r_rolo1
King of myself
I don't have that problem... games normally get here with a 1/2 month lag.... 
Have Firaxis Abandoned BtS?
- Thread starter krasny
- Start date
- Status
Wodan
Deity
There are very few things I'll buy without investigating it first. CiV, however, would be one of them.
Wodan
Wodan
According to the Federal Trade Commission, which is the governing law covering any games sold in the Unites States, there actually is.
Warranty Law according to the FTC
Now, would anyone be able to sue and recover money because the items in the manual don't work exactly right? Maybe or maybe not, but I bet a lawyer would love to fire a class action lawsuit and see what he could get for it.
Even if everyone got a coupon for $10 off a new game, the lawyer would make out huge. Especially since you could list GameStop, Best Buy, Target, Circuit City, Wal*Mart, etc as co-defendants in fact.
mourndraken
King
If you have a product that supports user mods, then that game is always going to be something of a beta. So don't buy Civ5 until Civ6 hits the shelves if you can wait that long. I know that I wouldn't be able to resist Civ5.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Does the warranty law apply if you explicitly agree to a different contract for suitability?
If a suit was successful do you think there would ever be another patch or anymore games from Firaxis? More likely they would close shop as it would be no longer profitable to make PC games.
If a suit was successful do you think there would ever be another patch or anymore games from Firaxis? More likely they would close shop as it would be no longer profitable to make PC games.
AfterShafter
Deity
Interesting, so there is. What I'm curious about is, if it's applicable in this case, why haven't countless lawsuits been filed for the thousands of much more widely used "defective" computer products, and carried through successfully, so as to make companies like Firaxis more concerned with releasing products that work perfectly out the gate? If it really is the type of lawsuit that a lawyer would love to file, why hasn't it been done to the degree that a company like Firaxis would be wary of releasing products (like the one they did) due to the flesheating lawyers just waiting to pounce on such faulty products? Unless such lawsuits only superficially appear viable?
I look at passages like these from the links you posted:
"The implied warranty of merchantability is a merchant's basic promise that the goods sold will do what they are supposed to do and that there is nothing significantly wrong with them. In other words, it is an implied promise that the goods are fit to be sold. The law says that merchants make this promise automatically every time they sell a product they are in business to sell. For example, if you, as an appliance retailer, sell an oven, you are promising that the oven is in proper condition for sale because it will do what ovens are supposed to dobake food at controlled temperatures selected by the buyer. If the oven does not heat, or if it heats without proper temperature control, then the oven is not fit for sale as an oven, and your implied warranty of merchantability would be breached. In such a case, the law requires you to provide a remedy so that the buyer gets a working oven."
"Nor does the law say that everything that can possibly go wrong with a product falls within the scope of implied warranties. "
The first section leaves tremendous wiggle room for what the product is supposed to be able to do that, random crashes, terrible balance, and even certain game modes left unplayable, don't compromise what Civilization is supposed to do. What's more, the tremendous precedent that would be set, in light of the near impossibility of the relevant task, of penalizing companies for releasing less than perfect software, would be staggering... And probably deter any well informed judge from agreeing that a few crashes in a game and the poison water spy action working way better than it should on slow speeds would be grounds for economic renumeration.
As for the second quote, when paired with the first quote, the second seems to allow for the simple interpretation of the reality of computer products - "bugs happen" - to further allow for developers to get away with very sloppy programming without any obligation to the gamer.
Add to this a terms of service... I'm not sure that Firaxis would be obligated to do squat unless their game simply didn't work. Under reasonable circumstances, Civilization does "work", even when buggy as hell.
Of course, I also recognize that you added in this clause "Now, would anyone be able to sue and recover money because the items in the manual don't work exactly right? Maybe or maybe not" anticipating objections like mine... So yeah - thanks for the heads up on the law, but I'd be interested to see whether it does much to obligate companies in situations like this.
mourndraken
King
Even without patches, the game still functions.
are you out of your mind ?
enter the civilopedia into a court record ?
with piracy no games company is making money.
are you out of your mind ?
enter the civilopedia into a court record ?
with piracy no games company is making money.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
A lawyer would be willing to file almost any suit you'd like, as long as you're willing to put down a retainer and pay an hourly fee, and as long as the barest minimum of a prima facie case can be sketched out. I know plenty of lawyers who'd be willing to do that for you. Of course, willingness to take your money does not imply anything about the strength of your case, or the likelihood that you, as a client, would ever see one penny via judgment or settlement.
The question to ask is: would any lawyer be willing to take a case on contingency when he knows perfectly well that there is about zero chance of recovery?
Kids: none of this is legal advice. Please retain and consult counsel if you require such advice -- for the love of god, don't follow any such "advice" found in an internet forum.
AfterShafter
Deity
But does it function to the specifications within the manual? I'd argue no.
I didn't say *I* would sue. I was merely responding to the person that said there is no law requiring that the software work, which isn't true.
Only if they get Spock to do the reading.
Amazing that so many companies have become billion-dollar enterprises in software since no company is making money due to piracy.
Now, if I was a young law office wanting to make a name for myself, I might consider filing a class action lawsuit against a video game (PC) manufacturer. I'd line up one that releases a 1.01 patch on Day-1, and then I'd hire some experts to show the percentage of purchasers that actually download patches (not nearly as high as people on this forum think). I could, easily therefore, prove to a high level of proof that the company knowingly shipped a product with flaws to X% of the consumers. I'd subpoena the company's internal bug listing, and any bug not listed as closed on the day the software went gold would be a gigantic red mark I could argue to a jury. I bet I'd win.
Now, I suspect that the actual payout in claims would be rather small. I'd be mainly doing it for the publicity.
But software companies might clean up their acts a bit, and we might start seeing software at a "2nd patch" level right on the store shelves.
auldian
King
Take-Two has done all they're required to do. They released an entertainment program and guaranteed the media on which it's stored for 90 days.
They were under no obligation to fund the creation, testing, or distribution of any patches.
They were under no obligation to fund the creation, testing, or distribution of any patches.
mourndraken
King
firaxis is no billion dollar anything. what are you talking about Duuk. microsoft ? Do you think you are going to be famous ? I'm trying not to be rude but I question you intelligence.
Wodan
Deity
I think it boils down to this. This was emphasized, so apparently this is the crux of the argument. Yet, a fact of having flaws in no way establishes a claim of unsuitability or lack of fitness.
Do all products have to be perfect before they're sold?
I bought an apple the other day that had a small soft spot / bruise that wasn't visible until I cut it apart at home. Can I sue the grocery store?
Wodan
r_rolo1
King of myself
Hey, *I* wasn't going to sue Firaxis because 3.13 killed multiplayer for me
A lawyer could easily pick from here.... a official piece of software that breaks a advertised ( in box ) function of the game......
I don't think you'd stand a chance with a law suit. However, I do think some quality control is in order here. Nowadays a lot of buggy junk gets sold over the counter or online and few game manufacturers will ever loose a day's sleep if those games do not work as intended.
Bugs happen. That's just plain simple. Nevertheless, if you sold a game that's been proven buggy after its release, you should fix them. And if you can't fix them or can't fix them in due time (4-6 months after the initial release) you should at least go out of your way to inform the public. Alas; no final bugfix and no information whatsoever except some unofficial hearsay.
The problem is there's nothing and noone that will force those companies issue a timely patch or releasing information about a future patch, because as far as I know there's no regulatory organisation or consumer organisation handling these malpractices and gaming magazines and websites rarely (if ever) are objective. Even the age rating of games is done by game manifacturers' initiated organisations such as ESRB or PEGI. In other words: there is no control whatsoever. Not until a lot of gamers form their own organisation but I don't see that happening any time soon, or rather, ever.
Bugs happen. That's just plain simple. Nevertheless, if you sold a game that's been proven buggy after its release, you should fix them. And if you can't fix them or can't fix them in due time (4-6 months after the initial release) you should at least go out of your way to inform the public. Alas; no final bugfix and no information whatsoever except some unofficial hearsay.
The problem is there's nothing and noone that will force those companies issue a timely patch or releasing information about a future patch, because as far as I know there's no regulatory organisation or consumer organisation handling these malpractices and gaming magazines and websites rarely (if ever) are objective. Even the age rating of games is done by game manifacturers' initiated organisations such as ESRB or PEGI. In other words: there is no control whatsoever. Not until a lot of gamers form their own organisation but I don't see that happening any time soon, or rather, ever.
Alittle of topic my apologies.
I find something that happened recently funny regarding the gaming industry. Though it bears little similarity to this situation it is still a sign that developers and gamers are starting to fall under laws that have overlooked the gaming industry for a long time now.
People swore up and down on MMORPG.com that a EULA for any given MMO had no legal merit and that it was not legally binding. What's funny is that Blizzard won a settlement against Peons for Hire for breaking their EULA for WoW. Though it was a hallow victory because it was a settlement. It is still a positive out come for the gamer and developer. Now the guy behind Peons for Hire can not even look at Blizzards game sideways without fearing he will get re-sued because of the settlement agreement that was made.
Now I know that really does not translate into this situation very well. But I would not be surprised if in the near future there is not a disclaimer on game boxes in reference to patches and fixes.
Take it for what its worth I guess. But where theres big bucks being made the law generally follows. The day is coming wether it is a good thing or a bad which understandably in some cases it would be a good thing and in others it most definitely will be a bad.
From Take Two's investor website:
Take-Two's revised guidance is as follows:
* For the fiscal year ending October 31, 2007, revenue in the range of $950 million to $1.0 billion
So yes, Firaxis is part of a billion-dollar company.
Not trying to be rude, but I question if you can tie your shoelaces without help.
Wodan
Deity
Just a nitpick... revenue =/= profit. How much money the company has coming in is not necessarily an indicator of that company's profitability, which is what this fact was used as evidence to prove. However, the two do not have a correlation.
To be relevant, we should be looking at the net, not the gross. (e.g., if gross is $950M and expenses are $945M, then net is only $5M. Not saying these are the actual numbers... I have no idea what they are.)
Wodan
To be relevant, we should be looking at the net, not the gross. (e.g., if gross is $950M and expenses are $945M, then net is only $5M. Not saying these are the actual numbers... I have no idea what they are.)
Wodan
The_Reckoning
Prince
I only think that you should be able to take the game back to the store and have your money back. Companies releasing buggy games get a decent amount of flack from the press.
AfterShafter
Deity
Just curious... Is Firaxis owned by Take Two, or is take two just their publisher?
- Status
Similar threads
