The whole purpose of the ADA is not to keep people out because you don't think they'll enjoy it, but to allow a minority access to things that they may (or may not) enjoy. It's the same logic that is applied to all legistlation to protect minorities. You're logic is like requiring minorities to pass a complex literacy test back in the day. I'm sure they didn't feel like minorities could fully appreciate voting either and used that as an excuse to deny them. And I can't imagine that it is really that difficult to include some basic features (like font size changes) that would allow for any reasonable person to agree that at least SOME effort was made. And obviously there ARE disabled people that desperately want to play or there wouldn't be WoW add-ons as were listed as an example. You start adding the social gathering aspect of an MMO and then throw in real money and it gets really close to specifically denying a person an opportunity to make revenue because they are disabled.
Look, I doubt anyone here is biased against blind people, or disabled people in general... I'm certainly not. It just seems unreasonable to expect that companies offering a primarily visual medium (many MMORPGs can easily be played with the sound off) should be required to go to extraordinary lengths so that people who can't even see (or very nearly can't see) can use their service.
It's not about minorities. Blind people are missing a fundamental human sense. If I were blind, I'd simply accept that the entire world won't alter every product to cater to my needs. To me, that's a lot like people who are allergic to peanuts expecting the entire world to protect them: if you're deadly allergic to a bog-common food product, you really ought to prepare all of your own food carefully from unprocessed ingredients or something along those lines.
It's not discrimination, it's asking people to expend resources and take extraordinary measures to cater to 1/10,000 of the population. You can't expect a company to keep every single person with a rare disability in mind when they create a product (at least in my opinion; I know others don't share that opinion).
Currently Playing: EVE Online Retired From: UO, FFXI, AO, SWG, Ryzom, GW, WoW, WAR
Antiquated law that applied more to physical hard goods where its a bit easier to define what sufficient quality/utility should be for an item. Be hard to prove an MMORPG didn't deliver the proper gaming experience.
This reminds me of my friend who owns a small video production business. An organization showed up on his door and required that he put in a wheel chair ramp and a handicap space or be sued. The thing is in 10 years he's NEVER had anyone that requested that sort of access. He'd need major reconstruction just to do it. But he would have to spend 50k+ to make sure people who NEVER use his services wouldn't be inconvenienced. So instead he just moved;) My heart bleeds for these people. Screw em!! He found out this organization literally goes around to small businesses checking to make sure they're compliant. They need lives. Its a total racket.
If you're blind you simply shouldn't be playing videogames. Not every hobby is for everyone. Kind of like food companies having to put Spanish on their labels, because people can't be bothered to learn English. The money wasted is staggering on this kind of BS.
Originally posted by ArcAngel3 Gamers should also know that they can have the cost of attorney fees covered if they win their case. So, the cost of legal fees need not stand in the way of them standing up for their rights as citizens. MMO companies can only abuse consumer rights if consumers remain ignorant or misinformed.
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
Antiquated law that applied more to physical hard goods where its a bit easier to define what sufficient quality/utility should be for an item. Be hard to prove an MMORPG didn't deliver the proper gaming experience.
The blind man has a very weak case. He knew the game didn't have accessibility tools to accomodate his needs and he still bought it. Sure loss in my opionion.
However I have a more interesting situation:
Suppose a deaf man purchases a mmorpg which doesn't have a certain audio features at the time of purchase but new audio features such as voice chat are added a month later. Since the deaf man isn't given a prior notice about the audio features he can otherwise enjoy and it is the negligence on the game company's part not to have tools to allow the audio impaired man to enjoy the game to its fullness hence not giving him all the services and entertainment he pays for. Can the deaf man win if he sue?
If you don't like the game, appeal to your credit card company for a refund. Every business that uses credit cards signs an agreement with the company to allow the credit card company to rule on disputes, it doesn't matter what the company puts in their EULA.
Antiquated law that applied more to physical hard goods where its a bit easier to define what sufficient quality/utility should be for an item. Be hard to prove an MMORPG didn't deliver the proper gaming experience.
The blind man has a very weak case. He knew the game didn't have accessibility tools to accomodate his needs and he still bought it. Sure loss in my opionion.
However I have a more interesting situation:
Suppose a deaf man purchases a mmorpg which doesn't have a certain audio features at the time of purchase but new audio features such as voice chat are added a month later. Since the deaf man isn't given a prior notice about the audio features he can otherwise enjoy and it is the negligence on the game company's part not to have tools to allow the audio impaired man to enjoy the game to its fullness hence not giving him all the services and entertainment he pays for. Can the deaf man win if he sue?
No.
Here's another one - if a tree falls in the woods on top of a deaf man does his scream make any noise?
Originally posted by whpsh And I can't imagine that it is really that difficult to include some basic features (like font size changes) that would allow for any reasonable person to agree that at least SOME effort was made.
You'd be surprised how many things a "simple" change like font size can screw up. If your box for dialogs/texts can only accept a certain number of character (let's say 300) in a certain font and font size, if you use suddenly a bigger font, it'll screw the whole lay-out. Plus, any text that flirted with the limit won't fit on the box any more, so that means check ecah in every of the text (lots of QA hours..) plus rewriting (lots of hours there too) plus rechecking (another set of QA hours...).
All from simply changing the font.
Something like allowing/integrating some kind of mods to read aloud the texts can be useful, but that's like authorising people to modify the game code, which is a IP and can screw up copyright laws...
I remember a small reportage on a blind little girl,s family taking her to the movies. The parents didn't want to deprive their other two, seeing children the magic of movies. And obviously, just leaving their blind kid out would be just as cruel. Besides, through the sounds + post-movie discussion with her family, she pretty much enjoyed and understood everything going on there. And part of the enjoyment was being on a family outing...
Now, I can understand blind people wanting to share the community aspect of games, which is similar to the enjoying a family outing in the above story. I can understand them wanting to understand and appreciate the story.
The part that has me stumped is how can they really enjoy the interacting part. I mean in a movie or with a book, you just "received" the story. You have a very low interaction with the medium delivering it. heck, even "simply" reading a website does not ask for much interaction.
In a game, the whole purpose is to react, sometimes in a millisecond, to visual stimuli...
The whole purpose of the ADA is not to keep people out because you don't think they'll enjoy it, but to allow a minority access to things that they may (or may not) enjoy. It's the same logic that is applied to all legistlation to protect minorities. You're logic is like requiring minorities to pass a complex literacy test back in the day. I'm sure they didn't feel like minorities could fully appreciate voting either and used that as an excuse to deny them. And I can't imagine that it is really that difficult to include some basic features (like font size changes) that would allow for any reasonable person to agree that at least SOME effort was made. And obviously there ARE disabled people that desperately want to play or there wouldn't be WoW add-ons as were listed as an example. You start adding the social gathering aspect of an MMO and then throw in real money and it gets really close to specifically denying a person an opportunity to make revenue because they are disabled.
Look, I doubt anyone here is biased against blind people, or disabled people in general... I'm certainly not. It just seems unreasonable to expect that companies offering a primarily visual medium (many MMORPGs can easily be played with the sound off) should be required to go to extraordinary lengths so that people who can't even see (or very nearly can't see) can use their service.
It's not about minorities. Blind people are missing a fundamental human sense. If I were blind, I'd simply accept that the entire world won't alter every product to cater to my needs. To me, that's a lot like people who are allergic to peanuts expecting the entire world to protect them: if you're deadly allergic to a bog-common food product, you really ought to prepare all of your own food carefully from unprocessed ingredients or something along those lines.
It's not discrimination, it's asking people to expend resources and take extraordinary measures to cater to 1/10,000 of the population. You can't expect a company to keep every single person with a rare disability in mind when they create a product (at least in my opinion; I know others don't share that opinion).
I work in physical rehabilitation as a clinical excercise therapist. Having a disability sucks, plain and simple. However they are called disabilities for a reason. They have some impairment limiting them something that they could otherwise enjoy should they not have that impairment.
Many people with disabilities have a very difficult time accepting that disability. They want to do everything a "normal" person can do. And, you know, good on them for trying. Some of them have come up with some pretty unique ways of getting around their impairment and minimizing the disability. But if they could do everything than we would no longer call it a disability because it is not disabling them from an activity anymore.
So yes companies should make an effort to be as inclusive as possible, but it is rediculous to believe that their impairment can be completely overcome, and sometimes it is just not possible (at least right now anyway).
This fellow has a visual impairment, sooner or later he needs to realize that he will not be able to do everything or enjoy everything that a person without that impairment can.
Venge Sunsoar
edit: Nice little derail though haha
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by ArcAngel3 Gamers should also know that they can have the cost of attorney fees covered if they win their case. So, the cost of legal fees need not stand in the way of them standing up for their rights as citizens. MMO companies can only abuse consumer rights if consumers remain ignorant or misinformed.
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
If you are only after the cost of the game back (a refund) then it shouldn't exceed the small claims limit.
But again, this is where the US consumer laws seem to be lacking?
In some countries, if the consumer advocate body agrees that you have a valid complaint they will take up the case.
" The suit, which doesn't mention SOE games by name but appears to focus on massively multiplayer online titles, requests the addition of visual cues to point gamers to their destinations for gamers with "disability impaired visual processing." (note: can anyone find any specific information on what the hell that is?!?)
"The suit also specifies the ways in which other companies have made their games accessible. For instance, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft allows the use of third-party mods in its game..."
"Beyond the denial of entertainment, the suit also contends that Sony's actions have caused visually impaired gamers a financial loss. Because Sony runs an official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money, the suit says Stern's inability to participate in that marketplace is costing him money."
How I read that?
"I will legally force you to make your games like WoW, or I will sue you."
*edit* My reason for bringing this topic up was because of OP's topic to EULA invalidations in certain states vs. (plausible?)(frivolous?) reasons that are in court now regarding said situation. I meant not to derail, just to stay on topic of a broad interpretation of possible incidents.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
You know that part of an MMO EULA that says you agree to purchase the game "as is," and that you are waiving your consumer rights to any implied warranty? Well, it's not valid in numerous states, according to the Federal Trade Commission: "Some states do not allow you to sell consumer products "as is." At this time, these states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In those states, sellers have implied warranty obligations that cannot be avoided." (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm) If you live in these states and your MMO company thinks they can take your cash and give you anything they want, in any condition, they may have to think again.
You know that part of an MMO EULA that says you agree to purchase the game "as is," and that you are waiving your consumer rights to any implied warranty? Well, it's not valid in numerous states, according to the Federal Trade Commission: "Some states do not allow you to sell consumer products "as is." At this time, these states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In those states, sellers have implied warranty obligations that cannot be avoided." (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm) If you live in these states and your MMO company thinks they can take your cash and give you anything they want, in any condition, they may have to think again.
Sig: "What makes a good MMO? Good quality, good customer service, good business model, good fun."
Can you show us on the doll where the bad MMO touched you?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
This topic seems to have gotten way off track, and people seem to have completely overlooked one of the main points about the OP and his article. The law refers to warranty services, etc on consumer product. The product (game) is still working as intended, it has not stopped running/working, and you are still playing the game perfectly fine. Basically the product is not "broken", so what need would there be to even consider anything to do with warranty laws? IMO the whole argument/lawsuit would be completely pointless, and should just be thrown out. Also the monthly "service" you pay for (which is not even technically a product which would be covered under the posted law) is really only paying for them to have a running server to play your game on. So long as the server is functioning, youre still getting the service you pay for, regardless of what changes are made to the game. The only changes that i would consider to be covered under these laws would be something like changes to the graphic engine (or other core systems) which would prevent the product from even being capable of running properly on a machine that meets the specified minimum requirements, specified by the manufacturer of the product itself. In which case, i would understand you getting your money for the boxed product back, but not monthly fees, since you had been making use of the services which your fees were for up until the point that the changes were made.
Think of it a couple other ways. Lets say you were paying someone monthly to cut your lawn, and for a year it went well. But then the guy goes and gets a new lawnmower, which doesnt cut your grass to the quality that you desire. Would you then able to sue him for the past years worth of fees (when the services met your needs) just because he made a new change that causes him to no longer be able to meet your needs? No, you simply get rid of the dude and hire someone else (much like quitting an MMO for a new one becaus eof changes you didnt like), and perhaps demand a refund for that current month in which he failed to satisfy the services he was paid for.
Or take your favorite fast food joint. Youve been eating there for years, loved the food, but then they went and changed their ingredients, and you dont like the new taste. Can you go and sue them for the cost of all the food youve eaten there, just because they changed the way its prepared now? No, you simply stop eating there, end of story.
Many of you seem to have a major problem of confusing peoples opinions of wether or not they like a MMO and/or any changes/updates to it, with a product they purchased no longer working and thereby being covered by some sort of warranty.
Hmm ofc Im no lawyer but, thinking in terms of Darkfall and the mass chargebacks..
banks accepted them because they agreed that the product was faulty and not as advertised (love the game but hella true) why would they do this if they did not feel they had the legal right to do so
That was a sad thing to read. I feel bad that he cant see and play video games that well, but why take it out on SoE?
Because as pathetic as it is, some people will do anything for money. The kid probably looked over several games trying to find one run by a major companyw ith enough money to get something out of that just so happened to fit nicely into his QQing about not being able to have mods, etc. Its pretty ridiculous IMO. It would be like if i was a parapalegic (no legs) and went and picked out a particular jeans manufacturer and sued them for not making jeans to fit perfectly on people with my disability. If other games, like WoW suit his needs, he should go play WoW. Nowhere in any law does it say that every product made by every company must be useable by everyone regardless of their condition. If one game doesnt work for him, then let him go play one that does. Its not like he is completely incapable of playing MMOs, just not the ones that he claims he would like to play.
I think if you tried to take this to court the most you could do is get the money back for the box, and that only in the first 30 days. Once you make the 2nd monthly payment you have implied that you are happy enough to keep paying so you lose the right for a refund on the box. And forget about ever resubbing.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use. Then you might get the box plus any outstanding sub fees refunded. I don't think resubbing would be an issue. A lot of people burned by MMO companies have no intention of resubbing; they just want money back for something that they can't use.
Hmm ofc Im no lawyer but, thinking in terms of Darkfall and the mass chargebacks..
banks accepted them because they agreed that the product was faulty and not as advertised (love the game but hella true) why would they do this if they did not feel they had the legal right to do so
Good point. Also, many EULAs (I just looked at a current one for an SOE game) clearly highlight that their "as is" clause is not valid in some states. Even the MMO companies agree with me, and put it in writing. Well lol, I think they actually are obligated to. Here's an example from the current EULA for StarWars Galaxies to illustrate my point:
"10. SOE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Some states do not allow the disclaimer of implied warranties, so the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other legal rights which vary from state to state." [red font added for emphasis]
The thing is, many gamers may not read or fully understand the EULA. Also, most MMO companies don't advertise which states are exempt from the terms of use. I thought I'd add that extra information. I think some would find it helpful.
Also, I think more states (and other jurisdictions) are adding laws like this. They're not becoming antiquated. They're actually tightening up, especially as they relate to the internet. The mountain of consumer complaints about internet services including MMOs probably has something to do with this.
Again, this isn't about some kind of law-suit happy cash grab. It's not about frivolous claims. This is for people who bought something that they cannot use. They're told they purchased it "as is" and have no rights to a refund. In many states, that's simply not legal. They do have a right to a refund, and I think they also have a right to know about it. So here we are ^_^.
Originally posted by ArcAngel3 Gamers should also know that they can have the cost of attorney fees covered if they win their case. So, the cost of legal fees need not stand in the way of them standing up for their rights as citizens. MMO companies can only abuse consumer rights if consumers remain ignorant or misinformed.
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
Ideally this kind of thing wouldn't even go to court. You contact the company, tell them the game doesn't work as it should, explain the "as is" clause doesn't apply to you and ask for your refund.
If that doesn't work, you should let the Federal Trade Commision know. They often take up cases exactly like this, especially when they affect consumers in general. If you're getting burned like this, it's very likely that you're not alone.
You may also contact an attorney that gives free consultation and has an expertise in warranty laws and the internet. Some will give you free advice. Some will even go as far as to only charge you if they win your case. They'd be pretty confident of the outcome in this case, and that would be good. You could also ask them about the small claims option.
I think if you tried to take this to court the most you could do is get the money back for the box, and that only in the first 30 days. Once you make the 2nd monthly payment you have implied that you are happy enough to keep paying so you lose the right for a refund on the box. And forget about ever resubbing.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use.
You would have a hard time proving the game is unfit to play when thousands are still playing it.
I think if you tried to take this to court the most you could do is get the money back for the box, and that only in the first 30 days. Once you make the 2nd monthly payment you have implied that you are happy enough to keep paying so you lose the right for a refund on the box. And forget about ever resubbing.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use.
You would have a hard time proving the game is unfit to play when thousands are still playing it.
Well it's hard to debate the details of a non-existent case. I'm just sharing information that I found about MMO warranties. They almost all say that they are sold "as is," and that there is no warranty.
I simply found it interesting that in the states I listed, a game cannot be sold "as is." The gamer is protected by implied warranty laws. Pretty cool I thought.
Where I think this might apply someday is if a game company sells something that is supposed to work on your rig, according to their advertised specs, and it doesn't; or maybe they hype all these features that never actually work. It might also apply if you buy the game, pay your sub fee, and then they wreck it with a patch. Of course if it's wrecked for you, it will be wrecked for others.
NCsoft once wrecked one of their games with a patch. Nobody had to raise a fuss though because they decided not to charge people for the month it took them to fix it. I think other companies might say, "too bad, you bought the game as is." In some states, they'd be wrong. I'm just bringing that to people's attention. I think its good news for MMO gamers tbh.
Comments
Look, I doubt anyone here is biased against blind people, or disabled people in general... I'm certainly not. It just seems unreasonable to expect that companies offering a primarily visual medium (many MMORPGs can easily be played with the sound off) should be required to go to extraordinary lengths so that people who can't even see (or very nearly can't see) can use their service.
It's not about minorities. Blind people are missing a fundamental human sense. If I were blind, I'd simply accept that the entire world won't alter every product to cater to my needs. To me, that's a lot like people who are allergic to peanuts expecting the entire world to protect them: if you're deadly allergic to a bog-common food product, you really ought to prepare all of your own food carefully from unprocessed ingredients or something along those lines.
It's not discrimination, it's asking people to expend resources and take extraordinary measures to cater to 1/10,000 of the population. You can't expect a company to keep every single person with a rare disability in mind when they create a product (at least in my opinion; I know others don't share that opinion).
Currently Playing: EVE Online
Retired From: UO, FFXI, AO, SWG, Ryzom, GW, WoW, WAR
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
He's going to lose you know. The law applies to places of business. A game is not a business, it is a product.
This reminds me of my friend who owns a small video production business. An organization showed up on his door and required that he put in a wheel chair ramp and a handicap space or be sued. The thing is in 10 years he's NEVER had anyone that requested that sort of access. He'd need major reconstruction just to do it. But he would have to spend 50k+ to make sure people who NEVER use his services wouldn't be inconvenienced. So instead he just moved;) My heart bleeds for these people. Screw em!! He found out this organization literally goes around to small businesses checking to make sure they're compliant. They need lives. Its a total racket.
If you're blind you simply shouldn't be playing videogames. Not every hobby is for everyone. Kind of like food companies having to put Spanish on their labels, because people can't be bothered to learn English. The money wasted is staggering on this kind of BS.
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
The blind man has a very weak case. He knew the game didn't have accessibility tools to accomodate his needs and he still bought it. Sure loss in my opionion.
However I have a more interesting situation:
Suppose a deaf man purchases a mmorpg which doesn't have a certain audio features at the time of purchase but new audio features such as voice chat are added a month later. Since the deaf man isn't given a prior notice about the audio features he can otherwise enjoy and it is the negligence on the game company's part not to have tools to allow the audio impaired man to enjoy the game to its fullness hence not giving him all the services and entertainment he pays for. Can the deaf man win if he sue?
Use a credit card to pay.
If you don't like the game, appeal to your credit card company for a refund. Every business that uses credit cards signs an agreement with the company to allow the credit card company to rule on disputes, it doesn't matter what the company puts in their EULA.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
The blind man has a very weak case. He knew the game didn't have accessibility tools to accomodate his needs and he still bought it. Sure loss in my opionion.
However I have a more interesting situation:
Suppose a deaf man purchases a mmorpg which doesn't have a certain audio features at the time of purchase but new audio features such as voice chat are added a month later. Since the deaf man isn't given a prior notice about the audio features he can otherwise enjoy and it is the negligence on the game company's part not to have tools to allow the audio impaired man to enjoy the game to its fullness hence not giving him all the services and entertainment he pays for. Can the deaf man win if he sue?
No.
Here's another one - if a tree falls in the woods on top of a deaf man does his scream make any noise?
All from simply changing the font.
Something like allowing/integrating some kind of mods to read aloud the texts can be useful, but that's like authorising people to modify the game code, which is a IP and can screw up copyright laws...
I remember a small reportage on a blind little girl,s family taking her to the movies. The parents didn't want to deprive their other two, seeing children the magic of movies. And obviously, just leaving their blind kid out would be just as cruel. Besides, through the sounds + post-movie discussion with her family, she pretty much enjoyed and understood everything going on there. And part of the enjoyment was being on a family outing...
Now, I can understand blind people wanting to share the community aspect of games, which is similar to the enjoying a family outing in the above story. I can understand them wanting to understand and appreciate the story.
The part that has me stumped is how can they really enjoy the interacting part. I mean in a movie or with a book, you just "received" the story. You have a very low interaction with the medium delivering it. heck, even "simply" reading a website does not ask for much interaction.
In a game, the whole purpose is to react, sometimes in a millisecond, to visual stimuli...
Look, I doubt anyone here is biased against blind people, or disabled people in general... I'm certainly not. It just seems unreasonable to expect that companies offering a primarily visual medium (many MMORPGs can easily be played with the sound off) should be required to go to extraordinary lengths so that people who can't even see (or very nearly can't see) can use their service.
It's not about minorities. Blind people are missing a fundamental human sense. If I were blind, I'd simply accept that the entire world won't alter every product to cater to my needs. To me, that's a lot like people who are allergic to peanuts expecting the entire world to protect them: if you're deadly allergic to a bog-common food product, you really ought to prepare all of your own food carefully from unprocessed ingredients or something along those lines.
It's not discrimination, it's asking people to expend resources and take extraordinary measures to cater to 1/10,000 of the population. You can't expect a company to keep every single person with a rare disability in mind when they create a product (at least in my opinion; I know others don't share that opinion).
I work in physical rehabilitation as a clinical excercise therapist. Having a disability sucks, plain and simple. However they are called disabilities for a reason. They have some impairment limiting them something that they could otherwise enjoy should they not have that impairment.
Many people with disabilities have a very difficult time accepting that disability. They want to do everything a "normal" person can do. And, you know, good on them for trying. Some of them have come up with some pretty unique ways of getting around their impairment and minimizing the disability. But if they could do everything than we would no longer call it a disability because it is not disabling them from an activity anymore.
So yes companies should make an effort to be as inclusive as possible, but it is rediculous to believe that their impairment can be completely overcome, and sometimes it is just not possible (at least right now anyway).
This fellow has a visual impairment, sooner or later he needs to realize that he will not be able to do everything or enjoy everything that a person without that impairment can.
Venge Sunsoar
edit: Nice little derail though haha
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
If you are only after the cost of the game back (a refund) then it shouldn't exceed the small claims limit.
But again, this is where the US consumer laws seem to be lacking?
In some countries, if the consumer advocate body agrees that you have a valid complaint they will take up the case.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
" The suit, which doesn't mention SOE games by name but appears to focus on massively multiplayer online titles, requests the addition of visual cues to point gamers to their destinations for gamers with "disability impaired visual processing." (note: can anyone find any specific information on what the hell that is?!?)
"The suit also specifies the ways in which other companies have made their games accessible. For instance, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft allows the use of third-party mods in its game..."
"Beyond the denial of entertainment, the suit also contends that Sony's actions have caused visually impaired gamers a financial loss. Because Sony runs an official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money, the suit says Stern's inability to participate in that marketplace is costing him money."
How I read that?
"I will legally force you to make your games like WoW, or I will sue you."
*edit* My reason for bringing this topic up was because of OP's topic to EULA invalidations in certain states vs. (plausible?)(frivolous?) reasons that are in court now regarding said situation. I meant not to derail, just to stay on topic of a broad interpretation of possible incidents.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
WOOT IAM FROM D.C!!!!!!!!!
$^^% You MMORPG GENRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only problem with that is that you have to file the lawsuit or try to get your money from the state that the company is in.
And if that is the case, Would you still have a case reguardless where you live? and would you have to travel to their state to file?
lots of questions to answer. i know from other cases you have to go to the state where the person is not your state. i could be wrong.
ASUS G74sx
i7 quad core
16gb ddr3 ram
3gb ram Nvidia 560M
240GB SSD & 750GB
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
And how in the hell would they pull that one off?!??
NPC Quest giver: "I'm to the left ...no, no, back to the right a bit." " Come forward....forward, for...NO NO!!...sigh...now your in the pond."
Ridiculous. People will sue for ANYTHING these days.
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
wow
Sig: "What makes a good MMO? Good quality, good customer service, good business model, good fun."
Can you show us on the doll where the bad MMO touched you?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
This topic seems to have gotten way off track, and people seem to have completely overlooked one of the main points about the OP and his article. The law refers to warranty services, etc on consumer product. The product (game) is still working as intended, it has not stopped running/working, and you are still playing the game perfectly fine. Basically the product is not "broken", so what need would there be to even consider anything to do with warranty laws? IMO the whole argument/lawsuit would be completely pointless, and should just be thrown out. Also the monthly "service" you pay for (which is not even technically a product which would be covered under the posted law) is really only paying for them to have a running server to play your game on. So long as the server is functioning, youre still getting the service you pay for, regardless of what changes are made to the game. The only changes that i would consider to be covered under these laws would be something like changes to the graphic engine (or other core systems) which would prevent the product from even being capable of running properly on a machine that meets the specified minimum requirements, specified by the manufacturer of the product itself. In which case, i would understand you getting your money for the boxed product back, but not monthly fees, since you had been making use of the services which your fees were for up until the point that the changes were made.
Think of it a couple other ways. Lets say you were paying someone monthly to cut your lawn, and for a year it went well. But then the guy goes and gets a new lawnmower, which doesnt cut your grass to the quality that you desire. Would you then able to sue him for the past years worth of fees (when the services met your needs) just because he made a new change that causes him to no longer be able to meet your needs? No, you simply get rid of the dude and hire someone else (much like quitting an MMO for a new one becaus eof changes you didnt like), and perhaps demand a refund for that current month in which he failed to satisfy the services he was paid for.
Or take your favorite fast food joint. Youve been eating there for years, loved the food, but then they went and changed their ingredients, and you dont like the new taste. Can you go and sue them for the cost of all the food youve eaten there, just because they changed the way its prepared now? No, you simply stop eating there, end of story.
Many of you seem to have a major problem of confusing peoples opinions of wether or not they like a MMO and/or any changes/updates to it, with a product they purchased no longer working and thereby being covered by some sort of warranty.
Hmm ofc Im no lawyer but, thinking in terms of Darkfall and the mass chargebacks..
banks accepted them because they agreed that the product was faulty and not as advertised (love the game but hella true) why would they do this if they did not feel they had the legal right to do so
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
wow
That was a sad thing to read. I feel bad that he cant see and play video games that well, but why take it out on SoE?
Stranger things have happened...
uk.gamespot.com/news/6239339.html
and that's in California.
wow
That was a sad thing to read. I feel bad that he cant see and play video games that well, but why take it out on SoE?
Because as pathetic as it is, some people will do anything for money. The kid probably looked over several games trying to find one run by a major companyw ith enough money to get something out of that just so happened to fit nicely into his QQing about not being able to have mods, etc. Its pretty ridiculous IMO. It would be like if i was a parapalegic (no legs) and went and picked out a particular jeans manufacturer and sued them for not making jeans to fit perfectly on people with my disability. If other games, like WoW suit his needs, he should go play WoW. Nowhere in any law does it say that every product made by every company must be useable by everyone regardless of their condition. If one game doesnt work for him, then let him go play one that does. Its not like he is completely incapable of playing MMOs, just not the ones that he claims he would like to play.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use. Then you might get the box plus any outstanding sub fees refunded. I don't think resubbing would be an issue. A lot of people burned by MMO companies have no intention of resubbing; they just want money back for something that they can't use.
Good point. Also, many EULAs (I just looked at a current one for an SOE game) clearly highlight that their "as is" clause is not valid in some states. Even the MMO companies agree with me, and put it in writing. Well lol, I think they actually are obligated to. Here's an example from the current EULA for StarWars Galaxies to illustrate my point:
"10. SOE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Some states do not allow the disclaimer of implied warranties, so the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other legal rights which vary from state to state." [red font added for emphasis]
The thing is, many gamers may not read or fully understand the EULA. Also, most MMO companies don't advertise which states are exempt from the terms of use. I thought I'd add that extra information. I think some would find it helpful.
Also, I think more states (and other jurisdictions) are adding laws like this. They're not becoming antiquated. They're actually tightening up, especially as they relate to the internet. The mountain of consumer complaints about internet services including MMOs probably has something to do with this.
Again, this isn't about some kind of law-suit happy cash grab. It's not about frivolous claims. This is for people who bought something that they cannot use. They're told they purchased it "as is" and have no rights to a refund. In many states, that's simply not legal. They do have a right to a refund, and I think they also have a right to know about it. So here we are ^_^.
What if you lose the case? Then you pay thousands of dollars to your lawyer. If you win you only get $15 a month subscription back.
I wonder if this kind of cases can be settled in small claims court. Since you don't need (and can't use) a lawyer in the worst case you only lose like $50 for filing a claim.
Ideally this kind of thing wouldn't even go to court. You contact the company, tell them the game doesn't work as it should, explain the "as is" clause doesn't apply to you and ask for your refund.
If that doesn't work, you should let the Federal Trade Commision know. They often take up cases exactly like this, especially when they affect consumers in general. If you're getting burned like this, it's very likely that you're not alone.
You may also contact an attorney that gives free consultation and has an expertise in warranty laws and the internet. Some will give you free advice. Some will even go as far as to only charge you if they win your case. They'd be pretty confident of the outcome in this case, and that would be good. You could also ask them about the small claims option.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use.
You would have a hard time proving the game is unfit to play when thousands are still playing it.
Not if a patch wrecks the game, making it unfit for its intended use.
You would have a hard time proving the game is unfit to play when thousands are still playing it.
Well it's hard to debate the details of a non-existent case. I'm just sharing information that I found about MMO warranties. They almost all say that they are sold "as is," and that there is no warranty.
I simply found it interesting that in the states I listed, a game cannot be sold "as is." The gamer is protected by implied warranty laws. Pretty cool I thought.
Where I think this might apply someday is if a game company sells something that is supposed to work on your rig, according to their advertised specs, and it doesn't; or maybe they hype all these features that never actually work. It might also apply if you buy the game, pay your sub fee, and then they wreck it with a patch. Of course if it's wrecked for you, it will be wrecked for others.
NCsoft once wrecked one of their games with a patch. Nobody had to raise a fuss though because they decided not to charge people for the month it took them to fix it. I think other companies might say, "too bad, you bought the game as is." In some states, they'd be wrong. I'm just bringing that to people's attention. I think its good news for MMO gamers tbh.