Mass Effect 2 – I need glasses
First of all, the statement from Mass Effect 2 publisher: “Responding to user complaints on the matter on the developer’s forums, BioWare’s Michael Gamble writes, “I’ll have to talk to Casey about this (as any way to address it would have far reaching changes in the game), but please don’t expect any decisions or a fix in the near future (as we are supporting a number of issues at this time). This was a design choice, not a bug.” The rest of the story after the jump.
You can find this quote on the Kotaku story as well as the one below.
Here is the full story on Ars Technica. My favorite quote: “many playing the game are having problems reading the text. The problem is most acute for those with standard-definition sets or those with smaller high-definition televisions.”
The question that would logically follow is: what percentage of homes have HD Televisions; is it a necessity for a next-gen game?
The figure used in some of the information regarding the game’s install base is that 53% of homes have HD TVs. But a follow-up query would be is that the main gaming TV, or is a secondary television used for the next-gen gaming? Other figures have been put out there as well. An interview with Epic publisherMark Rain in Eurogamer said “ My point is, of the systems that are out there now, the majority of them aren’t plugged into HDTVs.”
Other stories out there, see the blog TV, lamps and bulbs, report the HD penetration at 46%.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Now, back to the bigger question… should there be a warning on the box? A note, a sticker? Or even, (dramatic pause) an opportunity to return the game if you can’t read the words in the game?
First, no suspense, there’s no way it’s a returnable “defect”. It’s like returning that new foreign sedan for all your money back (not trade-in value) because the DVD player is a single and not a three-DVD player. The words are, for most of the players playing the game, a supplement to the gameplay experience and not a deal-killer.
“What is or is not “fit for [its] ordinary purpose” within the meaning of UCC § 2-314(2)(a), (c) has proved, in the main, to be an issue of ordinary understanding.”, this from the Lexis/Nexis study guide on product liability.
Now, we are not dealing with injuries, harm, or actual damages outside of making gameplay uncomfortable. And it is true that product liability is NOT an exact match with whether one should get their money back on a product. But the ideas are parallel and the customer, though not always right, should remain the ultimate high thought in the seller’s mind.
What about a warning, a sticker? The Restatement of Torts states: “The Restatement (Third) § 2(b) characterizes a product as “defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provisions of reasonable instructions or warnings[.]” This is from Lexis/Nexis study guide on Product Liability.
Now, there have been literally hundreds of cases decided based on this narrow section. I have no foresight as to how Bioware might decide on how to handle this matter…. but the law makes it at least a “close” case. And from a common sense standpoint when it’s close it is good customer service to at least pursue the possibility of a public warning, statement, or sticker on the packaging.
Your thoughts, please. To many it’s not an important issue, but it is the biggest January release in video-game history, and according to chart has outsold any other game six-to-one. So there’s a lot of standard-def attention on this issue, and I hope I’ve given this a high-def inspection in this short article.
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
One of the interesting things about these close cases is that when you start looking across jurisdictions perspectives change.
We’re pretty hot on consumer rights issues here in the UK. Partly because TV investigative journalism about some poor dear who bought a dodgy vacuum cleaner gets good ratings (and is cheap TV to make). Partly because we have an excellent national consumer association.
I bought a computer several years ago and told the man in the shop I intended to play games on it. When I set it up it couldn’t run the games of the time for some technical reason the details of which I forget. After giving them a chance to fix it I took them to court when they weren’t able to do so.
To the magistrate the fact that I had mentioned I wanted to use it for games was a key detail. An item sold must be “fit for purpose”. It didn’t run the games, they were astonished to be ordered to pay a full refund plus costs.
I think in the UK you would be able to sue and get your money back for a game that was only fully usable with a HD TV but which was not sold as such.
(Standard disclaimer: not a lawyer, yadda yadda).
jaymoffitt Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Wow, that’s really cool that you actually took the dispute to a judge and won your money back. I agree with you that part of it is cultural and you most likely wouldn’t have such luck in the U.S.
Another thing is that in the US so many retailers are “big box” electronics or mega-retailers and they are trained to never, EVER promise anything to anyone. (Disclaimer: Yes, I’ve worked for big box retailers in sales, AND as a software rep. Couldn’t promise that a game would work on their PC, couldn’t promise it would be true to the story[comic, or movie]). It will be interesting to see how the publisher handles the issue now that it is know; do they train their people to acknowledge it, or to ignore it?
Enjoyed the story, and appreciate your participation.
(Disclaimer: does not constitute legal advice, does not make attorney/client relationship, etc.)
Forgive a small piece of pedantry Jay.
The lowest rung of courts here don’t have judges. Judges are lawyers (usually barristers) who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor’s Department.
Our small claims courts are run by magistrates who are not usually qualified lawyers.
I wouldn’t normally be so pernickety but you, like me, are in a business of demanding linguistic precision.
jaymoffitt Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Apologies. I use the term judge broadly for anyone who can make a ruling and effect a judgment. In the US a magistrate’s duties vary by state, but usually they have the rights to make a decision and effect a ruling. Also, in general sessions courts in many states the judges may be lawyers serving as a judge, but their power is the same.
See. That’s why I use the disclaimers. (And also why I talk a lot more about transactional law, negotiating, and business law than lawsuits.)