They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough.
Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans.
It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act...
It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against.
I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
It's not what they did that crosses the boundries of criminal fraud, deceptive advertising, etc, but HOW they did it.
TOOW and the game in general was a "bait and switch" operation. They also commited fraud in that they misrepresented the direction of the game to existing customers in order to get them to continue paying (and prepaying) all the while they were actually doing something completely different and completely counter to what they were SAYING publically.
We now have one insider on record on this forum that this was exactly what was going on, that they were developing the NGE and KNEW (which is important) their existing customer base (the one they were continuing to pretend that the CU was moving on, ranger revamp was coming, that they were marketing the expansion to, etc) was NOT going to like it and would likely mostly leave. Even worse, they WANTED them to leave, to make room for a completely different customer base.
What makes this illegal, as I said, is NOT what they did (they had every right to change the game, even I will admit that) but how they did it.
Had they been open about what they were going to do, then every customer would have had "fair warning" and could have made informed decisions based on the facts as to whether to re up prepaids, or to order the expansion.
They did not do this obviously, because while they wanted to dump the exising customer base in favor of a new, larger (and more profitable) one, they also wanted the EXISTING customer base to provide the FUNDING to develop it. SWG would have collapsed to sub 20-40K numbers almost immediately, they knew it, and couldn't afford to let the customers "in" on the deal until it was ready to be released, because they needed our money to fund it.
You see, motive and intent are at play here. Their motive was obviously to make more money. Their intent was to do it by willfully shafting their existing customers. They cannot in any way claim that they did it to enhance the game for their existing customers because we already, as I said, have one insider who has admitted that the veteran players were NOT a consideration in the NGE design, and that they knew that almost none of them would like it.
THAT is where they have most likely broken consumer protection laws in state, federal, and local levels in many areas. They misled people in order to receive ill gotten funding for the NGE development, then pulled a bait and switch. The bait were the promises of content, the promises of further profession revamps (ranger, smuggler, CH, etc) that were being talked about publically by SOE practically up to the NGE announcement itself.
That right there is the basis for both tort (civil liability) and possible fraud indictments (criminal liability). I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure love to discuss this WITH a lawyer. Other companies have certainly been sued and prosecuted for similar actions in the past.
SOE's only way out of this would have been if, in addition to offering refunds of the TOOW expansion, they had offered to allow anyone who wished to terminate prepaid accounts with a full refund of unused time. They did offer the TOOW refund, but never did on the prepaid time. It's now, of course, far too late for them to be able to do that and be in the clear.
Considering that a decent percentage of 200,000+ accounts probably at least used the 90 day prepaid option (I had at my peak 4 accounts, 3 of which were 90 day prepaid, and 1 was an annual prepaid), and a lot of people did the 6 and 12 month prepay, you are talking potentially millions of dollars in liability in ill gotten financial gain (by fraud and deception as I illustrated above) which is more than enough to get a class action lawyer's attention when you consider that damage awards can be multiplied in verdicts (treble damages).
About the only defense SOE will be able to mount to mitigate damages, ironically, is that they DIDNT gain from the NGE, that they lost tons of money because of it. But they can't argue away the fraud and deceit they used to make far more money out of it by misleading the customers who prepaid than they were legitimately entitled to.
Yes, consumer protection laws do need to be made specifically for the MMO industry to protect us from unethical companies like SOE and LEC, but SOE and LEC may have broken EXISTING commerce and consumer laws. I'd love to discuss this with an attorney, particularly given Freeman's recent admissions.
Think of it this way:
Company X offers a monthly service which delivers a certain number of filet mignon steaks to you every month per account. They offer a discount on the rate if you prepay in advance for service.
However, while publically making promises to improve the existing service, and the product that currently exists, they are secretly developing a way to make a simpler, cheaper chopped sirloin substitute that they think would make them more money, and are planning to abrubtly substitute it for the filet mignon on a certain date, all the while continuing to take prepaid orders from customers who have been led to believe that their existing product and service would remain the same or get better. Even worse, they take prepaid orders for a special steak gift set (expansion) knowing that shortly after delivery it will be substituted with the new product.
Then they drop 2 weeks notice of the change, offer no refunds on unexpired prepaid time, but grudgingly allow people to return the "special gift set" (expansion), tell people to drop dead, and refuse to take calls from (forum ban) people who protest.
Nope, a company that did that would get sued and likely prosecuted. Why not SOE?
Wildcat, I can see where you're coming from but you have to keep 2 things in mind.
First, the money subscribers pay is not necessarily an investment (I say "not necessarily" because some can argue that people subscribing for a year at a time are investing but let's not go there yet). What subscribers are doing is paying for access to the current service of the moment and what SOE does with its revenues is only its business. Whether they want to plow it into the game or use it for another enterprise is up to them. What you're arguing for is that SOE effectively can't use any of its profits for another game (like development of EQ2). I know you aren't, but see how this defense can be played? Their intent wasn't malicious and it wasn't to steal subscribers' money--subscribers were getting exactly what they paid for month to month. Now, for those who "invested" in purchase plans of more than a month at a time, I think a case could be made that they could have gotten a refund from Sony if they tried--I just don't know if anyone did. By continuing to play the game though, subscribers were using the service and therefore accepting it, regardless if they felt "cheated". And because they continued to use SOEs resources by playing the game, you can't turn around and sue for getting money back. They didn't just run off with your money--SOE still delivered.
Now secondy, SOE quickly offered refunds to anyone who purchased ToOW and felt they didn't get what they had paid for (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarsgalaxiesstarterkit/news.html?sid=6139705). If SOE didn't offer that compensation, then you may have a case for bait and switch but offering that compensation was an act of good will that works in their defense. I think SOE would have caved and done the same for long-term subscribers if they immediately cancelled and pursed customer service for a refund of their unusued portion of the subscription fees.
I've read many of your posts now and know you're hurt, bitter and adamant about seeing SOE pay for ruining what was a great game conceptually (one that many people enjoyed even with all it's flaws before CU-NGE). But, ideas of lawsuits are strictly fantastic and will bring you no closer to closure. SOE ruined a good thing with bad decisions -- it happens and some go out of business because of it. Others can weather the storm and sometimes learn from those mistakes but we, as consumers, have ultimate say if we choose to do so.
Originally posted by Wildcat84 They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough.
Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans.
It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act...
It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against.
I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
It's not what they did that crosses the boundries of criminal fraud, deceptive advertising, etc, but HOW they did it.
TOOW and the game in general was a "bait and switch" operation. They also commited fraud in that they misrepresented the direction of the game to existing customers in order to get them to continue paying (and prepaying) all the while they were actually doing something completely different and completely counter to what they were SAYING publically.
We now have one insider on record on this forum that this was exactly what was going on, that they were developing the NGE and KNEW (which is important) their existing customer base (the one they were continuing to pretend that the CU was moving on, ranger revamp was coming, that they were marketing the expansion to, etc) was NOT going to like it and would likely mostly leave. Even worse, they WANTED them to leave, to make room for a completely different customer base.
What makes this illegal, as I said, is NOT what they did (they had every right to change the game, even I will admit that) but how they did it.
Had they been open about what they were going to do, then every customer would have had "fair warning" and could have made informed decisions based on the facts as to whether to re up prepaids, or to order the expansion.
They did not do this obviously, because while they wanted to dump the exising customer base in favor of a new, larger (and more profitable) one, they also wanted the EXISTING customer base to provide the FUNDING to develop it. SWG would have collapsed to sub 20-40K numbers almost immediately, they knew it, and couldn't afford to let the customers "in" on the deal until it was ready to be released, because they needed our money to fund it.
You see, motive and intent are at play here. Their motive was obviously to make more money. Their intent was to do it by willfully shafting their existing customers. They cannot in any way claim that they did it to enhance the game for their existing customers because we already, as I said, have one insider who has admitted that the veteran players were NOT a consideration in the NGE design, and that they knew that almost none of them would like it.
THAT is where they have most likely broken consumer protection laws in state, federal, and local levels in many areas. They misled people in order to receive ill gotten funding for the NGE development, then pulled a bait and switch. The bait were the promises of content, the promises of further profession revamps (ranger, smuggler, CH, etc) that were being talked about publically by SOE practically up to the NGE announcement itself.
That right there is the basis for both tort (civil liability) and possible fraud indictments (criminal liability). I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure love to discuss this WITH a lawyer. Other companies have certainly been sued and prosecuted for similar actions in the past.
SOE's only way out of this would have been if, in addition to offering refunds of the TOOW expansion, they had offered to allow anyone who wished to terminate prepaid accounts with a full refund of unused time. They did offer the TOOW refund, but never did on the prepaid time. It's now, of course, far too late for them to be able to do that and be in the clear.
Considering that a decent percentage of 200,000+ accounts probably at least used the 90 day prepaid option (I had at my peak 4 accounts, 3 of which were 90 day prepaid, and 1 was an annual prepaid), and a lot of people did the 6 and 12 month prepay, you are talking potentially millions of dollars in liability in ill gotten financial gain (by fraud and deception as I illustrated above) which is more than enough to get a class action lawyer's attention when you consider that damage awards can be multiplied in verdicts (treble damages).
About the only defense SOE will be able to mount to mitigate damages, ironically, is that they DIDNT gain from the NGE, that they lost tons of money because of it. But they can't argue away the fraud and deceit they used to make far more money out of it by misleading the customers who prepaid than they were legitimately entitled to.
Yes, consumer protection laws do need to be made specifically for the MMO industry to protect us from unethical companies like SOE and LEC, but SOE and LEC may have broken EXISTING commerce and consumer laws. I'd love to discuss this with an attorney, particularly given Freeman's recent admissions.
Think of it this way:
Company X offers a monthly service which delivers a certain number of filet mignon steaks to you every month per account. They offer a discount on the rate if you prepay in advance for service.
However, while publically making promises to improve the existing service, and the product that currently exists, they are secretly developing a way to make a simpler, cheaper chopped sirloin substitute that they think would make them more money, and are planning to abrubtly substitute it for the filet mignon on a certain date, all the while continuing to take prepaid orders from customers who have been led to believe that their existing product and service would remain the same or get better. Even worse, they take prepaid orders for a special steak gift set (expansion) knowing that shortly after delivery it will be substituted with the new product.
Then they drop 2 weeks notice of the change, offer no refunds on unexpired prepaid time, but grudgingly allow people to return the "special gift set" (expansion), tell people to drop dead, and refuse to take calls from (forum ban) people who protest.
Nope, a company that did that would get sued and likely prosecuted. Why not SOE?
The first thing to fall through would be holding them liable for damages due to "bait and Switch " Tactics (toow). Refunds have been given , There are no damages unpaid in that regard . The rest of these charges can be covered through the contract you signed to open an account .You signed it indicating you understood the services rendered could be cut off at anytime . Essentially that is exactly what happened , They discontinued that service / And replaced it with another . As for pre-paid time ,Again in authorizing payment . You agreed that money is not subject to refund . This is why the EULA exists to begin with , Its a protection . In case they piss off a few thousand people .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough. Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans. It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act... It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against. I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough. Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans. It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act... It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against. I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here.
This analogy gets used so often--it's frustrating and incorrect. You never bought physical merchandise. Someone isn't coming to your dock and downsizing your boat. What you're doing is purchasing the equivalent of phone service and then the incumbent local phone service says they're changing how everything works to lure in cable tv consumers and your bills will go up while customer service goes down. You may not like it but you DO have the option to change service or continue paying for it. Continuing to pay for it says you endorse it.
Quite a few people have chimed in here with "Here's why they did it . . ."
We all know why they did it - they became convinced that millions of people would line up play a simpler game. That misses the point of Fikus's question in his OP. That question is:
Why did go through with it despite the plain truth that the quality of the NGE was very, very Poor?
I can only imagine a few reasons. My musings, nothing more.
1. The decision makers that made the "GO" call were so removed that they actually didn't know what state the NGE was in.
2. The decision makers did know how poor the quality was, but were for some reason convinced that they could get it into adequate shape very quickly before the market responded to the poorness in quality.
My money is on number 2. There is some evidence available on the web that the management cultures at both SOE and LEC place a premimum on timeliness over product quality. Further, looking into the software devlopment histories of both organizations reveals that indeed, both organizations have demonstrated a pattern of releasing poor quality or plainly incomplete software for gaming consumption. It may also be that team charged with development of the NGE inadvertently or intentionally misrepresented 1. the state of readiness of the NGE, and/or 2. overstated the team's ability to get the NGE into readiness post launch, to the decision makers who had to make the decision to go with the NGE.
It boils down to this:
They thought they could get away with it. That's why the NGE was released, even though they new it sucked.
They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough. Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans. It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act... It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against. I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
Thats why it comes down to us trolls. We have to spread the word when a MMORPG company acts in a manner that is morally unethical but legally allowed. If we can't sue them or receive justice, then we should destroy their Public Relations for getting away with unethical behavior.
The eventual goal should be moral management enforced by the danger of upsetting the masses
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer. These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!" Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
The Law, it's a mess. Judges are morons, Lawyers are unethical, and politicians are reactionaries looking to get campaign contributions, get friends jobs/contracts, and increase their personal wealth. Basically the law operates on moral corruption, not the need to serve justice. We want justice, so we can not rely upon the law, only our dollars (I'd actually prefer Euros).
The internet is a wonderful social experiment in how much power the "average joe/jane" can grab
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
That is more or less what we did do... We made such a big stink about the NGE (and it turned out that there were a LOT of us SWG geeks in places SOE didn't expect, like, uh, CBS and the New York Times), that it became IMPOSSIBLE for any amount of marketing (and they did quite a lot in Q4 `05) to work.
The backlash made it impossible for them to even have a chance to attract the "millions of Star Wars fans" they hoped to jettison us for.
So, where we stand now is a classic standoff. SOE won't give us our game back, but on the other hand, they are making less (or any) money.
They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough. Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans. It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act... It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against. I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need. Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here.
That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue. 2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
Thats why it comes down to us trolls. We have to spread the word when a MMORPG company acts in a manner that is morally unethical but legally allowed. If we can't sue them or receive justice, then we should destroy their Public Relations for getting away with unethical behavior.
Don't give trolls that much credit -- an outraged consumer base is well within its rights to speak out and it has. Vote with your wallet and spread the word. Marketing 101 says that for every bad experience a customer has, s/he will tell 7 people. For every good one, they tell 3 people.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer.
You are correct, and ultimately customers do have the power, especially when it come to leisure goods. BUT, academically speaking, the fact is that there does exist such a thing as the "bad customer". "Bad customers" sap resources that can be better spent elsewhere and a company has every right to refuse them. "The customer is always right" does not always apply but companies need to weight that risk and act appropriately. Companies can also choose who they want to target their goods and services for, again, at their own peril.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!"
Your rallying cry is total flame bait....we're talking about a game here. No one holds a gun to the customer's head, the customer is never in "distress". As dramatic as you want to make it sound, phrasing the EULA as "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH" adds no power as much as you want it to seem like coercion. You want to use their service, you abide by their rules. You want to rent this apartment, you abide by the landlord's terms of use as outlined in the lease.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
Um, we already do so everyday -- it's called free trade markets. Welcome to the economy.....
Originally posted by Wildcat84 They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough.
Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans.
It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act...
It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against.
I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue.
2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations . Here is a scenario that I think very much applies to what happened with SWG .
Say you buy the first edition of an 8 part book series . You enjoy the plot and direction of the story . This plot continues through 4 of the 8 books . You enjoy the story so much you preorder the next 4 books ( not possible , But for arguments sake ) Yet when you receive them the story has taken a turn in a direction you can not stand reading . Yet was advertised as a continuation of the story .
Does that author/Publisher owe you anything , Are there really damages to be claimed ? Or did you simply make a bad decision ? Your employment contract is something in a totally different category of importance , In a Court room setting .Virtual entertainment is just that to these people , Just like you couldn't sue GL because you didn't like his vision of Episode 1-3 . No matter how fanatical you are about the original trilogy .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations .
How exactly is playing an mmorpg not "leisure" though? What exactly is "the world oblivious" to? Please explain.
What makes your time playing SWG any different from watching tivo or swing dancing on a friday night with all the pretty girls? How is it different from reading a book as you cited later on? Why is playing an mmorpg "work" and no other hobby is? Are you paying for the necessities of life with all of this "work"? Doubtfully. What you did was pay a bit up front to get access to some form of entertainment and you're actively using it. You're still at the mercy of the "host", whether it is a corporation, a dj or an author if they decide to change any aspects....
Originally posted by Wildcat84 They saw tens of millions of Star Wars fans and came to the conclusion that 200-250K Star wars MMO players were not enough.
Instead of blaming themselves for this (the lack of quality control, bugs, lack of content, over promising, under delivering, and the CU) they decided the players were the problem, and made the decision that it was OK to lose 90% of the existing player base because the new, simpler, instant gratification, easy and WoW like game would draw in some of those millions of Star Wars fans.
It was a deliberate decision, and Freeman has admitted here that this was the decision they made was done in that way. Given how they were saying one thing (speaking of CU profession revamps, and features in the expansion they were trying to sell us) while KNOWING they were doing something else (NGE), I believe that they are past the point of having committed a civil tort against us (ie: can be sued) but may have even committed a CRIMINAL act...
It'd be interesting to speak to a lawyer about this, now that we know that this was a deliberate act, that the existing customer base (many of whom had prepaid subscriptions) was deliberately acted against.
I think that class action against SOE should now be considered.
What are the criminal charges exactly ? It was a deliberate decision ? That's not against the Law by any means , Nor is changing the mechanics within a videogame .I fail to see any sure means of victory in a case against SOE . There is no garuntee that the game will remain the same Or the services provided will not fall subject to change or cancelation . It says clearly everything within SWG is the property of SOE , That includes any item you may have obtained or any progress made . They reserve the right as owner to cease any and all services provided to you as the customer . You signed agreement to all of these things when you opened up your account , Whether you took the time to read them or not .That alone ensures SOE is able to do exactly what they did , WIthout any danger of suit or criminal charges .
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue.
2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations . Here is a scenario that I think very much applies to what happened with SWG .
Say you buy the first edition of an 8 part book series . You enjoy the plot and direction of the story . This plot continues through 4 of the 8 books . You enjoy the story so much you preorder the next 4 books ( not possible , But for arguments sake ) Yet when you receive them the story has taken a turn in a direction you can not stand reading . Yet was advertised as a continuation of the story .
Does that author/Publisher owe you anything , Are there really damages to be claimed ? Or did you simply make a bad decision ? Your employment contract is something in a totally different category of importance , In a Court room setting .Virtual entertainment is just that to these people , Just like you couldn't sue GL because you didn't like his vision of Episode 1-3 . No matter how fanatical you are about the original trilogy .
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back.
That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose.
And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move.
They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
What did the people from SOE, who went against their peers, against thier loyal subscribers, against their fans, and against their own conscience, see in the NGE that most if not all the gaming community could not see. What about the NGE made them ignore all reason, and decide to go ahead with it. Thats the part that throws a wrench in the whole "we took a gamble on a bigger audience" line. It would make sense to me if the NGE was a decent, fun game with few bugs. My mind could accept that. However, the NGE in reality was horrible, buggy, immersion breaking, and just not fun. Yes, that is my opinion. Its also the opinion of the gaming community, reviewers, game developers, and business analyst. So, what im asking is....they did it anyway..they had to see something that everyone else has missed (not everyone i know)..so what was it? What made them think the NGE had, not only a chance to increase subs, but to reach millions? ummm....lol. If only i could get an answer that my mind wouldnt vomit right back out due to it being completely illogical. Illogical for the reason that everyone else thought it to be crap..told them it was..told them it would fail..yet they disagreed to the point of gambling with hundreds of thousands of players enjoyment to reach millions that didnt exist. My mind wont accept this. So obviously im not seeing what they saw in it. Anyone got any ideas? I know what they have said. And like i said that would be perfectly acceptable IF the NGE was even a mediocre game. It wasnt. Even Smed said it wasnt to the point it needed to be to attract new players..months after it went live. So thats the thing that i cant seem to process.
I tell you what they saw:
they saw World of Warcrafts over 5 million subscriber numbers in comparision to the 300 - 350.000 Star Wars Galaxies subscribers and thought "what the hell? we got one of the most popular IP's and Blizzard still has more customers then we have, well let's do something against it..
lets simply copy some elements of World Of Warcraft and we will succeed..."
thats what they thought...
noone at that SOE managemnt spent even 1 minute ingame to check out the old star wars galaxies to realise how beautiful it was..
SOE and NGE-Star Wars Galalaxies: Raph Koster: "It's like dumping the girlfriend who has always been patient and loving to chase after the supermodel who probably won't love you back."
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back. That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose. And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move. They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
Thats the only logical explanation. But, in order to do that, it means they purposely bombed the game, doesnt it?
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Thats why it comes down to us trolls. We have to spread the word when a MMORPG company acts in a manner that is morally unethical but legally allowed. If we can't sue them or receive justice, then we should destroy their Public Relations for getting away with unethical behavior.
1) Don't give trolls that much credit -- an outraged consumer base is well within its rights to speak out and it has. Vote with your wallet and spread the word. Marketing 101 says that for every bad experience a customer has, s/he will tell 7 people. For every good one, they tell 3 people.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer.
2) You are correct, and ultimately customers do have the power, especially when it come to leisure goods. BUT, academically speaking, the fact is that there does exist such a thing as the "bad customer". "Bad customers" sap resources that can be better spent elsewhere and a company has every right to refuse them. "The customer is always right" does not always apply but companies need to weight that risk and act appropriately. Companies can also choose who they want to target their goods and services for, again, at their own peril.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!"
3) Your rallying cry is total flame bait....we're talking about a game here. No one holds a gun to the customer's head, the customer is never in "distress". As dramatic as you want to make it sound, phrasing the EULA as "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH" adds no power as much as you want it to seem like coercion. You want to use their service, you abide by their rules. You want to rent this apartment, you abide by the landlord's terms of use as outlined in the lease.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo
Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
4) Um, we already do so everyday -- it's called free trade markets. Welcome to the economy.....
1) Trolls in the future will rule the Earth, wait and see
2) The Customer, if not an investor in SOE, should not care about their profits. SOE does not care if the customer is fired or loses money on bad investments, so why should the customer care if they are forced into doing something that will reduce their profit margin? I am pro-ruthless capitalism, I am not a corporate socialist who wants to protect companies from them evil customers. If a customer sees another customer being alienated by the corporate entity, then customers should see that as an attack on their power to demand.
3) No no no no no, It's all about demand, my free market capitalist. They use a EULA to act in bad faith, it can not be legally proven, but then again OJ did not kill his wife and many other funny legal truths are in the law. The customer IS in distress, the customer IS currently powerless. This is not how the free market works, the customer has the most power, if we demand that your EULA is void, then it is void. If you do not void your EULA at the demand of your customer, then we will join together and use market forces (lack of income) to influence you.
4) Actually you are wrong, it's welcome to the internet, where advertising dollars can be countered by some guy in their underwear posting in forum or customer review. Before, marketing could make you think shitty service is good service. Now marketing can be countered, now the argument, "thats just the way it works, it's business" is hollow. Finally customers are in a position where they can pool their resources together and make the "free market" work for them.
The free market is just a tool. I am just for using the free market in a way where pooled wealth has as much power as concentrated wealth "The Golden Rule, those with the gold make the rules."
--And why do I post this stuff, to help educate other customers who may not understand or to spread the idea. This is not a hollow rally cry, it is an attempt to build morale. If I did not post this, then SOE shills would post "You 'electronically signed' a EULA, too bad" and people would only hear that.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back. That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose. And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move. They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
Thats the only logical explanation. But, in order to do that, it means they purposely bombed the game, doesnt it?
[quote]Originally posted by Fishermage [b][quote]Originally posted by Malickiebloo
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back.
That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose.
And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move.
They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.[/b][/quote]
The actual damages could be quite a bit more than that. It could and should be argued that not only are we due back the sub fees prepaid after 11/15/2005, but that SWG players, as a class, would be entitled to a refund of the sub fees paid from the moment they decided to put development into the NGE while still publically maintaining the "CU is here to stay" face.
That is major money. Hell, even one month worth of sub fees (200K*14.99) is enough cash.
Plus, throw in the fact that they likely defrauded us (interstate wire fraud) as well and you get into the realm of treble damages, meaning we could be awarded TRIPLE that amount as a penalty.
I say that a class action suit ask for these reasonable things:
1. Attorney's fees (a must if you want representation)
2. Option for those who had prepaid time prior to the NGE announcement that ran on after it to be refunded, or to exchange it for free time on a pre-NGE server.
3. Require that they reinstate Pre-NGE to as many servers as population demand dictates, to maintain them at least as long as they keep the NGE and SWG as a whole going, and to put development into it at the same proportion they do the NGE servers based on what they normally spend per subscriber dollar.
4. Require that they make good on the revamps promised to Pre-NGE that they were discussing prior to the NGE.
Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by FikusOfAhaziOriginally posted by Fishermage It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back. That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose. And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move. They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
Thats the only logical explanation. But, in order to do that, it means they purposely bombed the game, doesnt it?
Or they purposely stopped giving a damn about it.
No, that they purposely bombed the EXISTING CUSTOMERS without regard to representations made in public ("Cu is here to stay") while continuing to extract money from them based on fraud to fund an unprecedented live MMO gameplay change designed to appeal to a completely DIFFERENT customer base.
That is where I believe SOE/LEC management has possibly committed a crime with regard to how they developed the NGE in secret while publically pretending to be sticking with the CU.
[quote]Originally posted by Fishermage [b][quote]Originally posted by Malickiebloo It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back.That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose.And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move.They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.[/b][/quote]The actual damages could be quite a bit more than that. It could and should be argued that not only are we due back the sub fees prepaid after 11/15/2005, but that SWG players, as a class, would be entitled to a refund of the sub fees paid from the moment they decided to put development into the NGE while still publically maintaining the "CU is here to stay" face.That is major money. Hell, even one month worth of sub fees (200K*14.99) is enough cash.Plus, throw in the fact that they likely defrauded us (interstate wire fraud) as well and you get into the realm of treble damages, meaning we could be awarded TRIPLE that amount as a penalty.I say that a class action suit ask for these reasonable things:1. Attorney's fees (a must if you want representation)2. Option for those who had prepaid time prior to the NGE announcement that ran on after it to be refunded, or to exchange it for free time on a pre-NGE server.3. Require that they reinstate Pre-NGE to as many servers as population demand dictates, to maintain them at least as long as they keep the NGE and SWG as a whole going, and to put development into it at the same proportion they do the NGE servers based on what they normally spend per subscriber dollar.4. Require that they make good on the revamps promised to Pre-NGE that they were discussing prior to the NGE.
Well, bro, you set it up, and I will gladly testify
Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by FikusOfAhaziOriginally posted by Fishermage It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back. That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose. And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move. They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
Thats the only logical explanation. But, in order to do that, it means they purposely bombed the game, doesnt it?
Or they purposely stopped giving a damn about it.
No, that they purposely bombed the EXISTING CUSTOMERS without regard to representations made in public ("Cu is here to stay") while continuing to extract money from them based on fraud to fund an unprecedented live MMO gameplay change designed to appeal to a completely DIFFERENT customer base.
That is where I believe SOE/LEC management has possibly committed a crime with regard to how they developed the NGE in secret while publically pretending to be sticking with the CU.
If that is true, it is the dumbest move ever made by a company in corporate history. Everyone knows you just don't DO that in business. I mean, even someone who owns a lemonade stand knows it, let alone anyone with ANY knowledge of business. This is why I still find it hard to believe it.
But, stranger things have happened. Sometimes it rains frogs and fishes.
Quite a few people have chimed in here with "Here's why they did it . . ." We all know why they did it - they became convinced that millions of people would line up play a simpler game. That misses the point of Fikus's question in his OP. That question is: Why did go through with it despite the plain truth that the quality of the NGE was very, very Poor? I can only imagine a few reasons. My musings, nothing more. 1. The decision makers that made the "GO" call were so removed that they actually didn't know what state the NGE was in. 2. The decision makers did know how poor the quality was, but were for some reason convinced that they could get it into adequate shape very quickly before the market responded to the poorness in quality. My money is on number 2. There is some evidence available on the web that the management cultures at both SOE and LEC place a premimum on timeliness over product quality. Further, looking into the software devlopment histories of both organizations reveals that indeed, both organizations have demonstrated a pattern of releasing poor quality or plainly incomplete software for gaming consumption. It may also be that team charged with development of the NGE inadvertently or intentionally misrepresented 1. the state of readiness of the NGE, and/or 2. overstated the team's ability to get the NGE into readiness post launch, to the decision makers who had to make the decision to go with the NGE. It boils down to this: They thought they could get away with it. That's why the NGE was released, even though they new it sucked.
Hmm..that makes some sense too. /ponder
Thanks for all the replies guys.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations .
How exactly is playing an mmorpg not "leisure" though? What exactly is "the world oblivious" to? Please explain.
What makes your time playing SWG any different from watching tivo or swing dancing on a friday night with all the pretty girls? How is it different from reading a book as you cited later on? Why is playing an mmorpg "work" and no other hobby is? Are you paying for the necessities of life with all of this "work"? Doubtfully. What you did was pay a bit up front to get access to some form of entertainment and you're actively using it. You're still at the mercy of the "host", whether it is a corporation, a dj or an author if they decide to change any aspects....
Its not any different , Just read the rest of the post you quoted (The parts not present here ) . I was refering to how some feel that the work they put in is a little more than just virtual entertainment . And how that type of ideal would not be supported or accepted in a court room , Which it shouldn't be .
What I meant by oblivious , Is that they don't factor in the time we spend in these worlds , And the effort we put forth to progress and obtain within them .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Some very well thoughtout posts in this thread. I have to say I am amazed at just how much intelligence is present in this thread Not a insult. Speaking truthfully here.
Shortly after the NGE hit us I did contact my attorney. Quick side hijack here people. If you havent got one, get an attorney. Even if you think you will never need one get one anyway. But I get back on track. My attorney told me that the case with SOE and the NGE was quite interesting. There is room for legal action. Lots of it in fact. However he had a few things to add.
First it falls on the judge and/or jury as to who would win. You can have the most perfect case with evidence, witnesses, a great attorney, etc and lose the case all because the decision maker was having a bad day. You can also have a case being held together by only circumstance, a horrid lawyer, no witnesses, etc and win all because you caught the decision maker on a good day. Thats the problem with courts and the justice system today. Not too many hard fast rules and the ones we have can be changed at a moments notice. Its all guess work in a black robe.
Second is actually getting a case like that to a court. One of the greatest skills an attorney or legal firm has is the ability to keep cases in legal limbo for years. Many cases that should be won are lost because of just that thing.
Lastly he did tell me there are currently several cases against SOE because of SWG and other things yet they probably wont ever see the light of a courtroom for years if at all.
As for what the developers at SOE saw in the NGE. I think Smed said it best. They didnt know how to fix the game. Plain and simple. They were too incompentent to fix it. So they had to literally rip out the parts they couldnt fix and then dress it up abit to make it sound oh so "star warsy and iconic" It makes no nevermind that they were using a handme down game engine that was crap to begin with. Even the engine creators didnt know how to fix the thing. It matters not they had a database that couldnt handle the game. Decent database but not what they should have used. Nor that they didnt listen to the creators of Oracle and just did whatever they wanted with it even when warned. The flat fact is they didnt know what to do and were quite literally incompetent. Even Smed himself admitted to it in his first post after the NGE.
Thats why it comes down to us trolls. We have to spread the word when a MMORPG company acts in a manner that is morally unethical but legally allowed. If we can't sue them or receive justice, then we should destroy their Public Relations for getting away with unethical behavior.
The eventual goal should be moral management enforced by the danger of upsetting the masses
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer. These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!" Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
The Law, it's a mess. Judges are morons, Lawyers are unethical, and politicians are reactionaries looking to get campaign contributions, get friends jobs/contracts, and increase their personal wealth. Basically the law operates on moral corruption, not the need to serve justice. We want justice, so we can not rely upon the law, only our dollars (I'd actually prefer Euros).
The internet is a wonderful social experiment in how much power the "average joe/jane" can grab
Heeey, i just got a idea.... how about if we (us MMO vets who has been mistreated greatly by a mmo company), create a MMO Consumer Group (MCG). ofcause without any legal power, just a pure website, where companies who have mistreated a consumer by some way of the other, could be blacklisted. it would ofcause be desided By the managers and leaders of "MCG" if the company deserves to be blacklisted (so its only if they really deserve it, so all the worhless winers would be disregared ). This wouldent be hard to make, and if we get a big enough community, we mite even have some influance towards the mmo companies:
We have the following months received numerous complaints about your company, regarding the resent [inset Subject].
It is clear that this is not just a few disgruntled players, but a large part of your playerbase, therefore we urge you, to reconsider your stand on [inset subject].
bla bla bla bla lba bla, (more advises and info about the complaints, (absolutely no threats what so ever, that can be considered illigal).
if we get a good reputation, and become a respected part of the gaming community, letters like these, MITE have an affect...
We dont only to have the blacklist, we could also have game company ratings, so good companies would have good rating, and bad will have bad rates, and absolutely terrible would get blacklisted..
these could be divied up in several catogoried like, CSR rating, DEV rating, General Management rating, and a overall rating..
And not only the Consumers would benifit from this but also the companies. The companies could see where their Strenths and weaknesses are. and in knowing that they could easier see how to they could better be able to reach the good rating...
We could even give a MMO gaming company of the year reward... (not the MMO game of the year, but gaming company of the year, BIG difference)
Comments
It's not what they did that crosses the boundries of criminal fraud, deceptive advertising, etc, but HOW they did it.
TOOW and the game in general was a "bait and switch" operation. They also commited fraud in that they misrepresented the direction of the game to existing customers in order to get them to continue paying (and prepaying) all the while they were actually doing something completely different and completely counter to what they were SAYING publically.
We now have one insider on record on this forum that this was exactly what was going on, that they were developing the NGE and KNEW (which is important) their existing customer base (the one they were continuing to pretend that the CU was moving on, ranger revamp was coming, that they were marketing the expansion to, etc) was NOT going to like it and would likely mostly leave. Even worse, they WANTED them to leave, to make room for a completely different customer base.
What makes this illegal, as I said, is NOT what they did (they had every right to change the game, even I will admit that) but how they did it.
Had they been open about what they were going to do, then every customer would have had "fair warning" and could have made informed decisions based on the facts as to whether to re up prepaids, or to order the expansion.
They did not do this obviously, because while they wanted to dump the exising customer base in favor of a new, larger (and more profitable) one, they also wanted the EXISTING customer base to provide the FUNDING to develop it. SWG would have collapsed to sub 20-40K numbers almost immediately, they knew it, and couldn't afford to let the customers "in" on the deal until it was ready to be released, because they needed our money to fund it.
You see, motive and intent are at play here. Their motive was obviously to make more money. Their intent was to do it by willfully shafting their existing customers. They cannot in any way claim that they did it to enhance the game for their existing customers because we already, as I said, have one insider who has admitted that the veteran players were NOT a consideration in the NGE design, and that they knew that almost none of them would like it.
THAT is where they have most likely broken consumer protection laws in state, federal, and local levels in many areas. They misled people in order to receive ill gotten funding for the NGE development, then pulled a bait and switch. The bait were the promises of content, the promises of further profession revamps (ranger, smuggler, CH, etc) that were being talked about publically by SOE practically up to the NGE announcement itself.
That right there is the basis for both tort (civil liability) and possible fraud indictments (criminal liability). I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure love to discuss this WITH a lawyer. Other companies have certainly been sued and prosecuted for similar actions in the past.
SOE's only way out of this would have been if, in addition to offering refunds of the TOOW expansion, they had offered to allow anyone who wished to terminate prepaid accounts with a full refund of unused time. They did offer the TOOW refund, but never did on the prepaid time. It's now, of course, far too late for them to be able to do that and be in the clear.
Considering that a decent percentage of 200,000+ accounts probably at least used the 90 day prepaid option (I had at my peak 4 accounts, 3 of which were 90 day prepaid, and 1 was an annual prepaid), and a lot of people did the 6 and 12 month prepay, you are talking potentially millions of dollars in liability in ill gotten financial gain (by fraud and deception as I illustrated above) which is more than enough to get a class action lawyer's attention when you consider that damage awards can be multiplied in verdicts (treble damages).
About the only defense SOE will be able to mount to mitigate damages, ironically, is that they DIDNT gain from the NGE, that they lost tons of money because of it.
But they can't argue away the fraud and deceit they used to make far more money out of it by misleading the customers who prepaid than they were legitimately entitled to.
Yes, consumer protection laws do need to be made specifically for the MMO industry to protect us from unethical companies like SOE and LEC, but SOE and LEC may have broken EXISTING commerce and consumer laws. I'd love to discuss this with an attorney, particularly given Freeman's recent admissions.
Think of it this way:
Company X offers a monthly service which delivers a certain number of filet mignon steaks to you every month per account. They offer a discount on the rate if you prepay in advance for service.
However, while publically making promises to improve the existing service, and the product that currently exists, they are secretly developing a way to make a simpler, cheaper chopped sirloin substitute that they think would make them more money, and are planning to abrubtly substitute it for the filet mignon on a certain date, all the while continuing to take prepaid orders from customers who have been led to believe that their existing product and service would remain the same or get better. Even worse, they take prepaid orders for a special steak gift set (expansion) knowing that shortly after delivery it will be substituted with the new product.
Then they drop 2 weeks notice of the change, offer no refunds on unexpired prepaid time, but grudgingly allow people to return the "special gift set" (expansion), tell people to drop dead, and refuse to take calls from (forum ban) people who protest.
Nope, a company that did that would get sued and likely prosecuted. Why not SOE?
Wildcat, I can see where you're coming from but you have to keep 2 things in mind.
First, the money subscribers pay is not necessarily an investment (I say "not necessarily" because some can argue that people subscribing for a year at a time are investing but let's not go there yet). What subscribers are doing is paying for access to the current service of the moment and what SOE does with its revenues is only its business. Whether they want to plow it into the game or use it for another enterprise is up to them. What you're arguing for is that SOE effectively can't use any of its profits for another game (like development of EQ2). I know you aren't, but see how this defense can be played? Their intent wasn't malicious and it wasn't to steal subscribers' money--subscribers were getting exactly what they paid for month to month. Now, for those who "invested" in purchase plans of more than a month at a time, I think a case could be made that they could have gotten a refund from Sony if they tried--I just don't know if anyone did. By continuing to play the game though, subscribers were using the service and therefore accepting it, regardless if they felt "cheated". And because they continued to use SOEs resources by playing the game, you can't turn around and sue for getting money back. They didn't just run off with your money--SOE still delivered.
Now secondy, SOE quickly offered refunds to anyone who purchased ToOW and felt they didn't get what they had paid for (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarsgalaxiesstarterkit/news.html?sid=6139705). If SOE didn't offer that compensation, then you may have a case for bait and switch but offering that compensation was an act of good will that works in their defense. I think SOE would have caved and done the same for long-term subscribers if they immediately cancelled and pursed customer service for a refund of their unusued portion of the subscription fees.
I've read many of your posts now and know you're hurt, bitter and adamant about seeing SOE pay for ruining what was a great game conceptually (one that many people enjoyed even with all it's flaws before CU-NGE). But, ideas of lawsuits are strictly fantastic and will bring you no closer to closure. SOE ruined a good thing with bad decisions -- it happens and some go out of business because of it. Others can weather the storm and sometimes learn from those mistakes but we, as consumers, have ultimate say if we choose to do so.
It's not what they did that crosses the boundries of criminal fraud, deceptive advertising, etc, but HOW they did it.
TOOW and the game in general was a "bait and switch" operation. They also commited fraud in that they misrepresented the direction of the game to existing customers in order to get them to continue paying (and prepaying) all the while they were actually doing something completely different and completely counter to what they were SAYING publically.
We now have one insider on record on this forum that this was exactly what was going on, that they were developing the NGE and KNEW (which is important) their existing customer base (the one they were continuing to pretend that the CU was moving on, ranger revamp was coming, that they were marketing the expansion to, etc) was NOT going to like it and would likely mostly leave. Even worse, they WANTED them to leave, to make room for a completely different customer base.
What makes this illegal, as I said, is NOT what they did (they had every right to change the game, even I will admit that) but how they did it.
Had they been open about what they were going to do, then every customer would have had "fair warning" and could have made informed decisions based on the facts as to whether to re up prepaids, or to order the expansion.
They did not do this obviously, because while they wanted to dump the exising customer base in favor of a new, larger (and more profitable) one, they also wanted the EXISTING customer base to provide the FUNDING to develop it. SWG would have collapsed to sub 20-40K numbers almost immediately, they knew it, and couldn't afford to let the customers "in" on the deal until it was ready to be released, because they needed our money to fund it.
You see, motive and intent are at play here. Their motive was obviously to make more money. Their intent was to do it by willfully shafting their existing customers. They cannot in any way claim that they did it to enhance the game for their existing customers because we already, as I said, have one insider who has admitted that the veteran players were NOT a consideration in the NGE design, and that they knew that almost none of them would like it.
THAT is where they have most likely broken consumer protection laws in state, federal, and local levels in many areas. They misled people in order to receive ill gotten funding for the NGE development, then pulled a bait and switch. The bait were the promises of content, the promises of further profession revamps (ranger, smuggler, CH, etc) that were being talked about publically by SOE practically up to the NGE announcement itself.
That right there is the basis for both tort (civil liability) and possible fraud indictments (criminal liability). I am not a lawyer, but I'd sure love to discuss this WITH a lawyer. Other companies have certainly been sued and prosecuted for similar actions in the past.
SOE's only way out of this would have been if, in addition to offering refunds of the TOOW expansion, they had offered to allow anyone who wished to terminate prepaid accounts with a full refund of unused time. They did offer the TOOW refund, but never did on the prepaid time. It's now, of course, far too late for them to be able to do that and be in the clear.
Considering that a decent percentage of 200,000+ accounts probably at least used the 90 day prepaid option (I had at my peak 4 accounts, 3 of which were 90 day prepaid, and 1 was an annual prepaid), and a lot of people did the 6 and 12 month prepay, you are talking potentially millions of dollars in liability in ill gotten financial gain (by fraud and deception as I illustrated above) which is more than enough to get a class action lawyer's attention when you consider that damage awards can be multiplied in verdicts (treble damages).
About the only defense SOE will be able to mount to mitigate damages, ironically, is that they DIDNT gain from the NGE, that they lost tons of money because of it.
But they can't argue away the fraud and deceit they used to make far more money out of it by misleading the customers who prepaid than they were legitimately entitled to.
Yes, consumer protection laws do need to be made specifically for the MMO industry to protect us from unethical companies like SOE and LEC, but SOE and LEC may have broken EXISTING commerce and consumer laws. I'd love to discuss this with an attorney, particularly given Freeman's recent admissions.
Think of it this way:
Company X offers a monthly service which delivers a certain number of filet mignon steaks to you every month per account. They offer a discount on the rate if you prepay in advance for service.
However, while publically making promises to improve the existing service, and the product that currently exists, they are secretly developing a way to make a simpler, cheaper chopped sirloin substitute that they think would make them more money, and are planning to abrubtly substitute it for the filet mignon on a certain date, all the while continuing to take prepaid orders from customers who have been led to believe that their existing product and service would remain the same or get better. Even worse, they take prepaid orders for a special steak gift set (expansion) knowing that shortly after delivery it will be substituted with the new product.
Then they drop 2 weeks notice of the change, offer no refunds on unexpired prepaid time, but grudgingly allow people to return the "special gift set" (expansion), tell people to drop dead, and refuse to take calls from (forum ban) people who protest.
Nope, a company that did that would get sued and likely prosecuted. Why not SOE?
The first thing to fall through would be holding them liable for damages due to "bait and Switch " Tactics (toow). Refunds have been given , There are no damages unpaid in that regard . The rest of these charges can be covered through the contract you signed to open an account .You signed it indicating you understood the services rendered could be cut off at anytime . Essentially that is exactly what happened , They discontinued that service / And replaced it with another . As for pre-paid time ,Again in authorizing payment . You agreed that money is not subject to refund . This is why the EULA exists to begin with , Its a protection . In case they piss off a few thousand people .For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here.
This analogy gets used so often--it's frustrating and incorrect. You never bought physical merchandise. Someone isn't coming to your dock and downsizing your boat. What you're doing is purchasing the equivalent of phone service and then the incumbent local phone service says they're changing how everything works to lure in cable tv consumers and your bills will go up while customer service goes down. You may not like it but you DO have the option to change service or continue paying for it. Continuing to pay for it says you endorse it.
Quite a few people have chimed in here with "Here's why they did it . . ."
We all know why they did it - they became convinced that millions of people would line up play a simpler game. That misses the point of Fikus's question in his OP. That question is:
Why did go through with it despite the plain truth that the quality of the NGE was very, very Poor?
I can only imagine a few reasons. My musings, nothing more.
1. The decision makers that made the "GO" call were so removed that they actually didn't know what state the NGE was in.
2. The decision makers did know how poor the quality was, but were for some reason convinced that they could get it into adequate shape very quickly before the market responded to the poorness in quality.
My money is on number 2. There is some evidence available on the web that the management cultures at both SOE and LEC place a premimum on timeliness over product quality. Further, looking into the software devlopment histories of both organizations reveals that indeed, both organizations have demonstrated a pattern of releasing poor quality or plainly incomplete software for gaming consumption. It may also be that team charged with development of the NGE inadvertently or intentionally misrepresented 1. the state of readiness of the NGE, and/or 2. overstated the team's ability to get the NGE into readiness post launch, to the decision makers who had to make the decision to go with the NGE.
It boils down to this:
They thought they could get away with it. That's why the NGE was released, even though they new it sucked.
SWG Team Mtg.
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here. That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
Thats why it comes down to us trolls. We have to spread the word when a MMORPG company acts in a manner that is morally unethical but legally allowed. If we can't sue them or receive justice, then we should destroy their Public Relations for getting away with unethical behavior.
The eventual goal should be moral management enforced by the danger of upsetting the masses
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer. These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!" Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
The Law, it's a mess. Judges are morons, Lawyers are unethical, and politicians are reactionaries looking to get campaign contributions, get friends jobs/contracts, and increase their personal wealth. Basically the law operates on moral corruption, not the need to serve justice. We want justice, so we can not rely upon the law, only our dollars (I'd actually prefer Euros).
The internet is a wonderful social experiment in how much power the "average joe/jane" can grab
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
That is more or less what we did do... We made such a big stink about the NGE (and it turned out that there were a LOT of us SWG geeks in places SOE didn't expect, like, uh, CBS and the New York Times), that it became IMPOSSIBLE for any amount of marketing (and they did quite a lot in Q4 `05) to work.
The backlash made it impossible for them to even have a chance to attract the "millions of Star Wars fans" they hoped to jettison us for.
So, where we stand now is a classic standoff. SOE won't give us our game back, but on the other hand, they are making less (or any) money.
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue.
2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
Don't give trolls that much credit -- an outraged consumer base is well within its rights to speak out and it has. Vote with your wallet and spread the word. Marketing 101 says that for every bad experience a customer has, s/he will tell 7 people. For every good one, they tell 3 people.
You are correct, and ultimately customers do have the power, especially when it come to leisure goods. BUT, academically speaking, the fact is that there does exist such a thing as the "bad customer". "Bad customers" sap resources that can be better spent elsewhere and a company has every right to refuse them. "The customer is always right" does not always apply but companies need to weight that risk and act appropriately. Companies can also choose who they want to target their goods and services for, again, at their own peril.
Your rallying cry is total flame bait....we're talking about a game here. No one holds a gun to the customer's head, the customer is never in "distress". As dramatic as you want to make it sound, phrasing the EULA as "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH" adds no power as much as you want it to seem like coercion. You want to use their service, you abide by their rules. You want to rent this apartment, you abide by the landlord's terms of use as outlined in the lease.
Um, we already do so everyday -- it's called free trade markets. Welcome to the economy.....
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here.
That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue.
2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations . Here is a scenario that I think very much applies to what happened with SWG .Say you buy the first edition of an 8 part book series . You enjoy the plot and direction of the story . This plot continues through 4 of the 8 books . You enjoy the story so much you preorder the next 4 books ( not possible , But for arguments sake ) Yet when you receive them the story has taken a turn in a direction you can not stand reading . Yet was advertised as a continuation of the story .
Does that author/Publisher owe you anything , Are there really damages to be claimed ? Or did you simply make a bad decision ? Your employment contract is something in a totally different category of importance , In a Court room setting .Virtual entertainment is just that to these people , Just like you couldn't sue GL because you didn't like his vision of Episode 1-3 . No matter how fanatical you are about the original trilogy .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
How exactly is playing an mmorpg not "leisure" though? What exactly is "the world oblivious" to? Please explain.
What makes your time playing SWG any different from watching tivo or swing dancing on a friday night with all the pretty girls? How is it different from reading a book as you cited later on? Why is playing an mmorpg "work" and no other hobby is? Are you paying for the necessities of life with all of this "work"? Doubtfully. What you did was pay a bit up front to get access to some form of entertainment and you're actively using it. You're still at the mercy of the "host", whether it is a corporation, a dj or an author if they decide to change any aspects....
if all its true (i still believe they are criminals) then we need new laws to protect MMO customer rights. These case here is the precedence we need.
Its like you buyed a yacht and 2 months later you find yourself in a rowboat, something is definitely flowed and wrong here.
That's the problem as consumers we have few options to choose from ,legally speaking . But here is also where things get scetchy for both parties , With regulation placed by a judge . Game companies will have very few options to improve an MMO , If need be . If we can sue them for making changes , How can an MMO be operated effectivly ? If at any point the customers can decide to take the developer to court , Over changes made to the product ?
Secondly placing ownership of ingame items to the players would be another step in the wrong direction IMO . Because then they become taxable , And more regulations get passed on to the gaming world . IMO this is a case best left alone , In the best interest of all parties involved .
The problem with the EULA argument is that the EULA grants SOE basically any right they want, any time they want it. Yet, to be enforceable in all 50 states, a EULA must claim to be a contract (which they do).
The problem is, contract law has some limitations. First off, contracts are supposed to be entered into as an agreement between equals. That is impossible if one side has clauses in the contract that allows them to basically rewrite it in part or even completely without the other party having any recourse or part in it. Changes in contracts require that the side that is giving up some right to receive something in exchange.
"Accept these EULA changes and you can keep playing" is not receiving an additional tangible benefit, especially if you've prepaid and you have no way to be refunded unused time. Note that this exact lack of balance of power and coercion in "negotiations" of that kind are why noncompete agreements forced by employers on employees are thrown out of court most of the time.
That is why the EULA argument is on shaky ground at best. EULA's, especially "click thru" ones are dubious at best in most places with regard to enforceability. Software companies know this. The real purpose of the EULA is to:
1. Serve as giving SOE standing if they wish to sue.
2. Make people think that SOE has all the power and the player has no recourse unless SOE decides to be nice.
Another problem with EULA's is that in many states, if even ONE part of a contract is ruled null or void (due to not being legal) the whole thing is void. Software EULA's like SOE's are so broad, so awesomely overpowering in terms of what it says they can do, that it's a dead certainty that some part of it will not be legal in almost any locale.
Also, the bottom line:
EULA's can't be used to circumvent the law. If SOE violated wire fraud laws, or engaged in deceptive trade practices and in so doing victimized their customers, the EULA isn't going to shield them in any way.
As I said, I do think some consumer protection laws DO need to be enacted that are specific to MMORPG's, but there is plenty of existing law out there that could also do the trick.
BTW, I am familliar with litigation involving noncompete "contracts" signed under duress. Happened to me once, and my former employer (who fired me no less) threatened to sue if I went to work for a former customer of theirs. There was a lot I learned from that experience, as the noncompete was voided because it had clauses that were illegal, thus voiding the rest, and that it was signed under duress (I was told at the time if I didn't sign it I'd be fired).
I agree with everything you are saying , But as gamers we know the work we put in is more than just playing a videogame . We also know how attached we can become to these products . The problem is outside of us , The world is oblivious to these things . Judges and lawyers look at this as nothing more than entertainment . Therefor they would be most likely to side with the corporations . Here is a scenario that I think very much applies to what happened with SWG .Say you buy the first edition of an 8 part book series . You enjoy the plot and direction of the story . This plot continues through 4 of the 8 books . You enjoy the story so much you preorder the next 4 books ( not possible , But for arguments sake ) Yet when you receive them the story has taken a turn in a direction you can not stand reading . Yet was advertised as a continuation of the story .
Does that author/Publisher owe you anything , Are there really damages to be claimed ? Or did you simply make a bad decision ? Your employment contract is something in a totally different category of importance , In a Court room setting .Virtual entertainment is just that to these people , Just like you couldn't sue GL because you didn't like his vision of Episode 1-3 . No matter how fanatical you are about the original trilogy .
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back.
That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose.
And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move.
They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I tell you what they saw:
they saw World of Warcrafts over 5 million subscriber numbers in comparision to the 300 - 350.000 Star Wars Galaxies subscribers and thought "what the hell? we got one of the most popular IP's and Blizzard still has more customers then we have, well let's do something against it..
lets simply copy some elements of World Of Warcraft and we will succeed..."
thats what they thought...
noone at that SOE managemnt spent even 1 minute ingame to check out the old star wars galaxies to realise how beautiful it was..
SOE and NGE-Star Wars Galalaxies:
Raph Koster: "It's like dumping the girlfriend who has always been patient and loving to chase after the supermodel who probably won't love you back."
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
1) Don't give trolls that much credit -- an outraged consumer base is well within its rights to speak out and it has. Vote with your wallet and spread the word. Marketing 101 says that for every bad experience a customer has, s/he will tell 7 people. For every good one, they tell 3 people.
2) You are correct, and ultimately customers do have the power, especially when it come to leisure goods. BUT, academically speaking, the fact is that there does exist such a thing as the "bad customer". "Bad customers" sap resources that can be better spent elsewhere and a company has every right to refuse them. "The customer is always right" does not always apply but companies need to weight that risk and act appropriately. Companies can also choose who they want to target their goods and services for, again, at their own peril.
3) Your rallying cry is total flame bait....we're talking about a game here. No one holds a gun to the customer's head, the customer is never in "distress". As dramatic as you want to make it sound, phrasing the EULA as "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH" adds no power as much as you want it to seem like coercion. You want to use their service, you abide by their rules. You want to rent this apartment, you abide by the landlord's terms of use as outlined in the lease.
4) Um, we already do so everyday -- it's called free trade markets. Welcome to the economy.....
1) Trolls in the future will rule the Earth, wait and see
2) The Customer, if not an investor in SOE, should not care about their profits. SOE does not care if the customer is fired or loses money on bad investments, so why should the customer care if they are forced into doing something that will reduce their profit margin? I am pro-ruthless capitalism, I am not a corporate socialist who wants to protect companies from them evil customers. If a customer sees another customer being alienated by the corporate entity, then customers should see that as an attack on their power to demand.
3) No no no no no, It's all about demand, my free market capitalist. They use a EULA to act in bad faith, it can not be legally proven, but then again OJ did not kill his wife and many other funny legal truths are in the law. The customer IS in distress, the customer IS currently powerless. This is not how the free market works, the customer has the most power, if we demand that your EULA is void, then it is void. If you do not void your EULA at the demand of your customer, then we will join together and use market forces (lack of income) to influence you.
4) Actually you are wrong, it's welcome to the internet, where advertising dollars can be countered by some guy in their underwear posting in forum or customer review. Before, marketing could make you think shitty service is good service. Now marketing can be countered, now the argument, "thats just the way it works, it's business" is hollow. Finally customers are in a position where they can pool their resources together and make the "free market" work for them.
The free market is just a tool. I am just for using the free market in a way where pooled wealth has as much power as concentrated wealth
--And why do I post this stuff, to help educate other customers who may not understand or to spread the idea. This is not a hollow rally cry, it is an attempt to build morale. If I did not post this, then SOE shills would post "You 'electronically signed' a EULA, too bad" and people would only hear that.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Or they purposely stopped giving a damn about it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
[quote]Originally posted by Fishermage
[b][quote]Originally posted by Malickiebloo
It all comes down in this case to what would be called the reasonable person standard. One could very easily argue that SOE went far beyond what a reasonable person would expect in terms of gameplay changes. The only problem that follows is the asessment of damages, which at most would be unrefunded subscription fees. I would bet even money a class action suit could win all that back.
That's NOT BIG money, so what law firm would take it in hopes of merely getting a fraction of that in fees? I think "we" could win the class action lawsuit, but since we certaily couldn't claim any BIG MONEY, like through pain and suffering and/or undue health effects or any of the things that make class action suits viable, we lose.
And to answer the neverending question: why did they do it? To cut costs, and to just barely fulfill thei contractual obligations to LEC for the license, while at the same time slash development costs. The rest was "selling it" to LA and the marketing peeps, in other words, bullspit. That is the only reason they would conceivably make such an obviously stupid move.
They then poured money into EQ2 and into EQ1 to make those games better, and they increased in subs while SWG crashed. They basically wanted to get out of this high cost project and not let anyone else have it at the same time. Pretty simple, really, and typical of SONY.[/b][/quote]
The actual damages could be quite a bit more than that. It could and should be argued that not only are we due back the sub fees prepaid after 11/15/2005, but that SWG players, as a class, would be entitled to a refund of the sub fees paid from the moment they decided to put development into the NGE while still publically maintaining the "CU is here to stay" face.
That is major money. Hell, even one month worth of sub fees (200K*14.99) is enough cash.
Plus, throw in the fact that they likely defrauded us (interstate wire fraud) as well and you get into the realm of treble damages, meaning we could be awarded TRIPLE that amount as a penalty.
I say that a class action suit ask for these reasonable things:
1. Attorney's fees (a must if you want representation)
2. Option for those who had prepaid time prior to the NGE announcement that ran on after it to be refunded, or to exchange it for free time on a pre-NGE server.
3. Require that they reinstate Pre-NGE to as many servers as population demand dictates, to maintain them at least as long as they keep the NGE and SWG as a whole going, and to put development into it at the same proportion they do the NGE servers based on what they normally spend per subscriber dollar.
4. Require that they make good on the revamps promised to Pre-NGE that they were discussing prior to the NGE.
Or they purposely stopped giving a damn about it.
No, that they purposely bombed the EXISTING CUSTOMERS without regard to representations made in public ("Cu is here to stay") while continuing to extract money from them based on fraud to fund an unprecedented live MMO gameplay change designed to appeal to a completely DIFFERENT customer base.
That is where I believe SOE/LEC management has possibly committed a crime with regard to how they developed the NGE in secret while publically pretending to be sticking with the CU.
Well, bro, you set it up, and I will gladly testify
fishermage.blogspot.com
Or they purposely stopped giving a damn about it.
No, that they purposely bombed the EXISTING CUSTOMERS without regard to representations made in public ("Cu is here to stay") while continuing to extract money from them based on fraud to fund an unprecedented live MMO gameplay change designed to appeal to a completely DIFFERENT customer base.
That is where I believe SOE/LEC management has possibly committed a crime with regard to how they developed the NGE in secret while publically pretending to be sticking with the CU.
If that is true, it is the dumbest move ever made by a company in corporate history. Everyone knows you just don't DO that in business. I mean, even someone who owns a lemonade stand knows it, let alone anyone with ANY knowledge of business. This is why I still find it hard to believe it.
But, stranger things have happened. Sometimes it rains frogs and fishes.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Hmm..that makes some sense too. /ponder
Thanks for all the replies guys.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
How exactly is playing an mmorpg not "leisure" though? What exactly is "the world oblivious" to? Please explain.
What makes your time playing SWG any different from watching tivo or swing dancing on a friday night with all the pretty girls? How is it different from reading a book as you cited later on? Why is playing an mmorpg "work" and no other hobby is? Are you paying for the necessities of life with all of this "work"? Doubtfully. What you did was pay a bit up front to get access to some form of entertainment and you're actively using it. You're still at the mercy of the "host", whether it is a corporation, a dj or an author if they decide to change any aspects....
Its not any different , Just read the rest of the post you quoted (The parts not present hereWhat I meant by oblivious , Is that they don't factor in the time we spend in these worlds , And the effort we put forth to progress and obtain within them .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Shortly after the NGE hit us I did contact my attorney. Quick side hijack here people. If you havent got one, get an attorney. Even if you think you will never need one get one anyway. But I get back on track. My attorney told me that the case with SOE and the NGE was quite interesting. There is room for legal action. Lots of it in fact. However he had a few things to add.
First it falls on the judge and/or jury as to who would win. You can have the most perfect case with evidence, witnesses, a great attorney, etc and lose the case all because the decision maker was having a bad day. You can also have a case being held together by only circumstance, a horrid lawyer, no witnesses, etc and win all because you caught the decision maker on a good day. Thats the problem with courts and the justice system today. Not too many hard fast rules and the ones we have can be changed at a moments notice. Its all guess work in a black robe.
Second is actually getting a case like that to a court. One of the greatest skills an attorney or legal firm has is the ability to keep cases in legal limbo for years. Many cases that should be won are lost because of just that thing.
Lastly he did tell me there are currently several cases against SOE because of SWG and other things yet they probably wont ever see the light of a courtroom for years if at all.
As for what the developers at SOE saw in the NGE. I think Smed said it best. They didnt know how to fix the game. Plain and simple. They were too incompentent to fix it. So they had to literally rip out the parts they couldnt fix and then dress it up abit to make it sound oh so "star warsy and iconic" It makes no nevermind that they were using a handme down game engine that was crap to begin with. Even the engine creators didnt know how to fix the thing. It matters not they had a database that couldnt handle the game. Decent database but not what they should have used. Nor that they didnt listen to the creators of Oracle and just did whatever they wanted with it even when warned. The flat fact is they didnt know what to do and were quite literally incompetent. Even Smed himself admitted to it in his first post after the NGE.
Kai
The eventual goal should be moral management enforced by the danger of upsetting the masses
It is a war, between Companies and Customers, each wants to control the other. Well MMORPGs are a service industry and in a service industry you bend to the customer. These EULAs are no longer going to be used as "U SIGNED A EULA N00B" propaganda. It's time for the customer to realize that we were forced to sign a EULA and entered a contract in distress (Unfortunately not the legal definition, but the real definition only). We are forced with the options, "SIGN OR YOU CAN'T PLAY BITCH!" Well we have to give the MMORPG providers the options "SERVE US, OR NEVER SEE US AGAIN BITCH!"
The Law, it's a mess. Judges are morons, Lawyers are unethical, and politicians are reactionaries looking to get campaign contributions, get friends jobs/contracts, and increase their personal wealth. Basically the law operates on moral corruption, not the need to serve justice. We want justice, so we can not rely upon the law, only our dollars (I'd actually prefer Euros).
The internet is a wonderful social experiment in how much power the "average joe/jane" can grab
Heeey, i just got a idea.... how about if we (us MMO vets who has been mistreated greatly by a mmo company), create a MMO Consumer Group (MCG). ofcause without any legal power, just a pure website, where companies who have mistreated a consumer by some way of the other, could be blacklisted. it would ofcause be desided By the managers and leaders of "MCG" if the company deserves to be blacklisted (so its only if they really deserve it, so all the worhless winers would be disregared ). This wouldent be hard to make, and if we get a big enough community, we mite even have some influance towards the mmo companies:
TO: SOE
From GCM
Attached file: Customercompalnted.doc
About: numerous complaints,
__________________________________________________________
Dear Sirs,
bblalbalblalbalblalbllblalbb
We have the following months received numerous complaints about your company, regarding the resent [inset Subject].
It is clear that this is not just a few disgruntled players, but a large part of your playerbase, therefore we urge you, to reconsider your stand on [inset subject].
bla bla bla bla lba bla, (more advises and info about the complaints, (absolutely no threats what so ever, that can be considered illigal).
Best Regards
xxx xxxxxxxxxx
MCG
___________________________________________________________
if we get a good reputation, and become a respected part of the gaming community, letters like these, MITE have an affect...
We dont only to have the blacklist, we could also have game company ratings, so good companies would have good rating, and bad will have bad rates, and absolutely terrible would get blacklisted..
these could be divied up in several catogoried like, CSR rating, DEV rating, General Management rating, and a overall rating..
And not only the Consumers would benifit from this but also the companies. The companies could see where their Strenths and weaknesses are. and in knowing that they could easier see how to they could better be able to reach the good rating...
We could even give a MMO gaming company of the year reward... (not the MMO game of the year, but gaming company of the year, BIG difference)