Class-Action Lawsuit Anyone?

[vee4473]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I can see it now:

Demo released, small or tiny map, runs great on a lot of pcs
people who can play the demo map rush out to buy the game
game ctds when players with low end systems play larger maps
people curse firaxis for releasing a demo that was purposely enginered to run on crappy systems in order to trick people into buying the full version.

that could possibly be a scenario, but since most complaints stem from not being able to play ANY map, that seems unlikely.

The problems reported are not of the kind that are related to map size.

[vee4473]

since demos are brought up again, I can't for the life of me understand any argument against them. I've heard the "it will suck resources from game development" argument, but I don't buy it only because if that were the case, demos would be much, much more rare than they are.

If most companies can do it, then it is more a management problem than a real life one.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Hahaahahahaha!

Boy, I wonder how all those WoW people who wanted to sue 'cause the game was laggy did?

[ChaotikVisions]

I still haven't experienced that "crash with big maps" thing on my low end(P4 1.6ghz, 512mb of ram, GF2MX200-64mb) computer. I'm up to like 1746 in a huge/terra/epic game with 13 or 14 other AI civs. Admittedly the wait between turns is getting longer, but the same thing happened in Civ3 on big maps. Maybe I don't qualify as low end?

In any case, the game is playabale for most without any major bugs. Theres some issues here and there still with various hardware combinations or simply badly managed comps, but that'll be fixed over time(at least the bugs, can't convince people to take good care of their computers). As for the class action thing its so ridiculous and obviously trolling I won't even bother, I just wanted to comment on the playability of huge maps.

[wilebill2]

DKDiveDude. hello! Commodore 64? Brings back memories. At that time I was working with the CP/M operating system and playing games on Apples for fun.

I have 1.8 Gig P4, .75 Gig of sluggish RAM, and a Radeon 9600 Pro, the old one, not the XT. I have everything out of the background except ZoneAlarm, the ATI control panel, and the SoundMax audio control panel. No concurrent programs running, not even a web browser. Real time virus checking on files is turned off while running Civ4. Same setup I use for running World of Warcraft.

Game has worked fairly well for me, no crashes, though I do notice the memory leak and have to reboot couple times late game on Standard maps. I have latest ATI drivers, I did use the unpack utility just for kicks, game was working before that anyway.

I am using the ATI driver version with the simple control panel, not the one with the elaborate control panel if that makes any difference. Everything is set to "let the game decide" far as I remember.

The Rise of Nations release had more problems than this as I remember. For me it was dead out of the box, would not even load. Read the AOE III board and see how many people had problems with that. It is very common to see problems that need patching when pc games are first released. Which does not make it pleasant for the consumer, I agree. As do hordes of other consumers who are going to consoles simply to avoid the complexity and tedium of getting computer games to run.

[Mart]

As for me, I have low specs. So I can play only small sized maps. However, the game is still interesting. And it is ok with me. My game also did not run first time - Radeon 9000. But now I made it running. I will probably upgrade hardware somewhere in the future, it is just a question how much money and when I do have for it.

I understand that philosophy of todays game-makers is to go for the best hardware options. All those players not having it suffer. This also rises issues like drivers problems. Drivers are too either worse or better, need patching - new versions etc.

I do not think though it is a reason here to attempt any legal action. Firaxis is working for us afterall so we have fun from those games. You have today such hardware, tomorrow you will have such that your game will be smoking on it. If a company makes mistakes like releasing a game that some significant number of players have difficulties they will suffer from it anyway. It is just market reality. So I would not go into any conflicts, or making more hard situation than it is now for them. Look only what game piracy brought upon us - CD protection systems, requirement of having CD to start a game. Problem with making back-ups. We might soon find less people interested in making games or prices skyrocket due to insurances the same as it is in medical field right now in the US.

[Willem]

Oh geez not this crap again! Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[Arnelos]

There's already a forum specifically dedicated to addressing complaints like this with the care and consideration they deserve:

link

[MarkG]

moved to help so the poster can get some technical help....

[seebs]

Look, as someone who is right now in the middle of litigating two class action lawsuits, lemme just say:

STOP WITH THE INCESSANT AND INCOHERENT DEMANDS THAT EVERY INCONVENIENCE BE RESOLVED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.

Lemme put this in context. Civ 4 gave me some trouble. It has also run fairly well much of the time. In fact, if I were to spend the same amount of time I've spent playing Civ 4 going to movies, it would have cost me a lot more than Civ 4 did.

Have I been damaged? No. Do I have a reasonable expectation that a brand new game will run entirely without crashing? No; modern PC games, for better or worse, tend to have fatal game-breaking bugs as shipped. Has 2K Games said that they refuse to patch this game?

What remedy would we seek? Money back? That's gonna look really stupid if I want to play the game in another week when they patched the bug that was affecting me. That they make a patch? They're doing that anyway.

"Me and a dozen people were inconvenienced" is not a basis for a class action case. "Statutory damages in excess of $3 million" is a basis for a class action case.

SHEESH! How about we see what happens in patching, huh? I have had a lot of Firaxis games be utter crap before patching. I have never in my life tried to run Alpha Centauri on a machine where I didn't need to patch an undocumented flag in a configuration file to make it run, because of something involving a "voxel algorithm" that was apparently incompatible on modern computers. Big deal. If I get current patches and make one change to one configuration file, I can play the game, and whaddya know, it's a damn good game.

Civ4 is, IMHO, the most interesting and playable Civ game I've ever seen. I would much rather see this game, even still needing a patch, than 90% of the video games I have ever seen on store shelves.

I have been able to play Civ 4 for a hundred or so turns at a time without crashing, and more reliably now that I know not to use the mini-map to scroll around a lot. I suspect patches will happen.

Sheesh. We have created an entire nation of whiners.

[James]

Too funny

[BleckLord]

Originally posted by Konquest02
Answer:

Before buying a car, you try it on the streets. It's called a test drive.

Before buying a game, you can download a preview of it. It's called a demo.

Was there a demo of Civ 4? I must have missed where the demo was released. So if the dealler doesn't offer a test drive and then sells you a lemon, you're just supposed to sit back and take it. I don't think so.

[BleckLord]

Do I have a reasonable expectation that a brand new game will run entirely without crashing? No; modern PC games, for better or worse, tend to have fatal game-breaking bugs as shipped.

I have an expectation of quality. I feel that people experiencing problems should be able to take their software back for a full refund, otherwise there is no incentive for companies to release well tested games. If the game works well on the majority of computers (as claimed by many authors here), then there is no net change. However, if a game is shipped and people have problems with it, then companies get hit in the pocket book.

The world's largest company will take back used white goods, clothes, office supplies, etc. Why shouldn't the same returnablity standard apply to software?

[]{aliban]

Note: my post here should not be taken as legal advice by anyone at anytime in anyplace... EVER. Just want to be clear on that...

DK,

I hate to break it to you, but the only thing your class action would achieve is take time and resources away from Firaxis, which it could apply to fixing the game instead.

Trust me, as an attorney I've seen my share of class action suits and they're no picnic. You should understand that in the vast majority of class actions, the only people that make money are the lawyers. In most cases, the class members' per capita recovery is so small, that disbursement of the funds would cost more than what is awarded. (In those cases the federal courts ask the class to designate a charity and then donate the funds in its name).

Even if people that purchased CIV IV and had problems running it had enough in common to be certified as a class, there is still the matter of damages. Time lost is notoriously hard to quantify as monetary damages, and this case would make a difficult proposition worse. Presumably most people spend their free time playing CIV IV (I hope), so the monetary value of their lost free time would be challenging to estimate.

Stress and frustration are equally difficult to categorize as damages and most jurisdictions require that you suffer some physical injury resulting from them before they become cognizable injuries.

So basically your main claim for damages would be the money that you paid for the game. And by the time this proposed case would get in front of a judge, the game would have been patched and fixed (again, I hope). Accordingly that claim would be moot.

Bottom line: a hard case to win, with a small potential recovery. Not many firms would touch it. It just wouldn't be worth their time.

Note: my post here should not be taken as legal advice by anyone at anytime in anyplace... Dammit, can't you people read?!

[seebs]

Originally posted by BleckLord


I have an expectation of quality. I feel that people experiencing problems should be able to take their software back for a full refund, otherwise there is no incentive for companies to release well tested games. If the game works well on the majority of computers (as claimed by many authors here), then there is no net change. However, if a game is shipped and people have problems with it, then companies get hit in the pocket book.

The world's largest company will take back used white goods, clothes, office supplies, etc. Why shouldn't the same returnablity standard apply to software?

Because people copy software and return it so they can play it without paying for it.

That's the reality.

I don't think you understand, though: A class action lawsuit is not a public policy tool. We would have to get a law passed first, then sue. Furthermore, in practice, virtually no one who bought the game this early will actually want to return it and not buy it.

What we want is a patch, and we seem likely to get one anyway.

The notion of allowing returns on buggy software is an interesting one, and certainly it could be done, but it's economically infeasable, and it would hurt software development too much. The industry is already having a fair number of developers go under.

But in any event... Do I want my money back? No. I want a patch. Do most of the people complaining really want their money back? I don't think so; I think they want a patch.

Right now, if you could get a refund on the condition that you will never buy or play Civ 4, would you take it? I doubt it.

In any event, a class action is still entirely the wrong tool for the job.