The reason some of you are terrified of a slippery slope...

[Stigbob]

I would hope such a class action lawsuit on the grounds of false advertisement would never occur, but if such a time ever exists I'd be glad to link you the relevant information.

I'm sure that you would also wish for such a thing never to occur, either.

They always spoke of power play as being adversarial play between groups, so the advertising is absolutely sound.

 

[Hellrot]

I am a soon to be released psychopath.

That's right, my brother! Soon, very soon we shall satisfy our hunger!

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I would hope such a class action lawsuit on the grounds of false advertisement would never occur, but if such a time ever exists I'd be glad to link you the relevant information.

I'm sure that you would also wish for such a thing never to occur, either.

It's not happening. Ill bet you good money FDEV won;t see a day in court over PP. I never questioned the concept of a "class action", this is on the same ridiculous level as the "Lost" fans wanting to sue the show because they promised "questions would be answered", but were unsatisfied.

 

[Sylveria]

It's not happening. Ill bet you good money FDEV won;t see a day in court over PP. I never questioned the concept of a "class action", this is on the same ridiculous level as the "Lost" fans wanting to sue the show because they promised "questions would be answered", but were unsatisfied.

An established, tangible product that has been released for years with the same advertising is a bit difference from a TV Show. Not that I don't understand the direction of your analogy, but it does seem a bit weak.

Anyway, continue with your "forum-fu" if you must, but the reality is a bit different, as well as the pertinence to the topic.

It's a slippery slope- and if you can't see it, there's really no help for you here.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

An established, tangible product that has been released for years with the same advertising is a bit difference from a TV Show. Not that I don't understand the direction of your analogy, but it does seem a bit weak.

Anyway, continue with your "forum-fu" if you must, but the reality is a bit different, as well as the pertinence to the topic.

It's a slippery slope- and if you can't see it, there's really no help for you here.

Shame it isn't me you have to convince, it's the devs As Stigbob said "They always spoke of power play as being adversarial play between groups, so the advertising is absolutely sound.". The EULA covers any gameplay changes they wish to make. If the game went down tomorrow, you wouldn't have a legal recourse. Their lawyers are WAY ahead of you. And the "reality" is, this change is happening.

 

[Sylveria]

Shame it isn't me you have to convince, it's the devs As Stigbob said "They always spoke of power play as being adversarial play between groups, so the advertising is absolutely sound.". The EULA covers any gameplay changes they wish to make. If the game went down tomorrow, you wouldn't have a legal recourse. Their lawyers are WAY ahead of you.

Again, EULA's are not free license to do anything with a product you wish. If they were- every company out there would just include one with every product they sell and there would be no legal recourse available to customers.

Apparently the law is way ahead of the lawyers.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Again, EULA's are not free license to do anything with a product you wish.

I never claimed otherwise, they are not making a human centipede out of you because you failed to read the T&C.. they are covered legally because this is a gameplay change. Every game with online play comes with a warning about "the nature of the experience may be subject to change".. or something to that effect. You are telling me a lawsuit will happen, I am telling you it won't. We just have to agree to disagree i suppose... but time will prove one of us right. You speak of "the law", but have yet to point to any actual legal information, just assumptions. If you are so confident you would win, go for it!

 

[Sylveria]

I never claimed otherwise, they are not making a human centipede out of you because you failed to read the T&C.. they are covered legally because this is a gameplay change. Every game with online play comes with a warning about "the nature of the experience may be subject to change".. or something to that effect. You are telling me a lawsuit will happen, I am telling you i won't. We just have to agree to disagree i suppose... but time will prove one of us right. You speak of "the law", but have yet to point to any actual legal information, just assumptions. If you are so confident you would win, go for it!

And I never claimed I would be the one to bring a suit to bear, either.

Such would become inevitable, however- with serious changes being made to a product that as I outlined earlier change the very nature of the product from its original advertisement.

In short- I'm simply advising caution here.

 

[Sterling MH]

The thing is with the exception of CQC PP is one of the most hated things in the game

Why? It is PRECISELY what the PvP crowd say they want in this game: a chance to test their mettle against not a poorly armed AI idiot, but a REAL HUMAN where SKILL counts.

If it's hated, the only reason can be that it's because it's even and a fair fight in CQC.

That is definitely what FD thought CQC would be and what they thought PP would be, as well as what they think this change would be.

How many times does the same thing have to be done before anyone realises that what the PvP crowd say is not what they want?

They always spoke of power play as being adversarial play between groups, so the advertising is absolutely sound.

It is. Groups of people playing for one faction, some in Open, some in PG, some in Solo, and another group of people playing for the other faction, some in open, some PG and some solo.

where's the beef?

 

[Sterling MH]

I would hope such a class action lawsuit on the grounds of false advertisement would never occur, but if such a time ever exists I'd be glad to link you the relevant information.

I'm sure that you would also wish for such a thing never to occur, either.

Arcadius should pay up as much again if such a case happens. After all, if it is impossible, he will not be risking anything, right?

 

[Hellrot]

I am a soon to be released psychopath.

And I never claimed I would be the one to bring a suit to bear, either.

Such would become inevitable, however- with serious changes being made to a product that as I outlined earlier change the very nature of the product from its original advertisement.

In short- I'm simply advising caution here.

Hnghhhh, I'm so sick and tired of the armchair lawyers in this and other threads. Let me tell you something as someone who practiced Law.

1. If you think Kickstarter pledges can hold the game's future development hostage, think again. Kickstarter funds are technically donations, and if they tell you to - there's nothing you can do. I've worked with many marketplace and a few crowdfunding platforms. Kickstarter is the only place I've seen that consistenly defends against chargebacks. In retail and ordinary online stores - you're SOL if the client files a chargeback in 90% cases. Kickstarter is NOT a store.

2. Even if we're ignoring the above, FDev's EULA enables them to do anything they want to their game, their servers, their company, and your account.

The idea of an actual lawsuit is beyond pathetic who knows anything about how it actually works.

 

[Old Duck]

I would hope such a class action lawsuit on the grounds of false advertisement would never occur, but if such a time ever exists I'd be glad to link you the relevant information.

Oh please..... [wacko]

 

[hgoel]

Why? It is PRECISELY what the PvP crowd say they want in this game: a chance to test their mettle against not a poorly armed AI idiot, but a REAL HUMAN where SKILL counts.

If it's hated, the only reason can be that it's because it's even and a fair fight in CQC.

That is definitely what FD thought CQC would be and what they thought PP would be, as well as what they think this change would be.

How many times does the same thing have to be done before anyone realises that what the PvP crowd say is not what they want?



It is. Groups of people playing for one faction, some in Open, some in PG, some in Solo, and another group of people playing for the other faction, some in open, some PG and some solo.

where's the beef?

The engineering changes were also driven by the PvP community, and they have been received rather positively by said community. CQC isn't popular because it loses most of what makes regular pvp interesting, your own customizable ships, fighting not only for fun, but also to contribute to something (such as denying enemy merits in powerplay) and the organic nature of much of PvP in open.

 

[Sylveria]

Arcadius should pay up as much again if such a case happens. After all, if it is impossible, he will not be risking anything, right?

Risk versus reward, eh?

 

[CMDR John Casey]

Wow when I see so many people advocating for bringing FDev to court on a change about a minor feature (only 20 % of CMDRS are pledged according to Inara), I've the feeling that they'd prefer to sink FDev rather than play the game.

 

[ryan_m]

Why? It is PRECISELY what the PvP crowd say they want in this game: a chance to test their mettle against not a poorly armed AI idiot, but a REAL HUMAN where SKILL counts.

If it's hated, the only reason can be that it's because it's even and a fair fight in CQC.

That is definitely what FD thought CQC would be and what they thought PP would be, as well as what they think this change would be.

How many times does the same thing have to be done before anyone realises that what the PvP crowd say is not what they want?



It is. Groups of people playing for one faction, some in Open, some in PG, some in Solo, and another group of people playing for the other faction, some in open, some PG and some solo.

where's the beef?

CQC is hated because it does not represent main-game combat, which is what PvP pilots enjoy. There are powerups, you fly ships that aren't main-game ships, and you respawn when you die. If you knew what you were talking about at all, you wouldn't be saying these things, but it's clear you don't.

How else would you describe the PvP Hub? It's a discord server made up entirely of PvPers with a matchmaking bot to get organized fights. We crossed 1k fights about a month and a half ago. There are monthly events. Pretty much all the "ganker" groups you are talking about have a huge presence in it.

Please stop talking about things you don't know about. It's embarrassing for you.

 

[Sylveria]

Wow when I see so many people advocating for bringing FDev to court on a change about a minor feature (only 20 % of CMDRS are pledged according to Inara), I've the feeling that they'd prefer to sink FDev rather than play the game.

The premise isn't in regard to PP- it's about the eventual change to remove all modes and favor Open.

The "slippery slope" being discussed is that if they'll favor one over others- it's heading in that direction... not just the removal of a "minor feature".

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Risk versus reward, eh?

The only thing at stake here is the pride of people who are looking to get their vicarious thrills through an imaginary lawsuit

Wow when I see so many people advocating for bringing FDev to court on a change about a minor feature (only 20 % of CMDRS are pledged according to Inara), I've the feeling that they'd prefer to sink FDev rather than play the game.

No they would rather see FDEV "sank", than see the hated "PVP crowd" get some gameplay features designed exclusively for them.

 

[Old Duck]

The premise isn't in regard to PP- it's about the eventual change to remove all modes and favor Open.

I'd be interested in seeing how this would actually go in court. IMO, if you've already gotten x number of hours of enjoyment playing the game, you're not going to be able to sue for a refund, and if you do get a refund, it will be prorated based on the amount of hours that you've already played.

This is assuming it made it to court in the first place. People are underestimating the legal binding of a EULA, which you all agreed to before installing and playing the game.

FWIW, IANAL and what I do know is based on American laws.

 

[Hellrot]

And I never claimed I would be the one to bring a suit to bear, either.

Such would become inevitable, however- with serious changes being made to a product that as I outlined earlier change the very nature of the product from its original advertisement.

In short- I'm simply advising caution here.

Hnghhhh, I'm so sick and tired of the armchair lawyers in this and other threads. Let me tell you something as someone who practiced Law.

1. If you think Kickstarter pledges can hold the game's future development hostage, think again. Kickstarter funds are technically donations, and if they tell you to take a hike - there's nothing you can do. I've worked with many marketplace and a few crowdfunding platforms. Kickstarter is the only place I've seen that consistenly defends against chargebacks. In retail and ordinary online stores - you're SOL if the client files a chargeback in 90% cases. Kickstarter is NOT a store.

2. Even if we're ignoring the above, FDev's EULA enables them to do anything they want to their game, their servers, their company, and your account. The idea of an actual lawsuit is beyond pathetic for anyone who knows anything about how it actually works.