EA sued for lack of PS3 Battlefield 3 freebie
Apparently, getting Battlefield 3 DLC one week early isn't good enough for some PS3 gamers, and one law firm is filing a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts for "misleading and profiting" by "making a promise they could not, and never intended, t
At E3, Sony and Electronic Arts announced that the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 would include a free copy of Battlefield 1943. That didn't end up happening. Instead, the two companies agreed to offer early DLC exclusivity on Battlefield 3.
Apparently, that's not fair enough recompense, and one law firm is filing a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts for "misleading and profiting" by "making a promise they could not, and never intended, to keep."
According to statements provided to Kotaku, legal firm Edelson McGuire alleges that EA didn't do enough to notify gamers of the change in promotional plans. Firstly, it was announced after many had already pre-ordered a copy. Secondly, it was only announced via Twitter (and later picked up by most media outlets). Offering early DLC is also being called out as a lackluster "make up" deal.
Obviously, the firm is seeking "compensatory relief" which, if settled, will result in a small trinket for PS3 gamers that purchased Battlefield 3--and a huge award for the lawyers.
This isn't the first snafu Sony has had in delivering exclusive content for PS3 owners. Most recently, the company was caught shortchanging Saints Row: The Third purchases. The company later offered Saints Row 2 as a free bonus.
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, EA sued for lack of PS3 Battlefield 3 freebie.
Apparently, getting Battlefield 3 DLC one week early isn't good enough for some PS3 gamers, and one law firm is filing a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts for "misleading and profiting" by "making a promise they could not, and never intended, t-
-
I think you're reading into that part of this story as though we're blaming Sony. What is being said is that this is just another snafu when it comes to exclusive content on the platform.
-
This isn't the first snafu Sony has had in with other publishers not delivering exclusive content for PS3 owners. Most recently, the company THQ was caught shortchanging Saints Row: The Third purchases on the PS3 platform. The company THQ later offered Saints Row 2 as a free bonus.
The way it is stated in the story is misleading. The only part of the article that talks about Saints Row leads the user to believe that Sony is the publisher for that title. The reader has to know that THQ is the publisher of SR in order not to infer from the story that Sony is the publisher. It may be a rather pedantic argument between you and I since we both know who publishes SR, but to someone that doesn't know that distinction they will come away from the article believing Sony is the publisher.
-
-
How many times does it need to be said? TWITTER IS NOT A PR TOOL! It's nice for getting the message out quickly, but that doesn't mean that good old press releases don't have to be made anymore.
-
-
We'll see what the court says. If they find against EA, you won't be seeing publisher PR firms using only Twitter for announcements.
-
-
LOL, man I wish this wasn't true. At least in the eyes of PR.
-
-
EA could of fixed this so easily. I didn't get the PS3 version, but I am assuming that you had to use a voucher to get online. At that point EA could of looked at what PS3 owners had used the voucher and sent them an email with a PSN code to get it for free.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Lawyers play battlefield 3?
-
-
-
Question is if the BF1943 was actually advertised once they started taking pre-orders. If not, the lawyers can go suck a duck.
-
-
I am not a lawyer so I can not comment on the legality of promises made, statements issued in press releases and so forth. That being said, I do work in IT, so it does not seem out of the realm of possibility that EA could just offer for the first 6 months after release, a voucher for downloading 1943 via the PSN when you activate the Online Pass. The infrastructure is there for it and I don't think people would care how they got the game as long as they received it at all.
EA had been doing so well in reclaiming a certain amount of respect from players and then they do something like this....not cool. -
Here's an idea. Get a contract signed before you make an announcement, and then if something happens, YOU can sue then other guy. Instead of getting sued yourself. :/
-
From my perspectitive the gaming industry MUST be litigated to quit saying one thing and doing another. They deserve to lose because a loss is a win for gamer's rights. False advertising should be litigated vigorously as what it is a means to increase profits for very rich companies and rip off end-users. There really should be some consequences for not delivering a product as promised. It's their own fault if they said it and could not provide it. They should not say anything until they are certain.
-
What is it with the whole 1943 fiasco anyway? I stil want it for PC.
-
don't worry about it. i played it again over the weekend and it's so ass backwards to what the series has become (weapon, variety, classes, not having to unload a full clip into an enemy to down them). If you have BF3 or even BC2, there's no reason to go back. You might as well just go play some 1942.
-
-
