Angry PS3 Gamers Sue EA Over Broken Battlefield Promise

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Angry PS3 Gamers Sue EA Over Broken Battlefield Promise

image

Electronic Arts is being taken to court over its broken promise to give PlayStation 3 owners a free copy of Battlefield 1943 with their purchase of Battlefield 3.

Prior to the launch of Battlefield 3, Electronic Arts made a pretty sweet offer to PlayStation 3 owners: buy the game and get a free copy of Battlefield 1943. It's a couple years old but still a very solid game and it's hard to complain about two games for the price of one. But when the big day came, BF1943 was nowhere to be found; instead of the game, EA said it would offer the PS3 crowd early access to DLC. Not to give any of it to them, mind, but just the opportunity to spend their money on it ahead of everyone else. Adding insult to injury, EA had already announced that Battlefield 3 expansions would be timed exclusives on the PS3, making the "in lieu of" offer meaningless. Instead of a "bait and switch," it was a "bait and screw you."

Surprise, surprise, EA is now facing a class action lawsuit over the whole mess and while at first glance it might look like just spoiled gamers demanding stuff they didn't pay for anyway, there's actually a more serious justification for the suit. The complaint isn't so much that EA changed its mind on the offer, but when and how it did so. Nothing was said until after the game was released and the announcement, when it finally came, was only made on Twitter, meaning that those who didn't follow EA and/or DICE were never informed of the situation. EA's backup offer, which was in fact not a substitute deal at all, is also noted.

In other words, EA "misled and profited from thousands of their customers by making a promise that they could not, and never intended, to keep," according to the suit. A potentially large number of customers based their purchasing decision on a very specific offer which was ultimately rescinded - but not until it was too late for that decision to be undone.

The suit seeks the usual "compensatory relief" and all that sort of thing but the lawyers claim that in practical terms, all they really want is that which was promised in the first place: free copies of Battlefield 1943. We'll see how that works out.

Source: Kotaku

Permalink

Makes sense. It is essentially false advertising, which last time I checked is kinda illegal

Oh EA, you so crazy.

Is anyone really surprised to hear EA fucked up in advertising again? The customers are pretty justified, I hope they get what they want.

EA strikes again. I swear to god they are bloody twits. hell they could have had the game as a download so it would not have cost them much but they had to go ripping ppl off again. way to go EA

I understand why they did it. Complicated business oddities. But end of the day, they did promise a product that they could, but didn't, provide. And there wasn't even a substitute.

Also, does this intersect in any way with the whole, "No class action lawsuits allowed" EULA bit? Actually just to go on a bit of tangent, what would happen if it was Sony doing this?

While it does seem, at first glance, like standard spoiled entitlement, EA has pulled this kind of shit for too long- and this really is a huge dick move. So, go team!

If nothing else, it might help EA think twice in the future before trying to screw its customers. I hope.

I like to see EA in the hot seat for once in a while...

For me they are the cancer in videogames... they ruined so many good games, and did so much crap over they ear, that i just want to see them crash and burn.

Not the game developers, but the people behind the brand, the "suits" that prefer shitty quantity for quick profit, then a well-made quality game...

So EA.... i hope you burn!!!

P.s.: I realized EA would never give an older title... for some reason i expected to pull this kind of crap... so i wonder why there are so many that are surprised about this...

There are many stupid lawsuits about silly little things.

This is not one of them.

Sometimes I wonder if big game publishers have a special department for creating bad PR, because there's no way that they can generate this much by accident.

Oh EA when will you ever learn?!

Come on EA, we get it already. You're the worst publisher in the industry. I know Activision-Blizzard stole your thunder for a while but you've won. Not even Bobby Kotick's ramblings can usurp your throne anymore. So would you please stop rubbing your awfulness in our faces for a while?

As much as I detest our society that resorts to litigation over small issues... Yeah. I hope they win. Sorry EA, but I've no sympathy for you in this issue.

Good. This time, the lawsuit is quite justified, and I hope EA loses.

You see, THQ apparently pulled the same false promise thing with Saints Row The Third, but they corrected that by giving PS3 owners a free copy of the second game instead. Now that's compensation. Lose an exclusive game mode, get a full game (a full game that's bigger and better than Saints Row The Third mind you) free? That's how you apologize for a fuck-up, EA. Not by saying "you get to pay for DLC one week early" which they had already offered anyway.

Now we just wait until news comes out that the plaintiffs in the class action suit have been banned from EAs forums and had the Origins accounts frozen.

I wasnt even aware they were giving away free copies of 1943 with this game.

Ah well, just another guy looking to waste some time I guess.

Electronic Arts?
More like Exploitative Assholes

first day of college business law class, the professor told us that kind of shit was illegal. makes you wonder if anyone from EA actually went to college.

Xanadu84:
I understand why they did it. Complicated business oddities. But end of the day, they did promise a product that they could, but didn't, provide. And there wasn't even a substitute.

Also, does this intersect in any way with the whole, "No class action lawsuits allowed" EULA bit? Actually just to go on a bit of tangent, what would happen if it was Sony doing this?

That's for Origin, which isn't on the PS3, and PSN, which didn't promised anything. It was all EA, and they're not protected from a class-action in this case.

But if there was no class-action suit allowed, then the customers would have been screwed. Simple as that. If they promised free 1943 on Origin, and you bought BF3 and they didn't deliver, you'd be screwed with now way to get them to hold up their end of the bargain.

Prof. Monkeypox:
While it does seem, at first glance, like standard spoiled entitlement, EA has pulled this kind of shit for too long- and this really is a huge dick move. So, go team!

If nothing else, it might help EA think twice in the future before trying to screw its customers. I hope.

Why does it look like spoiled entitlement at first glance?

Promises were made, then broken after the release of the game.
Seems perfectly legitimate to be upset by that.

OT:
I hope EA lose this one.
You cannot go around advertising such a deal, and then not deliver the product as advertised.

That's a really lame thing to do: promise something, and after you buy it, it's just "Nope, we changed our mind, you won't get it!".
So, yeah. Not cool at all.

Irridium:

Xanadu84:
I understand why they did it. Complicated business oddities. But end of the day, they did promise a product that they could, but didn't, provide. And there wasn't even a substitute.

Also, does this intersect in any way with the whole, "No class action lawsuits allowed" EULA bit? Actually just to go on a bit of tangent, what would happen if it was Sony doing this?

That's for Origin, which isn't on the PS3, and PSN, which didn't promised anything. It was all EA, and they're not protected from a class-action in this case.

But if there was no class-action suit allowed, then the customers would have been screwed. Simple as that. If they promised free 1943 on Origin, and you bought BF3 and they didn't deliver, you'd be screwed with now way to get them to hold up their end of the bargain.

I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

I doubt it though.

And if it is, then the law must be changed asap.

Fuck me, a class-action lawsuit from gamers that's not retarded.

I guess the pigs have started flying.

Irridium:

Xanadu84:
I understand why they did it. Complicated business oddities. But end of the day, they did promise a product that they could, but didn't, provide. And there wasn't even a substitute.

Also, does this intersect in any way with the whole, "No class action lawsuits allowed" EULA bit? Actually just to go on a bit of tangent, what would happen if it was Sony doing this?

That's for Origin, which isn't on the PS3, and PSN, which didn't promised anything. It was all EA, and they're not protected from a class-action in this case.

But if there was no class-action suit allowed, then the customers would have been screwed. Simple as that. If they promised free 1943 on Origin, and you bought BF3 and they didn't deliver, you'd be screwed with now way to get them to hold up their end of the bargain.

I would doubt that any judge/court/whatever, if there was a case to be made, would throw it out simply because EA had said "you can't sue us so nuur". I know US law gets pretty mightily retarded in these sorts of areas, but I can't imagine it allowing them to go that far.

Wait wait wait wait wait. When the hell did EA say we were supposed to get free copies of Battlefield 1943. Im actually serious I dont ever remember hearing that. Im sure they did I am just wondering where and when this was actually announced because that really determines if this law suit has any merit at all.

Stopped buying EA games 2 years ago.

fenrizz:
I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

When it comes to Origin (their crappy version of steam) then yes they have the right because it is included with their EULA. However it is actually pretty specific about what kind of lawsuit is not allowed. You can still sue EA if they release a game on Origin and no one in the world can play it because you know you paid for a product, however something like this false advertising thing they just did they could get away with.

I was about to go into a tirade about retarded law-suits, but, after reading this, I was thankfully wrong.

Good God EA, can't you do something right for a change? That was a dick move and you know it.

Desworks:

Sometimes I wonder if big game publishers have a special department for creating bad PR, because there's no way that they can generate this much by accident.

I don't know about other companies, but if history is any indication, EA certainly does.

I'm not surprised by this at all. I remember when they offered BF1942, and I was surprised at the time they were offering it up since it was never a console release previously. I was a bit impressed that they were going to port the game to a console at all.

Low and behold, they spoiled one of the few positive feelings I have felt about EA in a really long time. If people think they are rotten now, I remember hating them for buying the game company Origin System. Why? Because I knew some of their more promising, fun and creative properties would disappear, as they did.

EA, with bullshit like this you're making me wish more and more that Maxis wasn't absorbed into you...

sgtslacker:

fenrizz:
I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

When it comes to Origin (their crappy version of steam) then yes they have the right because it is included with their EULA. However it is actually pretty specific about what kind of lawsuit is not allowed. You can still sue EA if they release a game on Origin and no one in the world can play it because you know you paid for a product, however something like this false advertising thing they just did they could get away with.

I thought a contract was rendered void if it specified something illegal or unethical, where the anti class action lawsuit seems to be both. Or at least the unethical part would be cut out.

OT: What a bunch of pricks. Bait and screw you seems a bit light. It's a bit more like bait and bend over and bite the pillow, bitches.

I'm not sure which is worse, that they didn't go through with it, or that they came up with such an insulting substitute "deal".

Someone at EA is not just stupid, but actively despises their customers. Hopefully that person loses their job.

Waitwaitwaitwait. I lawsuit story on the Escapist that... makes sense? Yeah, I kind of hope these guys win. There's actual justification behind this lawsuit and what EA did was super douchey. So, good luck, dudes. Good luck.

sgtslacker:

fenrizz:
I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

When it comes to Origin (their crappy version of steam) then yes they have the right because it is included with their EULA. However it is actually pretty specific about what kind of lawsuit is not allowed. You can still sue EA if they release a game on Origin and no one in the world can play it because you know you paid for a product, however something like this false advertising thing they just did they could get away with.

1. EULAs have been shown more than once to be full of holes in the justice system.

2. I actually question whether it is actually legal putting that in the EULA. There are many things that are put into contracts but cannot be held up in court. This seems like it could be one of them

fenrizz:

I am no expert on law, but does the law even allow EA to deny class action lawsuits?

I doubt it though.

And if it is, then the law must be changed asap.

Woodsey:

I would doubt that any judge/court/whatever, if there was a case to be made, would throw it out simply because EA had said "you can't sue us so nuur". I know US law gets pretty mightily retarded in these sorts of areas, but I can't imagine it allowing them to go that far.

The US Supreme Court ruled a while ago that shit like this is enforceable. Only way it can be overruled is by Congress. It's pretty much why Sony and EA have added their own clauses forbiding class-action lawsuits over PSN and Origin. Because now they know they can legally do it.

So yeah, it's a pretty shitty situation.

i had an issue with a promised missing piece of dlc furniture with a sims 3 expansion, contacted support and in 3 weeks i ended up with a copy of mirrors edge for free as compensation.. and a week later "you have been selected to participate in the old republic beta.." i sign up and "you are not eligible "

strabge how EA can be amazingly decent and dicks at the same time depending on who you talk to

Yeah, this is blatant false advertisement 101. Don't promise what you can't deliver, is that so hard?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here