class action investor lawsuit against EA for BF4 quality LOL

[stinger608]

PC Gamer has an article showing EA getting a class action lawsuit against them for the quality of BF4. Seems that investors are a little pissed off at the outcome.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/19/investors-sue-ea-over-quality-of-battlefield-4/

Will be interesting to see the outcome of this whole ordeal.

 

[erocker]

*Rushes game out to please investors*

*Investors sue EA because game is rushed*

This is a problem with publicly traded companies.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm glad to see that it's the investors this time.

We all know that hate for EA is rampant. Whether we buy into it or not, the consumers can only vote with their dollars. Unfortunately, self control might be something we need to work on...

The investors have unique leverage. They are aware of the PR issues, they see what EA is making, and they can talk directly to the head honchos of EA. Hopefully this doesn't get messy, but the troll in me wants to watch EA burn.


As a side note, did anyone take advantage of EAs new return policy on first party games? It seems like that sort of thing is tailored for this kind of a messy launch....

 

[John_Abraham]

I returned my copy of BF4 for Xbox One. That game was broke AF and I'm not going to pay $60 so EA can use me as a beta tester.

 

[RejZoR]

*Rushes game out to please investors*

*Investors sue EA because game is rushed*

This is a problem with publicly traded companies.

This. That's why i don't mind game delays if they plan to release a proper release. That's why i for example didn't mind delay of Deus Ex Human Revolution for more than half a year. While they did sort of mess up the boss fights, the game was exceptionally well made with nearly zero bugs and problems. It was really a great experience. But i remember many games where they rushed them just to catch the deadline and then they had loads of issues.

 

[RCoon]

This. That's why i don't mind game delays if they plan to release a proper release. That's why i for example didn't mind delay of Deus Ex Human Revolution for more than half a year. While they did sort of mess up the boss fights, the game was exceptionally well made with nearly zero bugs and problems. It was really a great experience. But i remember many games where they rushed them just to catch the deadline and then they had loads of issues.

Arkham Origins suffered from this too.
But seriously, since Timegate got sued because Colonial Marines looked awful compared to the demo, every Tom Dick and Harry is sueing any game company because something isn't as it was stated. Whether they should be allowed to or not, I guess the courts will decide. This just means instead of EA teasing or giving out information regarding a game release, they're just not going to say a god damn thing in case investor 1 year later sue them for saying something.

The sad part is, EA have tried so hard not to be hated recently, and I can't help but think they've just brought it upon themselves...

 

[erocker]

If EA wanted to make a real effort not to be hated, they need to cut some upper management jobs/payroll. They are so desperate to make money and keep their yachts afloat that they make bad decisions. Frankly, that won't happen. Publishers are ruining the industry as they're sucking up all the money and don't really care who or what they take advantage of to get that money be it their employees or customers.

 

[kn00tcn]

i'm not siding with ea per se, but this lawsuit is stupid... all dice games are riddled with bugs, but of course game crashes at every map change on pc+ps4 is quite a big one sure

the investor dates dont quite make sense... how is any publisher or developer supposed to know how a game will launch 3 months in advance, that's how this industry works

one of the suits claimed EA executives had an opportunity to sell their stock at inflated prices, um so did they or is the lawsuit claiming stocks were inflated??? stocks always inflate when there's hype, no matter who it is, the inflation goes up without a particular product being launched to the public

this is the corporate equivalent of judge judy type civil suits, investing has an inherant risk, it would also seem strange to invest in july on the basis that you'll sell everything in october during the game's launch, i thought investment advice always wants you to avoid extremely short term plays like this

where is the lawsuit for ghosts? was there even a call of duty convention this year? activision only talked about units sold to stores, not sold to customers, it's very clear that this call of duty was not on track to be the biggest yet as their marketing always implies, it also had some crippling bugs such as constant freezing during multiplayer matches on 360 (!? their primary platform was unplayable at launch!), ps4 not maintaining 60fps, xboxone being 720p, & so on

it's unfair really, no matter what you think of the games, the developers are crunching with deadlines for our entertainment, for the investors to get richer, for the publisher to own it all, but these devs are the one at risk of getting laid off like bizarre or la noire or the saboteur devs were

to complicate things, consumers are juggling their money between new consoles &/or merely massive new games like GTA5, this is hardly the relatively stable situation we had when BF3 launched

I returned my copy of BF4 for Xbox One. That game was broke AF and I'm not going to pay $60 so EA can use me as a beta tester.

& you didnt have to pay $60... cuz it was $30 on black friday, along with multiple other sales of varying prices (unlike ghosts)

but let's say it always was $60, does it really matter if you bought it on launch or 3 months later with the bugs fixed at the same $60? if you had it at launch, you would have ranked up more & been more familiar with the game, bugs or no bugs

Arkham Origins suffered from this too.
But seriously, since Timegate got sued because Colonial Marines looked awful compared to the demo, every Tom Dick and Harry is sueing any game company because something isn't as it was stated. Whether they should be allowed to or not, I guess the courts will decide. This just means instead of EA teasing or giving out information regarding a game release, they're just not going to say a god damn thing in case investor 1 year later sue them for saying something.

The sad part is, EA have tried so hard not to be hated recently, and I can't help but think they've just brought it upon themselves...

rcoon you have leet thanks as of now

 

[GreiverBlade]

i'm not siding with ea per se, but this lawsuit is stupid... all dice games are riddled with bugs, but of course game crashes at every map change on pc+ps4 is quite a big one sure

the investor dates dont quite make sense... how is any publisher or developer supposed to know how a game will launch 3 months in advance, that's how this industry works

one of the suits claimed EA executives had an opportunity to sell their stock at inflated prices, um so did they or is the lawsuit claiming stocks were inflated??? stocks always inflate when there's hype, no matter who it is, the inflation goes up without a particular product being launched to the public

this is the corporate equivalent of judge judy type civil suits, investing has an inherant risk, it would also seem strange to invest in july on the basis that you'll sell everything in october during the game's launch, i thought investment advice always wants you to avoid extremely short term plays like this

where is the lawsuit for ghosts? was there even a call of duty convention this year? activision only talked about units sold to stores, not sold to customers, it's very clear that this call of duty was not on track to be the biggest yet as their marketing always implies, it also had some crippling bugs such as constant freezing during multiplayer matches on 360 (!? their primary platform was unplayable at launch!), ps4 not maintaining 60fps, xboxone being 720p, & so on

it's unfair really, no matter what you think of the games, the developers are crunching with deadlines for our entertainment, for the investors to get richer, for the publisher to own it all, but these devs are the one at risk of getting laid off like bizarre or la noire or the saboteur devs were

to complicate things, consumers are juggling their money between new consoles &/or merely massive new games like GTA5, this is hardly the relatively stable situation we had when BF3 launched



& you didnt have to pay $60... cuz it was $30 on black friday, along with multiple other sales of varying prices (unlike ghosts)

but let's say it always was $60, does it really matter if you bought it on launch or 3 months later with the bugs fixed at the same $60? if you had it at launch, you would have ranked up more & been more familiar with the game, bugs or no bugs




rcoon you have leet thanks as of now

ahahaha 1337 ... i also prefer a delayed launch than a half assed retail

 

[qubit]

This reminds me of that viral video of the kid having a wild tantrum on his bed when he got beat by his brother!

 

[BiggieShady]

... the troll in me wants to watch EA burn.

Even the fluffy winged harp playing angel in me agrees with the troll in you

 

[John_Abraham]

& you didnt have to pay $60... cuz it was $30 on black friday, along with multiple other sales of varying prices (unlike ghosts)

but let's say it always was $60, does it really matter if you bought it on launch or 3 months later with the bugs fixed at the same $60? if you had it at launch, you would have ranked up more & been more familiar with the game, bugs or no bugs

So you wanted me to foretell the future and wait for a Black Friday deal for the game to be discounted?

It doesn't even matter how much it costs. EA keeps doing the same thing. They have an open "beta" for their games, they fix nothing because it's too close to launch, effectively making this "beta" a demo to build hype. Then they release the "final" product in a broke ass state. Really what they've done is trick everyone into buying a game at full price so they can perform their beta test on OUR money instead of THEIRS.

They did it with BF3, MOH: Warfighter, Sim City, and now BF4.

 

[the54thvoid]

This is a problem with publicly traded companies.

And why Star Citizen will make everybody wet their pants. A game for gamers, by gamers and without publishers pushing it. I really ought to buy a ship soon.

 

[brandonwh64]

I returned my copy of BF4 for Xbox One. That game was broke AF and I'm not going to pay $60 so EA can use me as a beta tester.

deal with it! its not going to be the first time or last time any game manufacturer made a buggy game.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Didnt EA want to rush the launch to beat CoD to the shelves? This is what i heard on most forums at least. Also that dev from DICE who gave his own version of what happened on reddit never said anything about investors being involved, but then again they the people who deal with the game and not Public Relations like EA does but that doesnt stop DICE getting flamed Because They are the people behind the game and when it doesnt work properly - Its their fault not EA's who have a bigger part in BF4 being terrible then people care to admit and realise.

I think a lot more people would understand and be OK with the whole idea of a game being delayed so long as it was definitely W.I.P and being polished just to make sure it would be running smoothly on launch day. Instead they pissed the whole community off and its got to a point where even their patches come with new bugs....

SO I dunno the real story here but either way, EA deserves to be put on the pedestal and held to account of any negative pressure they put on DICE to rush the release of a game which is clearly unfinished.

 

[KainXS]

I'm not sidin with EA, I'm not sidin with the investors, and I'm not sidin with whoever keeps buying EA's shiet then complaining, you should know better now.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I'm not sidin with EA, I'm not sidin with the investors, and I'm not sidin with whoever keeps buying EA's shiet then complaining, you should know better now.

then why even bother posting in a BF/EA related thread if you have nothing to add to it?

Thanks for sharing your opinion at least, though your sentiments would feel more at home on reddit I feel.

 

[John_Abraham]

deal with it! its not going to be the first time or last time any game manufacturer made a buggy game.

I did deal with it, by returning the game! Thanks for the tip though.

 

[Frick]

If EA wanted to make a real effort not to be hated, they need to cut some upper management jobs/payroll. They are so desperate to make money and keep their yachts afloat that they make bad decisions. Frankly, that won't happen. Publishers are ruining the industry as they're sucking up all the money and don't really care who or what they take advantage of to get that money be it their employees or customers.

The biggest bastards are the gamers, they are the ones buying the games after all. Not to mention gamers seem to like games that aren't that good (the examples work for me, but CoD works as well). It's the same as the movie industry, the blockbusters are more or less boring, because they are safe bets. Take the comic movies, there are millions and millions of good stories that would make perfect movies, but with those budgets they need safe bets. And at this point big games is fantastically expensive to make, so they need to be safe too. It's why kickstarter is so interesting. The big problem is: There is endless bitching about these matters, but that doesn't matter shit because people still que to buy the games. Honestly if I was a big executive in this bussiness I too would milk the suckers for all they are worth.

Things have calmed down a bit though. I get the feeling the companies are trying to come across as friendlier (I have no idea if that feeling is founded on reality); I suppose that's a start.

EDIT: So it's nice to see people like @John_Abraham, who does what he can with what his got, which is denying them money.

EDIT again: Btw, here's an excellent piece from the head of Paradox Dev Studio (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis etc).

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/10814-Respect-Your-Gamer

 

[John_Abraham]

I'm happy to see you agree with me, but to call Mass Effect, Skyrim, and Borderlands "[not] that good"? Are you kidding me right now?

 

[kn00tcn]

So you wanted me to foretell the future and wait for a Black Friday deal for the game to be discounted?

It doesn't even matter how much it costs. EA keeps doing the same thing. They have an open "beta" for their games, they fix nothing because it's too close to launch, effectively making this "beta" a demo to build hype. Then they release the "final" product in a broke ass state. Really what they've done is trick everyone into buying a game at full price so they can perform their beta test on OUR money instead of THEIRS.

They did it with BF3, MOH: Warfighter, Sim City, and now BF4.

i dont remember warfighter having issues, think bf3 was in better shape, sim city was messed up ya

what i found interesting is the bf4 beta ran fine for many people didnt it? without crashes on map change (i played beta only, not buying yet, barely got bf3 in august, but have watched a guy stream & a couple friends play bf4 at launch without too much fuss)

about the sale, i should clarify, first BF3 had the exact same thing happen, & generally a lot of us are wary to preorder or buy things on launch since so many games either have issues that need to be patched or merely servers being overloaded, so to me... if it's $60 on launch yet still $60 in a few months, i would read up to see if anything bad is happening to a particular game, as a bonus a random sale might appear so i could end up saving money

reminds me, GTA online was a mess when it first unlocked, on top of being activated after the game came out (the retail release was delayed by a few months earlier as well?)

so basically, most giant complex multiplayer or open world games have problems, humans are building these after all, couple that with certain publishers having a history of good or bad launches & we have a lot more variables to help us decide to wait

 

[John_Abraham]

Somehow, CoD manages to release with hardly any issues for the last few years. It's not because they are made by humans, it's because they don't have proper beta tests.

In the case of GTA Online, GTA V itself is a game worth $60, in my opinion. GTA Online is an added bonus. Yes, I was irritated that the servers weren't working when Online launched, but I had already gotten 40 hours of enjoyment out of the single player without even hitting 70% completion so I wasn't too upset.

 

[kn00tcn]

ghosts was freezing in multiplayer on 360, i dont think that's ever happened before (pc blackops sure, then they did some cpu utilization patch)

it also had the blobs of light for both ati & nv users on pc

 

[FreedomEclipse]

You use CoD/MoH as an example but dont forget that CoD & its clones are a lot less complicated then the BF series of games which requires a shit ton more game mechanics and such with the amount of shit they put into the games.

The Frostbite engine is probably a lot more harder to work on given how technically advanced it is compared to the ID Tech (ID Software) engine no matter how heavily modified it is.

 

[hellrazor]

I'm happy to see you agree with me, but to call Mass Effect, Skyrim, and Borderlands "[not] that good"? Are you kidding me right now?

To be fair, the only game on that list I'd call "good" is Borderlands (the first one).