ability to do business.. without fair cause.

Next...

NO.. not legally there is not. Not for the purposes of making a legal claim of financial harm. The fact that a game company like CCP offers some mechanic (PLEX) that enables playes to try to peg in game content to some real dollar amount is specious to any legal claims of ownership by the player of any of the content.

I know that players do not want to accept or embrace the fact that MMO companies have figured all this out and have carefully crafted their EULAs to preclude the player from any rights other then to play with content owned by the company... but that is in fact what you agreed to when you accepted the EULA in order to enter the game.

The EULA is a binding agreement between parties and it stipulated the companies rights and ownerships, your rights, and under what terms you are allowed to play with the IP they own and present for play. Like it or not.. it legally inoculates them from frivolous claims about in game content.

Where you as a consumer have much stronger rights is with respect to your license to access. They sell you a license and under the terms of that license they are obligated to provide you access to play with their game content as long as it 1) is available 2) you meet the terms of the agreement. In other words, they cannot deny you access to purchase a license and make use of the license without firm legal cause.

In addition, some countries statutes permit you the player to retain limited copyright control over some aspects that are unique to you inside a game. But that has nothing to do with this topic... it is rather directed at things like name, creative appearance, etc. while using the companies IP under licsense. And even in that case.. the EULA gives the company full access to anything that your local jurisdiction says you can retain copyright over.

cartel coins are a legal opening that provide a means to determine "real world" value of (some) in-game items, ownershp of said digital content aside. If you continue to disagree with this notion, then you are blatantly ignorant on this matter. Any and all evidence I provide is turned away because of your misunderstanding of "legal ownership" and how that equates to monetary value - both of which aren't even the base issue here, which is misrepresentation (innocent, fraudulent, or otherwise) which for some reason you think is non-existent because a bug was involved.

It's like trying to argue with an undergrad at best, who is missing the topic at hand and trying to win a debate with semantics instead of genuine understanding of the concept.

Some of your arguments in other threads are actually well thought out and constructed. Here you are grasping at straws to the point I cannot tell if you are genuinely trolling, or just have no idea what you are talking about but want to defend Bioware nonetheless.

So, no point in arguing against someone who doesn't understand the argument going on

my new stance

Let's try with a gross over-simplification of the issue.

Consumer pays for a digital service with the understanding of what will be provided in the service by the company.

The company accepts the payment.

The consumers never receives the service requested.

The company says it was a mistake and will fix it for future Consumers.

The company has committed misrepresentation until a remedy has been properly issued.

"Legal ownership" is not an issue in the scenario. As I have stated, the only loophole is the prior purchase of cartel coins used to obtain the digital service. That is a weak argument at best and I doubt would hold up in a court of law if pressured.

Good luck with this debate, Kontraz, you're gonna need it. >_> I don't think Andryah is going to budge.

FWIW, I imagine you could bring a false advertising suit if you really wanted to. But I think Bioware would really have to screw up the fix for it to hold water.

But would you really want to? EA/Bioware has way more money to throw at the legal proceedings than any joe schmoe will, and after legal fees I can't see a virtual medical table being worth the hassle. I imagine this is why EA/Bioware isn't too worried about it tbh.

As I stated to you yesterday in the other thread... token currency is a very clever way for companies to decouple in game content from real world dollars. You don't have to like it.. but you do have to admire the legal cleverness of it IMO.

Dude.. you are not providing any evidence of legal establishment of monetary value in the hands of a customer for digital content inside the game. I'm not making this up. I quoted you the specific part of the EULA what stipulates you the user has no rights to any of the content.. and as such you cannot establish any monetary claim to said content, even if you thought you could crab-walk your way to some "pegged" value of exchange between real world and digital world. But you see.. you can't do that either.. because the company smartly decoupled the game via the use of tokens. There is a reason they do that.. to remove any ambiguity or doubt as to anyone paying an actual dollar for an actual item inside the game.

Again.. the only thing they sell you is permission to use content inside the game under a nonexclusive licesnse. A subscription and or cartel coins is one part of the license agreement in force. And in doing so.. they specifically state in their EULA that they (not you) retain all ownership and claims over the content they let you access. The license is the service in you example case, not the content inside the game. Big difference.

I find it interesting that you do not want to in any way read and acknowledge what your rights are/are_not under the games EULA. Why is that? Yet you are fine with making up "over-simplifications" absent of legal context and court judgments inside China that actually have nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

oh, i have no desire to launch a suit. If i want the table, i'll buy it off the gtn or get a pack. Makes no difference to me. It just annoys me when the ignorant try to defend a corporation against those who feel they are (rightly) wronged.

Ignorant? Resorting to name calling now?

1) I am not defending the company.. they have that covered.
2) Nowhere did I in any way say people could not or do not feel wronged by this bug.

I simply responded to frivolous statements (you even admit they are frivolous) about legal actions, implied statements accusing the company of fraud (using the meme "false advertising"), and conflations to press the point. I freely admit to having a weakness for responding to nonsense rather then let it just become internet reality via echo chamber.

IMO.. you have lost yourself in the forest here.