Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

EA is being taken to court!

This is a discussion on EA is being taken to court! within the Battlefield 3 forum, part of the B; Originally Posted by Minarum I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the article posted, but I've been following this ...

  1. #21
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by Minarum View Post
    I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the article posted, but I've been following this story for quite some time. I know it was announced at E3 but like I said, they can promise stuff but unless it was physically on the case, that would be the purchasers fault for not paying attention.
    How can it be the purchasers fault for not paying attention when it wasn't revealed that 1943 wouldn't be on the PS3 disc version AFTER the release?

    More so not every one who brought battlefield 3 has a twitter account, and like it says in the article it was revealed in such a bullshit manner.

    It's EA's job to inform people of the changes no one else's. And also, WE aren't suing anyone, it's a law firm that is suing EA. No one went to the firm requesting the law suit they noticed and acted on it them selves.

  2. #22
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_mayus View Post
    Ok fine but my analogy still stands. They went back on their promise, so all the public is owed is the promise. If they were being sued for 1943 then that would be fine but anything beyond that is ridiculous.

    The most they could be sued for, I guess, is the price of the game if you could prove that you only preordered the game to get 1943.

    The only way you could get more is if you could prove damages caused by 1943 not being included (pain and suffering, mental anguish etc.) and there is no way a court system is going to listen to that bullshit.

    No the people suing are hoping that EA doesn't want bad PR and will settle out of court because if this thing ever made it into court it would be thrown out very quickly.
    Just come back when you've read the article.

  3. #23
    Lvl 9 - Gold
    Minarum's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Your mom's bed, aka Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,102
    Reputation
    27

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_mayus View Post
    The only way you could get more is if you could prove damages caused by 1943 not being included (pain and suffering, mental anguish etc.) and there is no way a court system is going to listen to that bullshit.
    You'd be surprised, there have been quite a few cases won over the dumbest things. And because of that has spawned countless lawsuits over anything and everything.

  4. #24
    Resident PHD
    dr_mayus's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    3,803
    Reputation
    459

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    Just come back when you've read the article.
    Ok I didn't actually read the article because I from what you had quoted it sounded like something different. Next time it would be prevalent to include important details in your quote.

    Anyways after actually reading the article (my apologies there) I still stand by that the lawyers are going to now have to prove how many sales were actually affected by the 1943 announcement. You cannot prove that someone bought the game based off that knowledge and you also cannot prove they would have bought it for another system. There is simply no way to prove the damages done by this but I guess we will let the courts sort this out. Really EA should give the game they promised (I am not standing up for EA just I am against frivolous lawsuits that tie up the court systems) and more and more this sounds like a stunt Activision thought up to give EA bad PR.

    AWESOME SIG AND AVY BY ALISON CHECK OUT HER WORK HERE

  5. #25
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by dr_mayus View Post
    Ok I didn't actually read the article because I from what you had quoted it sounded like something different. Next time it would be prevalent to include important details in your quote.

    Anyways after actually reading the article (my apologies there) I still stand by that the lawyers are going to now have to prove how many sales were actually affected by the 1943 announcement. You cannot prove that someone bought the game based off that knowledge and you also cannot prove they would have bought it for another system. There is simply no way to prove the damages done by this but I guess we will let the courts sort this out. Really EA should give the game they promised (I am not standing up for EA just I am against frivolous lawsuits that tie up the court systems) and more and more this sounds like a stunt Activision thought up to give EA bad PR.
    I'd of hoped people would of actually read the article before posting. It tends to be the most fool proof method of forming an opinion.

    And for your second paragraph, they aren't being sued because of an influence of sales it has nothing at all to do with that. It's about how EA promised but didn't deliver and chose to not tell anyway about the removed game until AFTER the release of the game.

    This isn't a damages lawsuit, this is a piss poor business etiquette lawsuit.

  6. #26
    Lvl 9 - Gold
    Minarum's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Your mom's bed, aka Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,102
    Reputation
    27

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    How can it be the purchasers fault for not paying attention when it wasn't revealed that 1943 wouldn't be on the PS3 disc version AFTER the release?

    More so not every one who brought battlefield 3 has a twitter account, and like it says in the article it was revealed in such a bullshit manner.

    It's EA's job to inform people of the changes no one else's. And also, WE aren't suing anyone, it's a law firm that is suing EA. No one went to the firm requesting the law suit they noticed and acted on it them selves.
    Yah but see, on the flip side. Not everyone watches E3 or reads any type of gaming news. I'm sure there are tons of people that never even knew the game was supposed to be included. Because I come to this site, is the only reason I knew about it. I get gaming mags all the time, but I don't watch E3 or any of that stuff. I rather go to Comic-con if I want a real glimpse of what won't be around for another 1-3 years.

    And it's a firm representing the "disgruntled ps3 owners".... Sounds like a firm that wants to make a name for themselves to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    And you should try reading the article, I mean I even quoted the important paragraph...
    This is one of those times where the article gave me almost no information because I already knew everything about it except the law firm is suing.

  7. #27
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by Minarum View Post
    Yah but see, on the flip side. Not everyone watches E3 or reads any type of gaming news. I'm sure there are tons of people that never even knew the game was supposed to be included. Because I come to this site, is the only reason I knew about it. I get gaming mags all the time, but I don't watch E3 or any of that stuff. I rather go to Comic-con if I want a real glimpse of what won't be around for another 1-3 years.
    But word got around quick that 1943 was going to be in the PS3 version of Battlefield 3. I mean you even said you knew about it being at E3 because you come to this site.

    Put it this way, a damn site lot more people will of seen the announcement at E3 then they would their pathetic announcement over twitter.

    An announcement dedicated to video gaming over a social networking site... hmm. And that is still ignoring the fact that the announcement of changed wasn't made until AFTER the release. As in AFTER people have already brought the game...

    The fact is, EA falsely advertised and when they got caught out made up some bullshit. That's not something that should be taken lightly REGARDLESS of the worth of the content they lied about.

  8. #28
    PRO Member


    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Northampton.. the real one in the UK
    Posts
    76
    Reputation
    0

    I honestly can't understand how anyone outside of EA can have any view other than EA deserve to hammered for this. It's not the most disgraceful case of a multinational taking the piss by any stretch of the imagination, however I'd argue it's the kind of typical behaviour to expect from most major corporations and in lieu of any goverments growing some and laying down decent regulations then the only recourse open to majority is to sue.

  9. #29
    Lvl 9 - Gold
    Minarum's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Your mom's bed, aka Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,102
    Reputation
    27

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    But word got around quick that 1943 was going to be in the PS3 version of Battlefield 3. I mean you even said you knew about it being at E3 because you come to this site.

    The fact is, EA falsely advertised and when they got caught out made up some bullshit. That's not something that should be taken lightly REGARDLESS of the worth of the content they lied about.
    Yah, but that's because I come to this site. If it was not for it, no. I never would of heard about it. Now I agree with your last paragraph. But I don't think it merits a lawsuit. We get false advertised all the time, but no one really ever gets sued for it... Atleast I never heard about it.

  10. #30
    Resident PHD
    dr_mayus's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    3,803
    Reputation
    459

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    I'd of hoped people would of actually read the article before posting. It tends to be the most fool proof method of forming an opinion.

    And for your second paragraph, they aren't being sued because of an influence of sales it has nothing at all to do with that. It's about how EA promised but didn't deliver and chose to not tell anyway about the removed game until AFTER the release of the game.

    This isn't a damages lawsuit, this is a piss poor business etiquette lawsuit.
    Alright I would like to issue the following statements.

    1. I didn't read the article initially and that was my fault, I based my opinion on the quote provided and that is a terrible way to form an opinion. So for that I am sorry

    2. Since I now know that they are not seeking monetary gains and would actually just like what they are promised then I am in full support of this. EA promised something and they should have delivered on it, this is not the way to do business and to me it is just smart business not to piss off those who buy your games considering you are the underdog (being compared to COD) and you should be doing everything in your power to keep your fans on your side.

    3. I still stand by my statement that the courts systems are flooded with these types of lawsuits and they are hurting the judicial process, but in this case I can at least see merit in the arguments provided (unlike the McDonald's coffee incident for example).

    4. I would like to extend an apology to Oxymoron28 because I got into an unwarranted debate with you that could have been easily solved by, once again, simply reading the article. While I don't think there are any ill-feelings here it was still stupid so

    Anyways that is it and have a good day.

    AWESOME SIG AND AVY BY ALISON CHECK OUT HER WORK HERE

  11. #31
    Lvl 5 - Silver
    saumiyan's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    302
    Reputation
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Xx_R3V3LAT1ON_xX View Post
    In my opinion they deserve it. If a game publisher or developer promises something, they should stick to it. Even if they lose money. They made the promise. Maybe they should think before they promise.
    they need to give us what they promised, and those fuckers make a lot of money, those greedy assholes
    PERFECT PLATINUM STREAK




  12. #32
    A plat a month!
    wandarer's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Near Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,184
    Reputation
    65

    Although I didn't pre-order the game to get BF 1943 (I didn't realize that it was one of the perks of pre-ordering), I totally feel that this was a dick move on EA's part.



  13. #33
    Lvl 5 - Silver
    iraqoz's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    328
    Reputation
    15

    Quote Originally Posted by saumiyan View Post
    they need to give us what they promised, and those fuckers make a lot of money, those greedy assholes
    hahaha you made my day man lol totally agree, but suing them for such a thing is a little...hmm..... never mind I hope EA get what they deserve.. such a greedy company
    Quote of the week:
    "For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories." - Plato

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10
Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO