EA Sued For Shutting Down Online Games

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
EA just can’t win these days. Disgruntled gamers have filed a federal class action suit against EA for shutting down online games prematurely and without warning, violating fair marketing practices

Had plaintiff known at the time that he would not be able to play the products online for a certain amount of time, he would not have purchased the products or paid the price he paid for the products.
Click to expand...
 
Xbox 360 owners have an absurd sense of entitlement that it borders on being as bad as people who play MMOs on the PC. Now every game will have to have some sort of "best if used by" date on the box.
 
They can't win b/c they are led by clueless suit monkeys. Corporate is a curse word in my vocabulary.

You should give a couple of months warning at least. Especially if you aren't broke.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Xbox 360 owners have an absurd sense of entitlement that it borders on being as bad as people who play MMOs on the PC. Now every game will have to have some sort of "best if used by" date on the box.
Click to expand...
Idk, if a game has a 1 year life expectancy and that was known to EA, it should be on the box.

I never bought one of these type of sports games before, but I would have assumed I could made it last 3 year, just be pretty lonely as other people moved on.
 
Not that I support EA in any way but isn't it spelled out in the EULA that server can be shut down without notice and servers are not guaranteed? They may have no case.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Not that I support EA in any way but isn't it spelled out in the EULA that server can be shut down without notice and servers are not guaranteed? They may have no case.
Click to expand...

Oh, well in that case sir, excuse me, please carry on.

And when you walk by the trash can you throw away this bunch of papers entitled "First Sale Doctorine". I know it's not anything to do with you, but its just so annoying I can't stand to look at it anymore.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Not that I support EA in any way but isn't it spelled out in the EULA that server can be shut down without notice and servers are not guaranteed? They may have no case.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that is in every ToS/EULA. It is on Steam's ToS. If Valve ever did a Phil Fish, every game you "bought" on steam would be gone.
 
And this kind of shit is Exactly why I am 100% Against all this cloud gaming bullshit. I want my Games On a physical disc and with zero requirement to "Phone home". The obvious exceptions being purely online games. Anything with a Single player mode though, Nope not acceptable. I really fail to see why people are blind enough to defend this shit.
 
No better sticky beaked company to be sued. Hope they win a HUGE judgement.
 
right on. physical disk is hard copy. who wants just a data connection that may not always be there?
 
I remember purchasing a game from EA that was online only. It wasnt alot, but you had to pay like a $5/month fee plus purchase the game outright. After about 6 months of owning it, it was abruptly shut down and couldnt be played anymore.

I was pretty pissed off about it. The game wasnt a big hit by any means, but it was enjoyable to play. I do believe that was my last EA game besides BF3.

Do I agree with class action lawsuits? Not really as you get virtually nothing but they should be fined and money sent to a charity or something for their bullshit ways of screwing you out of money.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
And this kind of shit is Exactly why I am 100% Against all this cloud gaming bullshit. I want my Games On a physical disc and with zero requirement to "Phone home". The obvious exceptions being purely online games. Anything with a Single player mode though, Nope not acceptable. I really fail to see why people are blind enough to defend this shit.
Click to expand...

This really doesn't have anything to do with single sale, well sort of.

The issue is games that are dependent on the publisher/vendor to run the servers. If the client could host, or 3rd parties could host online gameplay then the issue would be moot.

Sad that games even on PC can rarely host their own LAN/Servers anymore.

This is also the cost of the ever popular "stats" which of course players also want the vendor to "police" and protect from "padders" etc (for no real reason other then to protect e-peen).
 
There is nothing they can do about it period. It is in the EULA agreement simple as that.
On the other hand I would love for valve/steam to close down also and end this cloud rubbish bs people have been fooled into buying and letting someone else store your software.
 
yelsewshane said:
There is nothing they can do about it period. It is in the EULA agreement simple as that.
On the other hand I would love for valve/steam to close down also and end this cloud rubbish bs people have been fooled into buying and letting someone else store your software.
Click to expand...
Steam is not 'cloud' based gaming. It does have cloud saves on many games which can be disabled. Its an online distributor with an online licensing client.

Cloud gaming is running the game off servers not local to you. Completely different situation in terms of feasibility.
 
yelsewshane said:
There is nothing they can do about it period. It is in the EULA agreement simple as that.
On the other hand I would love for valve/steam to close down also and end this cloud rubbish bs people have been fooled into buying and letting someone else store your software.
Click to expand...

Of course, people shouldn't have the choice to buy their stuff online. Down with Steam. :rolleyes:

If you want physical DRM free games, stick to games that offers them. It's not Valve's fault if a company chooses to not make DRM free games.
 
Just to point out, EULAs are not legally binding. People have already successfully sued companies over things that were mentioned in the EULA. Companies try to get away with whatever they can in EULAs. Doesn't make it legal, though. That's not determined until it goes to court.

EA has been doing this for years, now, though. Nothing new here. Just someone new to complain about it. One of MANY reasons why I haven't bought a game from EA in years, and won't.
 
Suit by itself is stupid...

Hopefully they win, if for no other reason than reigning in EULAs and dickish publishers like EA.
 
Very difficult case to win as the burden of proof is on them. Oftentimes cases like this actually hurt the cause more than help it by setting written precedent. The choice to pursue it as a class action is indicative that they are aware of both these facts as it improves their chances while reducing the likelihood of blow-back/counter-sue. One of the reason EA and many other companies have specific class action lawsuit rules with regards to their EULA is challenges like this.
 
defunctdoormat said:
Just to point out, EULAs are not legally binding. People have already successfully sued companies over things that were mentioned in the EULA. Companies try to get away with whatever they can in EULAs. Doesn't make it legal, though. That's not determined until it goes to court.

EA has been doing this for years, now, though. Nothing new here. Just someone new to complain about it. One of MANY reasons why I haven't bought a game from EA in years, and won't.
Click to expand...

It's especially wonderful when EULA's are subject to change at whim and you're required to sign on to the revised version or else lose access to what you purchased. Every lawsuit that hurts the legitimacy of the EULA is a win for consumers.
 
I don't agree with some of the things EA has done to its loyal customers, but to be honest, there doesn't seem to be much in this specific case that I have a problem with. In the article, the plaintiff claimed that they bought an undisclosed sports title for $60, "relying on Electronic Arts' representation that the games were enabled for unlimited, online play." That's the first issue I have; I don't think games are represented as being online play for an unlimited amount of time. That is the person's assumption. Second, what was the exact game they purchased? It could not have been a current, recent title. If you read the legal brief, you will find that the specific games in question were ones purchased between the years 2008-2010. None of the specific titles that the primary plaintiff purchased (at least, as listed in the legal brief) are newer than three years old. That's a long time in current computer/console gaming.

It's unreasonable to expect a gaming company to support online play indefinitely. Aside from "cult" games, three years is a long enough time to support online gaming IMHO.

Lastly, didn't EA--like every other software and hardware company these days--integrate independent arbitration clauses into their EULA's? Meaning you cannot initiate a class action lawsuit (or rather, a court will not acknowledge the legality of the class action lawsuit). Since these arbitration clauses have already been upheld in courts with various large companies, I can't see this class action lawsuit being recognized beyond the initial brief submission. It'll probably just get kicked back to the single plaintiff, instructing them to follow the independent arbitration clause that they agreed to by continuing to use the EA games and services.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Not that I support EA in any way but isn't it spelled out in the EULA that server can be shut down without notice and servers are not guaranteed? They may have no case.
Click to expand...

They absolutely have a case. Unless it's on the box, then you can't see the terms until you install the software. That also requires opening the box to see the terms, and once it's open you can't return it. Under that consideration, if a major feature of the game is multiplayer gaming (and advertised as such), and the limitation isn't outlined on the box, then the plaintiffs have a case. It's not common for servers to be shut down so shortly after a release, and it wasn't made clear until after the item was nonreturnable. Valid case.

Think of it this way: You buy a lawnmower that's self propelled and has an electric start. About six months later, your electric start stops working. You call the manufacturer and they tell you that it's planned, all of the lawnmowers of that model are set to have the electric start stop working on the 1st of July, and that you should have read the terms that were inside the sealed box before making your purchase. Same as above, it's not common for a a lawnmower to have a timed deactivation, and it wasn't made clear until after the purchase was made. Valid case.
 
canna said:
They absolutely have a case. Unless it's on the box, then you can't see the terms until you install the software. That also requires opening the box to see the terms, and once it's open you can't return it. Under that consideration, if a major feature of the game is multiplayer gaming (and advertised as such), and the limitation isn't outlined on the box, then the plaintiffs have a case. It's not common for servers to be shut down so shortly after a release, and it wasn't made clear until after the item was nonreturnable. Valid case.
Click to expand...
This is not true. First, you do not agree to the EULA after you install the software; only before (otherwise, the EULA is meaningless). Second, you can get a refund for a game that you have opened and decided you do not want after reading the license agreement (of course, you could not have installed the game, since that would have required acceptance of the terms). Best Buy will give you a refund if you tell them you did not approve of the EULA (though I'm sure there's a limit to the amount of time you can wait, and it depends how insistent you are when you speak to someone). You can also get a refund from the studio if you notify them that you purchased the game but did not want to accept the EULA and no longer want the game (but you cannot have installed/registered the game).

But that's a bit irrelevant to this case. No one required the plaintiff to accept the EULA. They did that voluntarily when they intentionally clicked on the "I Agree" button. The fact that you have to purchase and open the game doesn't matter. You are not required to accept the EULA just because you bought the game (seeking a refund is a completely different topic), and there are avenues for refunds if you do not accept the terms of the EULA.

canna said:
Think of it this way: You buy a lawnmower that's self propelled and has an electric start. About six months later, your electric start stops working. You call the manufacturer and they tell you that it's planned, all of the lawnmowers of that model are set to have the electric start stop working on the 1st of July, and that you should have read the terms that were inside the sealed box before making your purchase. Same as above, it's not common for a a lawnmower to have a timed deactivation, and it wasn't made clear until after the purchase was made. Valid case.
Click to expand...
Again, irrelevant. You are always entitled to return an item or product if you decided you do not want to agree to the terms before you begin using it.

This is also a completely different situation. If you read through the first bit of the legal brief, the games the plaintiff is using in the suit were purchased between 2008-2010. They're all fairly old games. I can't think of a reasonable assumption that a company must be required to support games indefinitely. 3-5 years from release is a reasonable amount of time.
 
Sony and Microsoft have both said their consoles are good for 10 years. So they should enforce that for those who develop for their platform. What good is a console made to last 10 years when the games may only last a year?
 
Look, if it says unlimited online play on the box it should be unlimited.
If EA wants to shut down servers, put "Unlimited online play until XX/XX/XXXX" on the outside of the box.
2-3 years of online support is reasonable for a game that comes out every year.
 
I have Mercenaries 2 for the Xbox 360 and I have to unplug the network cable to play it since it checks for the server before starting up, but there is no server anymore and the game won't start unless you disconnect from the network.
 
If I remember well enough, EA states that the servers can be taken down with a 30 day notice given. Enough gaming websites get this information to make announcements, which come from some form of communication from EA, whether it be via their website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Ignorance can be bliss sometimes, but stupidity is not.
 
EvilWays said:
If I remember well enough, EA states that the servers can be taken down with a 30 day notice given. Enough gaming websites get this information to make announcements, which come from some form of communication from EA, whether it be via their website, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Ignorance can be bliss sometimes, but stupidity is not.
Click to expand...

Then if that's the EULA policy, everyone should just stop buying EA games until their policy changes.
 
The servers being shut down are for games nobody is playing. That's why Allied Assault is still up. I think people are more upset at the idea of it being done than actually upset they can't play their game they weren't playing anyway.
 
SGA76 said:
Look, if it says unlimited online play on the box it should be unlimited.
If EA wants to shut down servers, put "Unlimited online play until XX/XX/XXXX" on the outside of the box.
2-3 years of online support is reasonable for a game that comes out every year.
Click to expand...

There is an actual disclaimer on the box regarding online play. For example NHL 10
959973_124579_back.jpg


EA MAY RETIRE ONLINE FEATURES AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON WWW.EA.COM OR 30 DAYS AFTER THE LAST DAY OF THE 2009-2010 SEASON
Click to expand...

SGA76 said:
Then if that's the EULA policy, everyone should just stop buying EA games until their policy changes.
Click to expand...

The issue here is you would have to almost boycott everyone, almost certainly the larger companies, since they all have termination clauses in their EULAs.
 
All companies with online features have it in their EULA that they may shutdown online servers they usually have a hard date past release were they will not, like 6 months a year or w.e but after that it's fair game. It's so they don't have to keep servers up for 5 people till the end of time.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
And this kind of shit is Exactly why I am 100% Against all this cloud gaming bullshit. I want my Games On a physical disc and with zero requirement to "Phone home". The obvious exceptions being purely online games. Anything with a Single player mode though, Nope not acceptable. I really fail to see why people are blind enough to defend this shit.
Click to expand...

Yeah but The Cloud ™ is magical and the cloud is the future. You don't want to get left behind so you. Bend over and "Just accept change",
 
EULA's and TOS may not be binding where you are, they certainly aren't even worth reading legally, in New Zealand ;)
 
Wouldn't it be more convenient for players to be able to run their own servers like in the olden days instead of having these publishers control all the servers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top