Star Wars Galaxies

MMO's are ever evolving for better or worse, it does say, when you log in that the game experience may change during online play. EVERY online game says that.  if you can't accept it, then you don't need to be playing online games.

that one single line is enough to throw out any case against them, it doesn't have to be in the eula..

I have the original box sitting right in front of me, and on the FRONT COVER, it says in clear bold english

"Game Experience May Change During Online Play"

sorry if you don't like the way it turned out but it is their game not yours, no one forced you to buy it, no one forced you to continue playing it.

I mean seriously, how moronic can you be.

Originally posted by elondor

MMO's are ever evolving for better or worse, it does say, when you log in that the game experience may change during online play. EVERY online game says that.  if you can't accept it, then you don't need to be playing online games.

that one single line is enough to throw out any case against them, it doesn't have to be in the eula..

 

I have the original box sitting right in front of me, and on the FRONT COVER, it says in clear bold english

"Game Experience May Change During Online Play"

sorry if you don't like the way it turned out but it is their game not yours, no one forced you to buy it, no one forced you to continue playing it.

I mean seriously, how moronic can you be.

 

 

 

Doesn't seem that moronic.  Everyone knows that an online game is going to go through changes, it has to.  (New user content, classes and etc.)  However, the question is what consititues an excessive change.  It would be like if I sold you a box with a van Gogh in it, but that box had a sentence that said "Painting may change over time."  So then I come and take your van Gogh and exchange it for a painting of a woman shooting breast milk into some churchman's mouth by Juan Correa.  Just putting that sentence on the outside of the box doesn't absolve them from consumer law.  Think about what kind of presedence that would set if they could actually do that.

Originally posted by miagisan

and for all this hate talk towards me and my view that legally SOE has not done anything wrong (morally is another question), not one of you can provide solid proof that it is illegal. Immoral maybe...but thats it. The sheer fact that you AGREED to the EULA which states "GAMEPLAY MAY CHANGE" void any argument that you could have against legal action. Would be like signing a contract with a painter who states "Color may change during painting" and he uses 15 colors instead of one.

Proof? given the above people have already given all sort of examples why such a drastic change in game play, particlary in the face of coverup and lies would have to be considered an egregiously unfair and unexpected change.

Reguardless of the above SOE made the EULA usless as soon as they began lieing about their intentions for the game. They atttempted to have people pay and agree to the EULA based upon false information they knowingly (which they have actually done since beta) disseminated.

What SOE did was illegal. It was fraud. They covered up the changes of a product with out right false information because they knew the release of information would cause cancelation in subscribtions. They then released a game/expansion knowing it was going to be unplayable. And this was far from the first time SOE frauded their player base. The problem is that the act is really more criminal then it is civil and no DA is going to go in and arrest people from the company. The problem with a civil suit is that the players got what they paid for, reguardless of what had changed about the game they paid to play a game that was in fact the game they were paying for. The fact that they were frauded has a minimal amout of value...is that worth a class action suit? No, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal.

It's as if someone advertised that the golfing masters were going to be played in your home town. And, people came from all over to play of the course believed to be where the masters was going to be played. then they find out that the masters wasn't going to be played in your home town, it was a lie to boost buisness. Not everyone has a right to a refund (assuming that the course prices weren't jacked) they after all got to play golf. How ever what the golf course owner did is still fraud. His civil liability may be limited, but it is still criminal.

Originally posted by PkL728

 

Originally posted by elondor

MMO's are ever evolving for better or worse, it does say, when you log in that the game experience may change during online play. EVERY online game says that.  if you can't accept it, then you don't need to be playing online games.

that one single line is enough to throw out any case against them, it doesn't have to be in the eula..

 

I have the original box sitting right in front of me, and on the FRONT COVER, it says in clear bold english

"Game Experience May Change During Online Play"

sorry if you don't like the way it turned out but it is their game not yours, no one forced you to buy it, no one forced you to continue playing it.

I mean seriously, how moronic can you be.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't seem that moronic.  Everyone knows that an online game is going to go through changes, it has to.  (New user content, classes and etc.)  However, the question is what consititues an excessive change.  It would be like if I sold you a box with a van Gogh in it, but that box had a sentence that said "Painting may change over time."  So then I come and take your van Gogh and exchange it for a painting of a woman shooting breast milk into some churchman's mouth by Juan Correa.  Just putting that sentence on the outside of the box doesn't absolve them from consumer law.  Think about what kind of presedence that would set if they could actually do that.

yes but no matter how drastic the changes in swg were, it was still star wars, not star trek, in fact is was more like star wars due to the classes based on star wars characters.

* shurg just pointing out that EQ2 started before NGE.  I could be wrong but the argument that is made boils down to what they did with CU folowed by NGE caused and causes them more harm then good. If they would relase sub numbers anny of us might be beter able to talk about what  games do well and what  ones do not. With out thouse numbers for boath sides it comes down to conjecture and anecdotal evidence.

this needs to happen.

for years i have watched gaming go more and more down hill. mostly as those making the game feel they can get away with anything and do changes that the player base doesn't want.

people didn't want player killing removed in uo.

i remember $OE did some changes to eq that no one wanted.

no one in their right mind wanted the cu/nge.

and this is now happening with other games too. weapons and items get nerfed by dev's in the quest for balance. balance in games is there is no balance here is the truth. video games and mmo's come downt o one thing. the strongest will win. the side with the most people will win. and i am a winner i was on swg pre-cu before we had our system stolen.

that is why we must take $OE and la to court. that is why we must reclaim the pre-cu system and have the game rolled back to it. we must do things like this in order to make gaming better and get gaming back on track.

besides that we all know that every court in the world would side with us vets.

---

Originally posted by elondor
MMO's are ever evolving for better or worse, it does say, when you log in that the game experience may change during online play. EVERY online game says that.  if you can't accept it, then you don't need to be playing online games.
that one single line is enough to throw out any case against them, it doesn't have to be in the eula..
 
I have the original box sitting right in front of me, and on the FRONT COVER, it says in clear bold english
"Game Experience May Change During Online Play"
sorry if you don't like the way it turned out but it is their game not yours, no one forced you to buy it, no one forced you to continue playing it.
I mean seriously, how moronic can you be.
 
 
 

---

For the thousandth time, this phrase has to do with the ESRB rating, not the game itself. It is impossible to give a correct rating to an MMO with real people controlling the characters and their actions. This phrase covers the ESRB requirement and NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by miagisan

and for all this hate talk towards me and my view that legally SOE has not done anything wrong (morally is another question), not one of you can provide solid proof that it is illegal. Immoral maybe...but thats it. The sheer fact that you AGREED to the EULA which states "GAMEPLAY MAY CHANGE" void any argument that you could have against legal action. Would be like signing a contract with a painter who states "Color may change during painting" and he uses 15 colors instead of one.

Actually Miagisan advertising one service while planning to deliver another fits the criminal code definition of fraud in my jurisdiction.

To prove that this was done in court though, I would need a memo or a confession regarding directions to provide misleading information to the customers regarding the Trials of ObiWan expansion.  A memo directing employees to withhold information about the NGE until after payment for the ToOW would suffice.  It would indicate the intent to make a sale under false pretenses.

If I had access to a memo like this, or if people were not bound by NDAs to keep their mouths shut, this would be in court already.

The only way numerous companies in case law have been found guilty for similar issues is via the "smoking memo" piece of evidence, or via an insider's confession.

The actions that I believe took place are certainly criminal, by definition.  Could I prove that to a judge or jury?  Not without the evidence I've mentioned.  It may exist, but I certainly don't have it in my hands.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, the EULA does not supercede the Criminal Code with regard to fraud.  It's the other way around.  To claim that the EULA takes precedence is simply another lie in a long history of lies told by people trying to cover up unethical behaviour.

Originally posted by darkboaz