Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Emergency Medical Table. The Solution.

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Emergency Medical Table. The Solution.
Reply

Page 5 of 10 « First < 3 4 5 6 7 > Last »

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
08.29.2013 , 01:10 PM | #41
Some people keep throwing around the word "fraud." Fraud requires intent.

Kontraz's Avatar


Kontraz
08.29.2013 , 01:11 PM | #42
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
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" out of legal context and court judgments inside China that actually have nothing to do with what we are discussing here.
I have read the EULA. As I assume you have as well. The difference is that I actually understand it. They retain ownership, but one can still file misrepresentation under false pretenses for services not rendered.


Let's try it this way, maybe then you can understand why ownership is irrelevant. You go to have your computer fixed (a service) and pay to have it fixed. The repair shop gives you a token and says to take it to Joe at the other register. You give the token (the only thing actually paid for, and is still technically owned by the repair shop) to Joe who takes your computer and gives it back unrepaired, stating they don't have the equipment needed at this time. If you get another token a few days from now, they should be able to repair your computer.

This is a constructed example, yes, but it is essentially the same thing. The individual has no ownership over what they paid for, but made the artificial purchase with the intent to receive an advertised service that was unavailable.


In other words:

Bioware: "We have this item, would you like it?"
Person: "Yes"
Bioware: "Pay me in bioware money"
Person buys bioware money and gives to bioware.
Bioware: "just kidding! We don't have that item. No refunds."

misrepresentation. it doesn't matter if they own the intellectual property or not, you made a purchase under false perceptions perpetrated (intentionally or otherwise) by the second party, resulting in overall damages (loss of money for initial purchase). This is misrepresentation

Kontraz's Avatar


Kontraz
08.29.2013 , 01:12 PM | #43
Quote: Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
Some people keep throwing around the word "fraud." Fraud requires intent.
It is most likely innocent misrepresentation (aka unintentional) however it would still be treated identically to fraudulent misrepresentation should a proper remedy not be issued.

Kontraz's Avatar


Kontraz
08.29.2013 , 01:17 PM | #44
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
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.
ignorant is not name-calling. To be ignorant means you lack knowledge of something in specific. It can be fixed, should the desire exist. I'm ignorant when it comes to the specifics of quantum mechanics, but I think the basics should suffice for me for the time being.

I think the problem with this misunderstanding actually just surfaced - you equate "false advertising" with fraud. I have frequently used the term misrepresentation, of which there are different variants. Most likely, this is a case of what is legally defined as innocent misrepresentation - IE a misprint, computing issue, something out of the companies control, etc. Basically there was no intent to deceive the consumer, but it happened nonetheless. Fraudulent misrepresentation is when a company does this intentionally,which I don't believe is the case. However, innocent misrepresentation can be treated as fraudulent should an acceptable remedy not be issued.

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
08.29.2013 , 01:21 PM | #45
Quote: Originally Posted by Kontraz View Post
I have read the EULA. As I assume you have as well. The difference is that I actually understand it. The retain ownership, but one can still file misrepresentation under false pretenses for services not rendered.
Why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks now?

Ah yes.. misrepresentation. Problem is.. the license is sold to you "as is" with no warranty or promise of content inside the game. And because they retain sole ownership (which frankly most players do not even realize), it is almost impossible to prove any sort of "misrepresentation" on a product sold "as is" and with "game experience and content my change" printed on the product box.

But let's go with misrepresentation for a moment.. this will be productive. Misrepresentation on it's own is of no legal value or merit. You have to prove intent or willful negligence and harm. But you can't in this case. Why? Because bugs are a commercial fact of life in MMOs. In other words the standard by which any court would consider litigation includes the established commercial norms. To nail Bioware for this particular bug (forgetting the frivolous nature of the concept for now) you would have to prove that it is unusual in the industry and that Bioware represents harm outside the commercially accepted norms of the industry.

You would also have to prove willful negligence on their part to remedy the bug.. and you can't. There is no ready standard of measure for a product sold without warranty.

Now back to practical reality... really? really? It's a bug, they admitted, they said they would fix it. All the rest of the chest beating in this and similar threads is just player blustering.

I have to say though.. I would love to see a player try and take this to court. Not small claims court.. but real harm against humanity OMG they screwed the players court. Why? It would put to rest for good this nonsense.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

Akow's Avatar


Akow
08.29.2013 , 01:21 PM | #46
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
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.
so, why don't the just stop people from buying these packs if they are bugged and they know about it ?
Letting people buy them right now is making the problem worse "or is it not ?" . I didn't know about this problem until I read this post my self, but the items left out weren't something I wanted too .

far as people suing over a bug and acting like they have recourse " LMAO" you really need to read the TOS and all the stuff they added for the CC store . even if you tired , It wouldn't make it to Court in any country . you signed your rights away for a court trial , when you signed up to play . its called Arbitration , so good luck with that LOL

branmakmuffin's Avatar


branmakmuffin
08.29.2013 , 01:24 PM | #47
Quote: Originally Posted by Akow View Post
so, why don't the just stop people from buying these packs if they are bugged and they know about it ?
They have warned people now. They have removed the pic of the table from the pack illustration. Some people probably still want the other items in those packs.

Akow's Avatar


Akow
08.29.2013 , 01:26 PM | #48
Quote: Originally Posted by branmakmuffin View Post
They have warned people now. They have removed the pic of the table from the pack illustration. Some people probably still want the other items in those packs.
ok,thanks for that info and yet people are still freaking out , even that BW is working on some type of fix and from what I get now , a way to make it up to the people who bought the packs

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
08.29.2013 , 01:28 PM | #49
Quote: Originally Posted by Akow View Post
so, why don't the just stop people from buying these packs if they are bugged and they know about it ?
Letting people buy them right now is making the problem worse "or is it not ?" . I didn't know about this problem until I read this post my self, but the items left out weren't something I wanted too .
Fair questions. I thought about that too when the bug was announced.

IMO...

1) if they take the packs off sale...can you imagine the rage in the player base... "OMG.. how can you deny me my packs.. I want all those other contents.. and I want them NAO! I don't give a squrrels butt about the table!! Biofail!!!!"

2) Couple the above with the fact that they quickly put it on the launcher splash screen that it (and one other item) is currently bugged)... so anyone who want's those two things has been advised and if they have half a brain.. they will defer buyng packs until it's fixed. In other words.. they handled it like every other annoying bug.. warn the players.. so the players can make mature adult decisions about it until it's fixed, and then go fix it as quickly as possible.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

Kontraz's Avatar


Kontraz
08.29.2013 , 01:33 PM | #50
Quote: Originally Posted by Andryah View Post
Why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks now?

As yes.. misrepresentation. Problem is.. the license is sold to you "as is" with no warranty or promise of content inside the game. And because they retain sole ownership (which frankly most players do not even realize), it is almost impossible to prove any sort of "misrepresentation" on a product sold "as is" and with "game experience and content my change" printed on the product box.

But let's go with misrepresentation for a moment.. this will be productive. Misrepresentation on it's own is of no legal value or merit. You have to prove intent or willful negligence and harm. But you can't in this case. Why? Because bugs are a commercial fact of life in MMOs. In other words the standard by which any court would consider litigation includes the established commercial norms. To nail Bioware for this particular bug (forgetting the frivolous nature of the concept for now) you would have to prove that it is unusual in the industry and that Bioware represents harm outside the commercially accepted norms of the industry.

You would also have to prove willful negligence on their part to remedy the bug.. and you can't. There is no ready standard of measure for a product sold without warranty.

Now back to practical reality... really? really? It's a bug, they admitted, they said they would fix it. All the rest of the chest beating in this and similar threads is just player blustering.

I have to say though.. I would love to see a player try and take this to court. Not small claims court.. but real harm against humanity OMG they screwed the players court. Why? It would put to rest for good this nonsense.
They actually do have a clause in their ToS regarding misrepresentation: "nothing contained in this Terms of Service limits BioWare’s and LucasArts liability to you for fraudulent misrepresentations". Roughly translated: "If we trick you into buying something under false pretense, that's still on us."

And I said many times that so long as it is remedied, it would be classified as innocent misrepresentation, and I'm sure it will be when all is said and done.

And i would hate to see it go to a large court, because, as stated earlier, that would have disastrous affects on gaming as a whole in terms of what could be considered damages. There are actually some interesting articles and books on the topic, you might like to read them (I mean this sincerely, you obviously have an interest in the matter. I'll look them up later).

All that is a moot point, however, because also in the ToS is an agreement that should the player believe bioware has committed misrepresentation and brought about damages, they are to take them only to small claims court, and have prohibited the playerbase outright from class action suits.
Page 5 of 10 « First < 3 4 5 6 7 > Last »

Reply
STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Terms Archive | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | FAQ | EUALA | Rules of Conduct | Online Safety | Contact Us
LucasArts, the LucasArts logo, STAR WARS and related properties are trademarks in the United States and/or in other countries of Lucasfilm Ltd. and/or its affiliates. © 2011-2012 Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. or Lucasfilm Ltd. All rights reserved. BioWare and the BioWare logo are trademarks of EA International (Studio and Publishing) Ltd. EA and the EA logo are trademarks of Electronic Arts Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.