Are there legal Possibilities????

[HcopenhagenH]

Why can't someone return a Video Game? If they game sucks and isn't what the developer promises then why can't it not be returned.

I just received a couple a weeks a go a letter in the mail of being able to hop on a class action suit of small engine makers. Apparently they were false advertising the HP of their engines. EX. The engine would be 4.9 HP and they would write on the engine 5.75 HP. If I had sent in the paper work I would have received over $100.00 in compensation. This lawsuit was in 100's of millions of dollars being rewarded to the consumer.

Why can't video gamers do this to EA on the NCAA and Madden series? Surely a smart lawyer would take this case on. It would be a huge case because Video Game Developers screw over people each year with piss poor products. If the product isn't good then they still put it on the shelves. Car manufacturers can't do this because they would face the Lemon Law. Why should Video Game Manufactures be able to put broken games on the shelves? They know when it goes gold if it is broken or not. And if they don't know then they didn't have due diligence on the job.

If a car manufacturer has to eat money because they can't make a satisfactory product then why should these game developers be held to a different standard? If they game doesn't work on purchase like it should then they should have to refund the consumers money. They know before they put the game on the shelves that the game doesn't work properly. Why should they be protected?

Being able to patch the game isn't an excuse either. It is an inconvenience to the consumer. If I buy a game in July I shouldn't have to wait until the end of August for the game to be fixed. Patches should only be used to make the game better and add content. EA uses patches for fixing problems because of piss poor programming.

If the game has to be patched Day 1 then it is a BROKEN game. If it isn't playable out of the box the it is a BROKEN GAME. Sorry, but in my opinion EA owes a lot of people money.

[Skinsman 68]

Well I am only a workers' comp attorney but there are a couple of things that would likely derail this idea. The first problem is you are talking about subjectivity aren't you HH? What is a broken game for you might not be a broken game for others. Generally, you are talking about products liability here. Most products have a couple of implied warranties built into them. One is the warranty of merchantability that says a product will be adequate and useable for the purposes it was designed. The other warranty is what they call warranty for a specific purpose. This is usually more precise and means the product is designed for a specific purpose and the manufacturer warrants it is fit for this. It's been a while since I thought of this so forgive me if my memory has lapsed on this issue.

Essentially, I think one would have to show the game to be unplayable before you would have something here. I am not saying it would have to be as bad as Big Rigs or something. But, you would have to show that the game did not deliver what it was supposed to deliver, which is a college football video game. The fact that certain aspects of the game don't work as well as they should, or that a couple of plays are defectively programmed is probably not going to be enough to win that suit because the game is playable in probably 70-90% of the other aspects. If EA had come out and represented that certain flaws had been fixed and they really were not, then you might have something to go on. And, you indicated a smart lawyer could figure this out. Well, I am pretty smart as far as my area of law, but I would defer to a business specialist as to these issues. Cars are a bit different or even engines because there are public safety issues involved creating public policy concerns. Whenever you get public safety involved, the Courts are much more willing to listen.

I think any lawyer would really have to look at these issues closely and figure out what would be the best theory to proceed under. Because if consumer dissatisfaction in a game equated to a lawsuit, then every developer would get sued by at least a few people for every game ever released. The Courts aren't going to go down that path my friend.

[HcopenhagenH]

Originally Posted by Skinsman 68

Well I am only a workers' comp attorney but there are a couple of things that would likely derail this idea. The first problem is you are talking about subjectivity aren't you HH? What is a broken game for you might not be a broken game for others. Generally, you are talking about products liability here. Most products have a couple of implied warranties built into them. One is the warranty of merchantability that says a product will be adequate and useable for the purposes it was designed. The other warranty is what they call warranty for a specific purpose. This is usually more precise and means the product is designed for a specific purpose and the manufacturer warrants it is fit for this. It's been a while since I thought of this so forgive me if my memory has lapsed on this issue.

Essentially, I think one would have to show the game to be unplayable before you would have something here. I am not saying it would have to be as bad as Big Rigs or something. But, you would have to show that the game did not deliver what it was supposed to deliver, which is a college football video game. The fact that certain aspects of the game don't work as well as they should, or that a couple of plays are defectively programmed is probably not going to be enough to win that suit because the game is playable in probably 70-90% of the other aspects. If EA had come out and represented that certain flaws had been fixed and they really were not, then you might have something to go on. And, you indicated a smart lawyer could figure this out. Well, I am pretty smart as far as my area of law, but I would defer to a business specialist as to these issues. Cars are a bit different or even engines because there are public safety issues involved creating public policy concerns. Whenever you get public safety involved, the Courts are much more willing to listen.

I think any lawyer would really have to look at these issues closely and figure out what would be the best theory to proceed under. Because if consumer dissatisfaction in a game equated to a lawsuit, then every developer would get sued by at least a few people for every game ever released. The Courts aren't going to go down that path my friend.

I was just throwing something out there to think about.

If your headlights break on a car a week after you buy the car the vehicle isn't technically broken. However, you can't drive at night and it is an inconvenience to get the car fixed. Same thing would go for you wind shield wipers. The vehicle isn't broken, but you can't drive in the rain and it is an inconvenience.

For the game, we all know Season Showdown is broken. The Game Freezes and EA admits to it. By issuing patches for the game EA is admitting to failures in the programming and parts of the game being broken. The entire game isn't broken but there are parts of the game being advertised that you can't use. Similar to not being able to drive at night when the head lights are broke.