Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How does SOE get away with the false advertising
Lowcarefugee
Member Posts: 18
I bought the game so long ago.... I happened to be at Target today and saw the box for SWG starter kit for NGE. OMG, it showed Darth Vader with his lightsaber drawn out ready to fight. Has anyone in game seen Darth with his lightsaber drawn. Now, if I was someone who was checking out the box, i would have totally thought that I would be able to battle Vader by the way his picture was shown on the box. I think a government agency needs to start cracking down on these types of things in the gaming industry.
Comments
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And Vader is in the game. Every once in a while, either Vader or Luke will land in a city and give faction missions to players.
He will also bleed rebels if they come near him when hes in bestine.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Kai
Kai
Yes. Read the description.
Online Rating Notice
Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps,
skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During
Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by
players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.
This does not mean the game may change. As a matter of fact, the game would have to be re-rated after CU and NGE (and I think it was).
However, the EULA (section 2)
2. ... Neither this Agreement nor your Account entitles you to any
subsequent releases of the Game and/or the Software, any expansion packs nor
similar ancillary products. You understand that we may update or otherwise
enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time and in doing so incur no
obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement. You
understand that online games evolve over time and, accordingly, system
requirements to play the Game may change over time.
Read and wheep. Can't touch them. Maybe it's hammer time.
Kai
Yes. Read the description.
Online Rating Notice
Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps,
skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During
Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by
players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.
This does not mean the game may change. As a matter of fact, the game would have to be re-rated after CU and NGE (and I think it was).
However, the EULA (section 2)
2. ... Neither this Agreement nor your Account entitles you to any
subsequent releases of the Game and/or the Software, any expansion packs nor
similar ancillary products. You understand that we may update or otherwise
enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time and in doing so incur no
obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement. You
understand that online games evolve over time and, accordingly, system
requirements to play the Game may change over time.
Read and wheep. Can't touch them. Maybe it's hammer time.
Not saying if you can or cant touch them. I am tired of people who use the ESRB warning as defacto proof of something it is not proof of.
No such as an iron clad contract anyway. Anything can swing one way or another. It all depends on who the judges are, what kind of day they had, who the attornies are, and how good they are. I have seen iron clad contracts go out the window all because the plantiff got the right judge on the right day. And I have seen contracts not worth the paper they are printed on be upheld because the guy got the wrong judge on the wrong day. That is the beauty of the United States of Corporate America. No law, contract, or anything else is set in stone.
There are currently several cases against SOE regarding the NGE. All of which are being kept in court limbo by SOE's attornies. Why? If the contract is so perfect, why are they keeping them in court limbo? Because they know about the above as well as I. If they got the wrong judge they could get in serious trouble. So better to keep it out of the courts ALAP.
Kai
But read the EULA again. You, as a subscriber, have already acknowledged that the game can change, and accepted it if you wish to play.
Why they stall? Who has more money and can prolong trials indefinitely? The defendant or the plaintiff?
ROFLMAO!
A little to close to the truth....hehe.
Because Sony has a pack of lawyers, caged and fed rabid babies.. awaiting release to storm out and disembowl everything in their path.
Shayde - SWG (dead)
Proud member of the Cabal.
It sounds great, so great in fact, I pitty those who canceled
I don't like it when you say things. - A Vanguard fan who does too.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Please STFU! If that's the case, then the whole world would come crashing down since EVERY COMPANY LIES!
Live and deal with it.
Please STFU! If that's the case, then the whole world would come crashing down since EVERY COMPANY LIES!
Live and deal with it.
Oh, wow, I never thought about it that way. What an overpowering and masterful use of logic and persuasion. You've certainly changed my mind, VixenHeart!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As ye SOE, so shall ye weep.
Something to chew on.
It's the truth, there's nothing you can do about it, so stop crying and deal.
A** Still Raw From Your Last SWG Subscription? Come join us at RLMMO.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As ye SOE, so shall ye weep.
Kai
Yes. Read the description.
Online Rating Notice
Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.
This does not mean the game may change. As a matter of fact, the game would have to be re-rated after CU and NGE (and I think it was).
However, the EULA (section 2)
2. ... Neither this Agreement nor your Account entitles you to any subsequent releases of the Game and/or the Software, any expansion packs nor similar ancillary products. You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time and in doing so incur no obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement. You understand that online games evolve over time and, accordingly, system requirements to play the Game may change over time.
Read and wheep. Can't touch them. Maybe it's hammer time.
Hi,
Actually I think if someone wanted to press the issue they could probably win a case against SOE on this, the only issue that is really involved is the money and time that people are willing to put into the case. I imagin like most companies they would try to tie this up in litigation if they were loosing the case . The reason I think a case could be won are as follows;
The key words from the EULA are ehance and evolve, I think it could be argued that the currect game is netiher an enhancement or has evolved [both of which means make better]. This could be proved by the number of players who have left the game, as well as the number of continues problems they have with the game. In addition, SOE has made a number of lies to players regarding the game and propfession within the game.
Also, ehance and evolving the game implies they are going to keep thge original concept and vision of the game and make it better. But again, it can be argued that the NGE is a radical departure from the original concept and vision of the game that it is no longer the same game any of us intended to play.
Anyhow this is just my opinon.
Thx,
Tauceti
Kai
Yes. Read the description.
Online Rating Notice
Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.
This does not mean the game may change. As a matter of fact, the game would have to be re-rated after CU and NGE (and I think it was).
However, the EULA (section 2)
2. ... Neither this Agreement nor your Account entitles you to any subsequent releases of the Game and/or the Software, any expansion packs nor similar ancillary products. You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time and in doing so incur no obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement. You understand that online games evolve over time and, accordingly, system requirements to play the Game may change over time.
Read and wheep. Can't touch them. Maybe it's hammer time.
Hi,
Actually I think if someone wanted to press the issue they could probably win a case against SOE on this, the only issue that is really involved is the money and time that people are willing to put into the case. I imagin like most companies they would try to tie this up in litigation if they were loosing the case . The reason I think a case could be won are as follows;
The key words from the EULA are ehance and evolve, I think it could be argued that the currect game is netiher an enhancement or has evolved [both of which means make better]. This could be proved by the number of players who have left the game, as well as the number of continues problems they have with the game. In addition, SOE has made a number of lies to players regarding the game and propfession within the game.
Also, ehance and evolving the game implies they are going to keep thge original concept and vision of the game and make it better. But again, it can be argued that the NGE is a radical departure from the original concept and vision of the game that it is no longer the same game any of us intended to play.
Anyhow this is just my opinon.
Thx,
Tauceti
Holy shit Tauceti! You get a cookie for this well thought out and executed reply!
Actually I think if someone wanted to press the issue they could probably win a case against SOE on this, the only issue that is really involved is the money and time that people are willing to put into the case. I imagin like most companies they would try to tie this up in litigation if they were loosing the case . The reason I think a case could be won are as follows;
The key words from the EULA are ehance and evolve, I think it could be argued that the currect game is netiher an enhancement or has evolved [both of which means make better]. This could be proved by the number of players who have left the game, as well as the number of continues problems they have with the game. In addition, SOE has made a number of lies to players regarding the game and propfession within the game.
Also, ehance and evolving the game implies they are going to keep thge original concept and vision of the game and make it better. But again, it can be argued that the NGE is a radical departure from the original concept and vision of the game that it is no longer the same game any of us intended to play.
Anyhow this is just my opinon.
Thx,
Tauceti
Not from legal point of view.
You could argue that removal of corpse runs and perma-death were not an anhancement. You could argue that village was not an enhancement. Or the addition of vehicles. You could also state that removal of TEFs was not an enhancement.
NGE, point-by-point, is what majority of people requested. Or so the exit polls indicated:
- Combat is too slow
- Combat should be more KOTOR-like and faster paced
- Combat should be immersive
- Skills are confusing
- Skills are unbalanced
- Alpha classes are ruining gameplay
- FotM templates are ruining gameplay
That's the real issue with legal matters, if you go to court. Just because you do not like it, does not mean it violates any written statement. Enhancement is a vague term.
Is removal of an oppresive, sadistic dictator and enhancement? Not if you were one of his closest partners, who lived the easy life under his rule. Not if you were in his favored party. Not if you lost power due to government change.
Enhancement and addition is relative.
Always keep this in mind when talking about legal matters.
Imagine what such a trial would look like:
P: They nerfed Jedi into regular class
SOE: After reviewing the exit surveys (exhibit 223c), they stated in point 32.c that 78.4% of player believe that Jedi should be a starting class. In addition to focus group (exhibits 224 - 229, video materials 23 - 58 and reports 7-12) they confirmed that having Jedi available from the start is a great enjoyability enhancement. According to (exhibit 315d) report, 89.2% of focus group members found that adding Jedi as a starter class was definite improvement, since this was the only class they ever wanted to play. In addition, after decreasing experience point gains, 23.2% of our subscribers cancelled. Immediately, we have returned to previous values, in order to not degrade the gameplay experience.
P: We have no further points.
Courts are a harsh thing. Very harsh. And "nerf" is not a valid legal argument. Not with all the precedents, where the loudest nerfs were often proven to enhance the gameplay.
Actually I think if someone wanted to press the issue they could probably win a case against SOE on this, the only issue that is really involved is the money and time that people are willing to put into the case. I imagin like most companies they would try to tie this up in litigation if they were loosing the case . The reason I think a case could be won are as follows;
The key words from the EULA are ehance and evolve, I think it could be argued that the currect game is netiher an enhancement or has evolved [both of which means make better]. This could be proved by the number of players who have left the game, as well as the number of continues problems they have with the game. In addition, SOE has made a number of lies to players regarding the game and propfession within the game.
Also, ehance and evolving the game implies they are going to keep thge original concept and vision of the game and make it better. But again, it can be argued that the NGE is a radical departure from the original concept and vision of the game that it is no longer the same game any of us intended to play.
Anyhow this is just my opinon.
Thx,
Tauceti
Not from legal point of view.
You could argue that removal of corpse runs and perma-death were not an anhancement. You could argue that village was not an enhancement. Or the addition of vehicles. You could also state that removal of TEFs was not an enhancement.
NGE, point-by-point, is what majority of people requested. Or so the exit polls indicated:
- Combat is too slow
- Combat should be more KOTOR-like and faster paced
- Combat should be immersive
- Skills are confusing
- Skills are unbalanced
- Alpha classes are ruining gameplay
- FotM templates are ruining gameplay
That's the real issue with legal matters, if you go to court. Just because you do not like it, does not mean it violates any written statement. Enhancement is a vague term.
Is removal of an oppresive, sadistic dictator and enhancement? Not if you were one of his closest partners, who lived the easy life under his rule. Not if you were in his favored party. Not if you lost power due to government change.
Enhancement and addition is relative.
Always keep this in mind when talking about legal matters.
Imagine what such a trial would look like:
P: They nerfed Jedi into regular class
SOE: After reviewing the exit surveys (exhibit 223c), they stated in point 32.c that 78.4% of player believe that Jedi should be a starting class. In addition to focus group (exhibits 224 - 229, video materials 23 - 58 and reports 7-12) they confirmed that having Jedi available from the start is a great enjoyability enhancement. According to (exhibit 315d) report, 89.2% of focus group members found that adding Jedi as a starter class was definite improvement, since this was the only class they ever wanted to play. In addition, after decreasing experience point gains, 23.2% of our subscribers cancelled. Immediately, we have returned to previous values, in order to not degrade the gameplay experience.
P: We have no further points.
Courts are a harsh thing. Very harsh. And "nerf" is not a valid legal argument. Not with all the precedents, where the loudest nerfs were often proven to enhance the gameplay.
First, the legal point can be made. After all, our current law system is based on changing opinons. Also, many times opinon and / or the vagueness of a word can be proven more vaild and in some cases made a fact by the respose society or in the case consumers of this game have on changes. Again, I point to the mass exodus of players and the lieing or misrepersentation of proposed changes.
Secondly, we have no idea what the true exit polls from the CU or NGE are; only what SOE reported and since it has pretty much been proven that SOE has low creditabilty with the majority of it player base and even professional reviewers, the exit poll are suspect. However, the fact they had a large number of players leave after the CU and even more after the NGE, it is more likely that most didn't approve of any of the changes. Now you could argue how one interpets request for change and how those changes can be implement; but a wise company would have done a better job of listening to it player base and interpeting request for change which SOE hasn't done. Also, a wise company would have realized what has happened and revert back to the model that was more successfull than it's current system.
Further, I reconize that there is a fine balance between maintaining the vision of the game and consumer expectation. But in the end, when your in the market to make profit and such occurrence occure you either adapt to appease the market in order to grow ,or you accpet bad press and low success in order to maintain your vision. But, since SOE is in this for the money then you would think they would adapt to appease the market.
I figure what the real reason for not going back to a more successfull game model has more to do with mis-management and the loss of most of the original SWG developers.
As for your list of the requested change the fact is some of it is valid, but not all. Take for example Jedi, the fact is the majority of player want to be a jedi.
IMO,
Tauceti
Exit polls were conducted, records are kept. Whether they would stand in court is hardly a question. It's the material on which the decisions were made.
If *Car Maker* conducts a poll, and determines that people want only 2 seats in a car, then said car maker goes out of business after public backlass for turning their favorite SUV into a two seater is not an illegal afair nor a violation of any laws.
SWG went through a change of brand. They are no longer a MMORPG. Similarly, a restaurant may transform from 5 star culinary experience into a goth nightclub, while still retaining the same name. How they pull it off, or whether they incur the wrath of gastronomic comunity is another matter, but it's not illegal.
This has little to with SOE or SWG. I'm merely discussing this from legal perspective. Remember, SOE did not just blindly do what they did. They confirmed and tested every single aspect of the change from legal, financial, strategic and cooperative point of view with regard to all aspects, both Sony, SOE, LEC, as well as other federal and state laws. It's what majority of their company is set up to do.
No sane company in US would dare ditch disabled players, if they had a single legal point that would stand in court. They would not risk making such changes if it would violate their own policies, or any of corporate legislation.
The only thing you could do here, is a class action lawsuit, that would dispute the extent to which a product may change. But these are extremly long-winded, expensive up-the-hill battles. And they would have some incredibly nasty side-consequences, hurting US markets most.
If such a lawsuit would be made, every single time an online game provider would make a change, they would face a court trial. You changed color on my +5 helmet of enchanting, lets sue. You removed the tree outside of Lake of Sorrows, lets sue. You changed font in login screen, lets sue.
There's many many discontent and above all oportunistic people out there, who would give (sometimes literaly, and of their own action) their left arm, a finger or one testicle if they could make some money through court litigation. And this is happening daily.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
Exit polls were conducted, records are kept. Whether they would stand in court is hardly a question. It's the material on which the decisions were made.
If *Car Maker* conducts a poll, and determines that people want only 2 seats in a car, then said car maker goes out of business after public backlass for turning their favorite SUV into a two seater is not an illegal afair nor a violation of any laws.
SWG went through a change of brand. They are no longer a MMORPG. Similarly, a restaurant may transform from 5 star culinary experience into a goth nightclub, while still retaining the same name. How they pull it off, or whether they incur the wrath of gastronomic comunity is another matter, but it's not illegal.
This has little to with SOE or SWG. I'm merely discussing this from legal perspective. Remember, SOE did not just blindly do what they did. They confirmed and tested every single aspect of the change from legal, financial, strategic and cooperative point of view with regard to all aspects, both Sony, SOE, LEC, as well as other federal and state laws. It's what majority of their company is set up to do.
No sane company in US would dare ditch disabled players, if they had a single legal point that would stand in court. They would not risk making such changes if it would violate their own policies, or any of corporate legislation.
The only thing you could do here, is a class action lawsuit, that would dispute the extent to which a product may change. But these are extremly long-winded, expensive up-the-hill battles. And they would have some incredibly nasty side-consequences, hurting US markets most.
If such a lawsuit would be made, every single time an online game provider would make a change, they would face a court trial. You changed color on my +5 helmet of enchanting, lets sue. You removed the tree outside of Lake of Sorrows, lets sue. You changed font in login screen, lets sue.
There's many many discontent and above all oportunistic people out there, who would give (sometimes literaly, and of their own action) their left arm, a finger or one testicle if they could make some money through court litigation. And this is happening daily.
1st I wasn't saying exit polls are a bases for legal action. I was merely addressing the point to the poster quote that exit polls were given as for the reason for continueing with the change. I simply was pointing out that we don't no what the true results were or how vaild they are considering SOE crediabilty. Plus as we all know surveyies can be manipulated. Again, I point to the mass exodus of players as proof that many didn't agree with the changes.
Secondly, we have no idea how throughly the decision to change the format of the game was made, remember sometime people can get so blinded by their personal bias or vision that don't consider other views and tend to dismess those views as inaccurate. This is not to say that an entity shouldn't be allowed to maintain or change their vision, but when you persent a product to the market to make money and then change it [borders on bait and switch laws] because you decide to go in another direction and then wonder why people are upset and not using your product, then you have ask your-self if this is a good idea and whether maintaining your new vision is worth the loss in profits.
Your point about how the game changes is the same point I am making, and you are correct that persuing such a legal recourse is expensive and time consuming, and eventually becomes mute [as time goes by] when the real objective may! be to get a game you want back, but is no longer is viable.
IMO,
Tauceti
_______________________
Kote lo'shebs'ul narit
Because;
1. This is a geneveal discussion on views and what could happen.
2. Persuing such a legal course is both expensive and time consuming [especially if you expect the company to drag the process out]. In addition, even if you win you could loose depending on what your objective is [ie revenge or getting a game / product back].
3. This is simply a way to vent...lol
IMO,
Tauceti