GTA Online Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

GTA Online Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

GTA Online

A classic action lawsuit filed against Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar Games over the delayed launch of GTA Online has been dismissed.

In November of last year, Bruce McMahon launched a class action lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar Games, stating that Grand Theft Auto V launched in mid-September at a "premium" price but without GTA Online. The suit claimed that the absence of the promised online service constituted false advertising and was in violation of California consumer protection laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips did not agree, however. She noted that the package for Grand Theft Auto V did not state that the multiplayer component would be available immediately after launch, as well as warnings on the package that online play "may not be available to all users." Because of that, the judge ruled Take-Two and Rockstar had provided sufficient warning to consumers that the online component might not be ready at launch, and dismissed the case.

GTA Online was originally expected to go live alongside the launch of Grand Theft Auto V, but in August 2013 Rockstar announced that it would be pushed back to October 1.

Source: GamePolitics

Permalink

I don't know why people think they deserve any compensation for it. You paid $60 for an incredible game with tons of single player content, and the online portion is up and running. Unless you get paid to play games online, and lost revenue during it's down time, you deserve nothing.

*head desk*

some one tried to sue over that?

>.>

weren't there story's all over from Rock Star saying the online component would be delayed back then? Even if it did make it to trail the guy wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, glad the judge saw it for the waste of time law suit it was and pitched it.

The judgement seems fine. Seeing as they covered their asses to prevent this specifically, no other outcome was expected.

What's not fine, is this string of "early access" and other unfinished games being sold at full price without a guarantee that the rest will follow. Only a shit ton of disclaimers preventing people from suing.
The gaming industry has become a very ugly place where companies get away with more than any other type of company. No one else in the entire world enjoys this much cash up front for unfinished products.

I'm not saying it's all bad, but this is a new practice, and people have to learn how to avoid some of these traps.

CarnageRacing00:
You paid $60 for an incredible game with tons of single player content, and the online portion is up and running.

Unless you bought it for the online play specifically, since it was marketed as a game unto itself. There were still major problems with the service two months into its uptime, and there are still people being whacked with issues.

Smilomaniac:

What's not fine, is this string of "early access" and other unfinished games being sold at full price without a guarantee that the rest will follow. Only a shit ton of disclaimers preventing people from suing.

Sort of like how GTA Online launched with a bunch of advertised features missing, but was still a full-release?

So....how long until the multiplayer heists are up and running? I seem to remember heisting being a big part of this game... And I was a little disappointed with how few of them there were.

Eventually, one of these lawsuits against Devs shipping unfinished products is going to stick, and it will lay the groundwork for other lawsuits to follow.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but its going to happen eventually, and the way Devs release games will have to change because of it.

The advertisement on the Case for the online is much larger and more prominent then that of the warning that it might not even exist.

Judgement seems very meh. The advertisement was there, the warning was hidden.

This judgement feels as though its telling devs "you can launch what ever crap you want after promising the world, but as long as you stick "it might not be there/work" in tiny writing somewhere with the product, it is acceptable to then not fullfill those promises".

Mass Effect 3 said it would have an epic ending or so, I enjoyed its ending, yet its lawsuit went through. Is that because they didn't put on the box "ending may not be enjoyed by all"?

Why did this even happen. This was clearly and widely advertised as a feature that would not be available at launch. They had plenty of chance to cancel pre orders / not buy day one and just wait.

This is just ridiculous.

Haakmed:
So....how long until the multiplayer heists are up and running? I seem to remember heisting being a big part of this game... And I was a little disappointed with how few of them there were.

I quit playing about a month after it was launched and I remember joking that Heists would be coming out October 2014 as part of the $60 Heist DLC.

I was joking back then, and sadly it looks like a valid prediction now.

Kalezian:

Haakmed:
So....how long until the multiplayer heists are up and running? I seem to remember heisting being a big part of this game... And I was a little disappointed with how few of them there were.

I quit playing about a month after it was launched and I remember joking that Heists would be coming out October 2014 as part of the $60 Heist DLC.

I was joking back then, and sadly it looks like a valid prediction now.

That is more time in it that I had. think I played it for maybe a week at most before I got bored with it.

Andy Chalk:
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips did not agree, however. She noted that the package for Grand Theft Auto V did not state that the multiplayer component would be available immediately after launch,

So its okay to keep advertising a feature that won't be available at launch as a reason to buy it at launch?

Andy Chalk:
as well as warnings on the package that online play "may not be available to all users." Because of that, the judge ruled Take-Two and Rockstar had provided sufficient warning to consumers that the online component might not be ready at launch, and dismissed the case.

How does "may not be available to all users" translate to "not available at all"?

These are two dumb, convoluted excuses for "sufficient warning." If the judge had instead cited press releases in advance of launch, that would make sense. Then again, why should the judge make sense? Its the law, after all. Logic has nothing to do with the law. Why should it when it only exists to protect monied interests? Even if logic happens to be on the side of said monied interests in a particular case, thats no excuse for the judge to let rust her mental contortionist skills necessary for future corporate shilling.

In case you couldn't tell, I have sore spot for dumb, ignorant judges. Its way easier to become a judge than a lawyer. One would assume it would naturally be the other way around, but...

Zachary Amaranth:

Smilomaniac:

What's not fine, is this string of "early access" and other unfinished games being sold at full price without a guarantee that the rest will follow. Only a shit ton of disclaimers preventing people from suing.

Sort of like how GTA Online launched with a bunch of advertised features missing, but was still a full-release?

Like what? They said very clearly before release that the online wouldnt work properly at start and that it would have some features coming latter on. If anyone wanted the game for the online heists then just wait for them to come and then buy the game (even cheaper), like a friend of mine is doing. You cant sue a company for your own impatience.

EiMitch:

Andy Chalk:
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips did not agree, however. She noted that the package for Grand Theft Auto V did not state that the multiplayer component would be available immediately after launch,

So its okay to keep advertising a feature that won't be available at launch as a reason to buy it at launch?

Andy Chalk:
as well as warnings on the package that online play "may not be available to all users." Because of that, the judge ruled Take-Two and Rockstar had provided sufficient warning to consumers that the online component might not be ready at launch, and dismissed the case.

How does "may not be available to all users" translate to "not available at all"?

These are two dumb, convoluted excuses for "sufficient warning." If the judge had instead cited press releases in advance of launch, that would make sense. Then again, why should the judge make sense? Its the law, after all. Logic has nothing to do with the law. Why should it when it only exists to protect monied interests? Even if logic happens to be on the side of said monied interests in a particular case, thats no excuse for the judge to let rust her mental contortionist skills necessary for future corporate shilling.

It's quite simple actually, you put "not available to all" on the boxes when they are first released. People who buy them at the start are the "all" that it is not available to. People who buy after online was released are the people this warning does not apply. In a legal, logical and business sense it is all is pretty simple.

This is stupid. It's so frivolous. And my sides ar bursting.

What a loss it was, not being able to play with dickbags who shoot up you and your car for no reason.

While it is atrocious to release a game without advertised features, regardless of the bullshit disclaimers you put on the box, nor do I think anyone should be sued for that. Maybe don't buy other games of theirs. That would say something.

josemlopes:

Like what? They said very clearly before release that the online wouldnt work properly at start and that it would have some features coming latter on.

So...Like an Early Access game then? It's only different because ponies?

Zachary Amaranth:

josemlopes:

Like what? They said very clearly before release that the online wouldnt work properly at start and that it would have some features coming latter on.

So...Like an Early Access game then? It's only different because ponies?

Unlike most Early Access you actually had enough game already in it to make it a contestent for Game of the Year.

Do people forget that a full singleplayer campaign came in GTA V? Some missing content in the online component wasnt the lack of key features, it was the lack of some content. Early Access usually only come with the barebones and lack whatever actually made the game interesting while promising that the game will be "cool" later on

josemlopes:

Unlike most Early Access you actually had enough game already in it to make it a contestent for Game of the Year.

So winning awards is sufficient to make it different?

Can you define your rules up front so I can test them?

 

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