Just noticed this story, seems that PS3 fans were promised battlefield 1943 with there copy of battlefield 3 and EA change it's mind after releasing the game.

http://kotaku.com/5860729/ea-being-taken-to-court-over-broken-battlefield-promise

From the article

"The suit ultimately alleges that EA "misled and profited from thousands of their customers by making a promise that they could not, and never intended, to keep".

so if it's true bethseda knew about the problems with the PS3 version and released the game anyway, essentially isn't this the same thing ?

hoping the patch will sort out the game but looks like fans are getting sick of being messed about by gaming companies.

Yeah, people are going to start getting alot more razzled up about this kind of crap and start taking it to court. All gamers need to do is gang up on these huge companies and take their money everytime they do this kind of crap. It will definitely stop them from doing it. I mean, look at the skyrim situation, we ps3 users can't play for a WHOLE extra week because of Bethesda's rushed porting of the ps3 version.

I'd say it's not the same thing, additional promised goods were not delivered by EA in the above case.

A quick reaction to that could be to say that Beth didn't deliver a working game as promised, BUT, the small print disclaimer that accompanies all software has them covered on that.

Not the same. EA promised a game officially and then retracted the offer 2 days before release

I think a lot of game companies seem to forget that the major gaming part is now advlt, parent, hard working and over the years more picky on their games.
And we advlts demand quality and satisfaction.

And if we get screwed over about something we do to forget all the screwing that is already done on a daily basis... Its personal.

There's actually no difference, weren't you promised a game that works?

Maybe in your mind that is anologous, however, in a court of LAW lol good luck.

Also, the game would need to be broken for 100% of the players. Clearly it's not.

There is a difference EA did whats called false advertisemant you got what you payed for with skyrim nothing was falsely advertised in the game the bug was just the product of a bad port nothing more

Ok, now I am getting upset. At no point was I promised a working game. EA pulled a bait and switch. It bothers me too that this version is not working well but it is not like it worked to begin with and then was borked by Bethesda. Get a life people, its entertainment software move on to something else. Life is not about Skyrim then you need help...

In response to the thread, you couldnt take it up as an issue the same as what EA are facing there. Purely because theres no promise been made by bethesda, they havent gone back on anything.
However.
Overall, bethesda knew of this issue, it has been present in FO3 and FONV, they knew this... and should have completely tested for this, after it has plagued their engine for the past two releases. Now if they supposedly tested this in depth, then two things have happened:

They never encountered this bug, meaning they didnt test it enough
Or , they did encounter this bug, realise they couldnt fix it before release, so kept quiet about it.

Now the point you could argue is that they knew about this issue before selling the game, and therefore should not have sold you the game OR given you a written warning along with the game that this issue was there.

Failure to do so is clarified as knowingly selling a product of inferior quality, and comes under an attempt to decieve in a transaction.

Now, ontop of this... you can also request a full refund from Bethesda directly, stating the issue, and they should be obliged to give you that full refund. The product is faulty, as far as law goes, it does not do what it says on the tin, so to speak. However you have to go down the route of getting a refund , and being declined one, before you can take any action against them. As by law the issues here fall under product quality and malfunction, not false advertising.

So the LAW states that it's ok to sell broken products to paying costumers and get away with it? People are so [censored] stupid that it actually wouldn't surprise me if that's actually the case.

This here is what you would call a casual gamer, you see some people don't care for socializing that much. I for one don't feel appealed whatsoever by society so instead I replace society with games. So basically saying that we need help is pretty arrogant as I could easily say "Life is not about svcking society's dike, you need help" Truly who needs more help here? People that lead their lives the way they chose to? Or people that blindly follow society's stereotypes?

Obviously I do have friends and whatnot, 4 to be exact. Thought it wouldn't be necessary to mention something so obvious but given the nature of the situation...

no offence to anyone but it's gamers like that who are going to kill the industry and i for one did not even know about the inclusion of bf 1943 on the ps3 with the game but i got it anyway. people need to stop jumping on the band wagon and just let it be they will get around to fixing.

PC player here. Just wanna say this: If the upcoming patch doesn't fix most of the issues you're having, and you truly feel that Bethesda "doesn't care", then I'd say go ahead and make your voice heard. At least you guys can actually get refunds.


But it's game companies like these that are creating gamers like these.

35 years old, playing games since I got my Atari, then Atari ST , after that Amiga then PC and have Xbox and PS3. Casual by no means, I have 2 children who are gamers as well.

You do need help if you dont understand there is a real world outside of a Skyrim and a purchase of 60 dollars ruining your life. I have moved on until a fix is made, if not I will survive unlike other drama queens. See, for me I move on to another quest if it is broken, plenty of other ones to explore the game to its fullest.

Lawl, this made me laugh. This has been happening since the days of the Atari, Panasonic, etc. Games being rushed to market or terribly unplayable ports. Nowadays, we have quality control for most major software developers, but there are still several games that get by under the radar. Look at 95% of the Wii's titles.

Just think, some poor saps actually bought Superman 64, I don't remember them suing over what has to be the worst game of the past 20 years.

The most effective way of getting this to stop is to stop buying things that have a reputation of being broken instead of attempting and failing to take them to court over something you think is official and lawfully binding, when it is not.



The most effective method, by the way, is also by far and away the cheapest.

doubtful that it will go the same, as Bethesda announced already a hotfix/patch for right after the 25th they are having too build three separate patches for 3 different systems if you've ever done coding for Linux coding a patch or a fix isn't something you can do in fifteen minutes, plus the fact they are taking into account its not just the lag issues they are trying fix some quest glitches and such, and the memory leak which I can notice when playing the game for the PS3 so it's doubtful, plus add the fact BF3 players are per-pubascent teens who have rage issues when they don't get what they want there and then. So I doubt it, the elder scrolls has a huge fan base and not just since oblivion before "Oblivion" and before "Morrowind"

There's a law out here in Europe that a company, no matter what they provide, need to give the warranty that they are selling a product that works.
If they can't or don't do that, we as a customer are allowed to ask for a refund and they are obliged to follow that. I don't see how going to court changes those rules.

This lawsuit against EA will not hold its ground and the PS3 fans will eventually get sued by EA for bad media reputation against EA.
Never ever go against a company if you were promised a game and in the end they don't deliver it.
There has been no contract signed, and it's their franchise. Therefore they are allowed to do what they want.
Promises can be broken. That's life. Live with it. It's something totally different with Bethesda though.

That seems like something EA would do. Since they deserve that reputation.

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a lawsuit (though it would pay out more). It's product sold vs. product delivered. There will be a lawsuit and it will be successful. People who don't want the patch will be able to trade it back in for a refund most likely. A few other concessions may be made but unless you can show that they knowingly released this issue (which should be an easy patch for developers if it's the problem I think it is). The fix, if I'm right, is so easy that it'd be insane not to fix the game one the first patch if they were aware of it.

This is COMPLETELY different. EA promised a free copy of BF1943 for PS3 players who bought BF3, but that promise was broken.
What did Bethesda do? Release a game that still has some bugs. Nothing wrong with that, [censored] happens.
Stop thinking every multi billion dollar company is out to get you.

Wait wouldn't that give EA a bad reputation in the end ? meaning they only care about suing and not the fact that someone has tried to give EA bad media.

They released a product that is non-functional. The case is legitimate but the pay out will only be customer refund of the disc if they want it. It'd be stupid to actually pursue it just because it's valid.