IG/Take2 - Class Action

[Devblaze]

8 minutes ago, Oak7603 said:

 

Why do you? 

Because some post somewhere said that they had the funding? So what. Do you think companies arent allows to change direction, change staff, change priorities, deal with economic changes, chose to cut costs, close departments, all because they said they were going to do something? 

They are not obligated to provide you with anything with Ksp2. They haven't lied about the product you bought. It was clearly early access. It was labelled as such. It is mentioned all the time.  You accepted the risks that it entails when you handed over your money.

You are not entitled to anything. 

This post is the funniest thing ever.

I'll do a deal with you, if you manage to get people's money back, then you can have mine. If you don't however, you can pay me the money I paid for the game.

 

Sure it's true that EA comes with inherent risks, many in our community feel that they were assured of ongoing development and eventual completion based on repeated statements from the developers. There's a sentiment that promises made about the game's funding and future were not upheld.

The issue at hand isn't solely about changing development direction or any sort of funding factors affecting game development. It's more about the communication and representations made to consumers during the EA phase, and whether those representations align with the closure of the studio and the shockingly scary future of KSP2.

The intention behind discussing legal options is not to imply entitlement but rather to seek clarity and potential remedies for those who feel misled or let down by the circumstances surrounding this game's development  and the studios closure.

BUT I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

[Flush Foot]

1 minute ago, Devblaze said:

Sure it's true that EA comes with inherent risks, many in our community feel that they were assured of ongoing development and eventual completion based on repeated statements from the developers. There's a sentiment that promises made about the game's funding and future were not upheld.

True! Literally all they had to do was say "this is truly an EA-game... try to be prepared 'for anything' guys!" and we'd have considered things differently than "we've got a major label behind us and all the funding we've asked for!"

[Devblaze]

Just now, Flush Foot said:

True! Literally all they had to do was say "this is truly an EA-game... try to be prepared 'for anything' guys!" and we'd have considered things differently than "we've got a major label behind us and all the funding we've asked for!"

Which nate and many other developers have said many times. 4 and counting to be exact 3 of which were in an AMA. Currently compiling a video of all the broken promises and maybe it could shed some light on it for people who aren't completely up to date with everything they've said.

[Oak7603]

It's all about entitlement. There is clearly the feeling of being entitled to get the 1.0 game because someone said so, completely ignoring the fact that it was early access and you, and me, all thought the gamble was worth it.

What do investors do when they back a business idea and it fails even when those looking for investment said it would work. What do gamblers do when they back a horse and it doesn't win even though the trainers and promoters said it would? What do all the other EA game studios do when the games are canned? If they could face legal action they wouldn't do it.

1 minute ago, Flush Foot said:

True! Literally all they had to do was say "this is truly an EA-game... try to be prepared 'for anything' guys!" and we'd have considered things differently than "we've got a major label behind us and all the funding we've asked for!"

It's not true at all! They said it was early access. They don't need to say, truly early access, they don't need to pinky promise it, or put a cherry on top. It was early access. Thats all there was to it. Just because they bigged themselves up has nothing to do with it. 

[Flush Foot]

Just now, Oak7603 said:

It's all about entitlement. There is clearly the feeling of being entitled to get the 1.0 game because someone said so, completely ignoring the fact that it was early access and you, and me, all thought the gamble was worth it.

What do investors do when they back a business idea and it fails even when those looking for investment said it would work. What do gamblers do when they back a horse and it doesn't win even though the trainers and promoters said it would? What do all the other EA game studios do when the games are canned? If they could face legal action they wouldn't do it.

It's not true at all! They said it was early access. They don't need to say, truly early access, they don't need to pinky promise it, or put a cherry on top. It was early access. Thats all there was to it. Just because they bigged themselves up has nothing to do with it. 

Wouldn't/shouldn't there be a difference between "putting down a deposit" on an unknown start-up's new electric hot-rod (and they go broke, taking your deposit with them) vs putting down a deposit on a new Ford truck that eventually gets shelved? (Ford, being such a large company would surely return those deposits rather than getting such bad press)

[Oak7603]

Your analogy isn't right. KSP2 wasn't the new ford truck that got shelved. It was the concept car that Ford said, "we're planning on making a new car and it will be great, BUT we're not sure it will make it to production so if you want to put a deposit down you can but if it fails to make it to production you won't get your money back". You said that's ok, I belive you that it will be great. And then when it failed you lost your money. Ford wouldn't be giving that money back now would they?

[Stevie_D]

Threads like this are a waste of time. Class action lawsuits happen when you have an actual leg to stand on. The moment you bought KSP2 in Early Access you agreed to the terms and conditions, whether you read them or not. Those terms and conditions clearly tell you that you should understand that Early Access games on Steam may stop development at any moment and the game can be taken down at any moment. That is why Early Access was created as a category.

All you'd be doing is giving money to lawyers who would be more than willing to lie to you and tell you that you could win the case and then shrug when you lose hands down.

[Oak7603]

15 minutes ago, Stevie_D said:

Threads like this are a waste of time. Class action lawsuits happen when you have an actual leg to stand on. The moment you bought KSP2 in Early Access you agreed to the terms and conditions, whether you read them or not. Those terms and conditions clearly tell you that you should understand that Early Access games on Steam may stop development at any moment and the game can be taken down at any moment. That is why Early Access was created as a category.

All you'd be doing is giving money to lawyers who would be more than willing to lie to you and tell you that you could win the case and then shrug when you lose hands down.

Even the OP liked this comment. Maybe common sense is prevailing....

[Stevie_D]

1 minute ago, Oak7603 said:

Even the OP liked this comment. Maybe common sense is prevailing....

Well, I get everyone is sad right now and emotions are running high. This is a big part of what we thought was our future entertainment and happy fun time being flushed down the toilet.

[pandaman]

Do I regret buying KSP2 as soon as it was out?  No.  I knew I was taking  a chance, and I have had quite a lot of hours fun with it, so I think I got value for money in that regard.  Yes, I had some 'faith' that it would be in a far better state on release than it turned out to be, and that it would be much better by now, but so be it.

I'm disappointed by how it's progressed and haven't played  in a long time due to bugs and  the lack of some essential 'tools' (Alarm clock, Mission planner etc) that really should have been added before now.

I'm not overly surprised at the current situation   Progress and quality have been very disappointing, with no hard evidence of things improving much in the near future.  If I were investing sigficant funds into it then I'd probably decide it was time to avoud future losses and stop too.

It's unfair IMO to pin it all on Nate, sure he takes some responsibility, but he's not the only one on the 'director' team that failed to deliver,  he just happened to be the most visible of the 'responsible' ones.

My thoughts and best wishes go to the whole team, but especially the dedicated, hard working programmers and artists that are unfortunate 'casualties' in all this.  I hope your skills and efforts were noticed, and that you can get put onto other projects or find new jobs if KSP2 is no longer an option for you.  This thing you created was, and still is amazing, despite it's many failings.   Thanks to you all.

 

Edited May 3 by pandaman

[Bej Kerman]

Has preliminary research been done to ensure you have a legal leg to stand on in the first place? Who's going to be involved in this side of the suit? Who's gonna pay for the lawyers? What's the intended outcome? Is it really worth getting a few dozen quid back?

[8umblebee]

Everyone here posting pessimistic comments would be more useful keeping them to themselves. Everyone knows it's an uphill battle. It always is going against big corporations. 

But a few things to think about.

1. No contract, terms of service, or license agreement is EVER above the law. A court can throw any of it out if a judge deems it unfair.
2. The EA model has never been tested for this scenario. That being a scenario where a company has promised multiple times the game will not get cancelled. Has laid out a roadmap. Has advertised this roadmap in it's marketing materials. And has the funding to complete all of it and simply walks away from it. That to my knowledge has never happened. EA titles get cancelled all the time but almost never when they are backed by a AAA publishing company.

What we have is a golden opportunity here to strengthen consumer rights in the EA model. So unless you're a billionaire who makes money screwing over gamers, a lawsuit benefits us all.

Don't naysay someone trying to fight for consumer rights. Wish them luck and sign up to help if you can.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, 8umblebee said:

What we have is a golden opportunity here to strengthen consumer rights in the EA model.

Thatd be amazing, but consumer rights come from consumers organising themselves, not just screaming into a semi-niche forum about what they wish they could do. Hire some lawyers and then start talking big.

[FleshJeb]

Thank you to the folks arguing back against the simplistic and ahistorical takes presented in this thread. My public school education 35+ years ago covered the development of consumer protections during the Industrial Revolution and how pivotal Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was in reforming the meatpacking industry. We also covered why all your consumer electronics have “UL Listed” stamped on them.

Hell, the Romans were arguing about the viability of caveat emptor a couple millennia ago.

The reason it doesn’t work is that there will always be informational asymmetry between sellers and buyers, and it’s impossible to do enough due diligence to adequately protect yourself. So sellers must follow a reasonable standard of care, ensure that what they’re selling is fit for purpose, and also not misrepresent their product or service. In the vast majority of circumstances, this cannot be signed away. If it could be easily signed away, it would just be another race to the bottom.

I think there’s a decent argument to be made that KSP2 development was thoroughly and consistently misrepresented, and that it’s definitely not fit for purpose.

I’ve seen a few people say, “KSP2 is so bad, I wouldn’t even pirate it.” I’m in full agreement there.

Now I’m gonna screenshot some posts as embarrassing monuments to academic underachievement and share them with a friend who’s a middle-school teacher. She’s going to be laughing and crying at the same time.

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Thatd be amazing, but consumer rights come from consumers organising themselves, not just screaming into a semi-niche forum about what they wish they could do. Hire some lawyers and then start talking big.

If the definition of EA is what is stated on Steam, every sane lawyer would refuse getting into that battle. There's no battle there. You're buying that piece of software as is. If you wanna battle EA, just don't buy it... 

[8umblebee]

6 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

If the definition of EA is what is stated on Steam, every sane lawyer would refuse getting into that battle. There's no battle there. You're buying that piece of software as is. If you wanna battle EA, just don't buy it... 

If we all just accepted corporate defined policy as truth and "The buyer should have known better" we wouldn't have many of our consumer protections today. 

The fact is corporations have a history of misleading customers then gas lighting customers into believing it's their fault they got tricked. 

It's their fault they believed Nate that this game would follow the roadmap and be funded to 1.0.

It's their fault they believed Nate when he said there would be many years of development. 

And that's just not true.

[8umblebee]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Thatd be amazing, but consumer rights come from consumers organising themselves, not just screaming into a semi-niche forum about what they wish they could do. Hire some lawyers and then start talking big.

That is what OP is doing though. Class action lawsuits are how customers organize. And op claims they are speaking with a customer rights lawyer

[Scarecrow71]

After doing some research this morning, a class action lawsuit against Take Two is viable.  While both the EULA and the Terms of Service both indicate that you must use a mediator or 3rd party arbitrator to sort out differences before going to court, there is legal precedence in multiple states that allow for this clause in the Terms to be thrown out, with action moving through the legal system without mediation.

The big issue here becomes what state to file a lawsuit in.  You have 3 choices:

• The state the company is headquartered in (New York);
• The state the game was developed in (Washington);
• The state you purchased and play the game in (for me, Nevada, as an example)

Because we are talking about a potential class-action lawsuit here, the state in which an individual purchased and/or plays the game is nearly irrelevant.  And considering that a lot of gaming (in a general sense) happens over the internet, no one state where a person plays a game has jurisdiction.  So that option is out.

Filing in the state the game was developed is a viable option, provided you can prove that the majority of the work was done in that state.  Again, the internet and remote work - especially during and because of the COVID-19 pandemic - make this difficult to ascertain without getting cooperation from the company/developer you want to sue.  So this option is probably not the best one.

This leaves filing in the state that the parent company is headquartered in.  This is the best option for class-action lawsuits as you are trying to gather as many people as possible together who have a common interest and/or complaint about the product they received.  New York General Business Law section 350 allows for the protection of consumers against false, misleading, or misrepresentative advertising in products that are sold to the general public.  While it doesn't specifically call out digital media, it is considered to be included in this section.  Furthermore, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 901-909 deal with class-action lawsuits, providing the framework for how and when consumers can get together and file a class-action.

I would like to point out that all of my research stems from a host of Google searches, as well as getting clarification on things from ChatGPT.  Yes, I talked to the bot this morning because that is the easiest way to get definitions and information these days.  How accurate that is remains to be seen, so take everything I stated above with several grains of salt.  But if you really want to go this route - and I'm going to be frank and say that I doubt this would lead to anything substantial in the long run - what I've stated above is probably the best information you'll get from a non-lawyer.  So talk to a legal professional before going anywhere else on this.

[PopinFRESH]

27 minutes ago, 8umblebee said:

If we all just accepted corporate defined policy as truth and "The buyer should have known better" we wouldn't have many of our consumer protections today. 

The fact is corporations have a history of misleading customers then gas lighting customers into believing it's their fault they got tricked. 

It's their fault they believed Nate that this game would follow the roadmap and be funded to 1.0.

It's their fault they believed Nate when he said there would be many years of development. 

And that's just not true.

No, but you do have to accept the terms of the contract that you willingly entered into; which if I had to put money on it I'd say you and plenty of others didn't bother to read it. If you think it is "unfair", which is not a legal standing for a judge to throw out a contract btw, then feel free to contact a lawyer on your own and let us know how it goes. I think you'll find yourself rather disappointed in the outcome.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

After doing some research this morning, a class action lawsuit against Take Two is viable.  While both the EULA and the Terms of Service both indicate that you must use a mediator or 3rd party arbitrator to sort out differences before going to court, there is legal precedence in multiple states that allow for this clause in the Terms to be thrown out, with action moving through the legal system without mediation.

The big issue here becomes what state to file a lawsuit in.  You have 3 choices:

• The state the company is headquartered in (New York);
• The state the game was developed in (Washington);
• The state you purchased and play the game in (for me, Nevada, as an example)

Because we are talking about a potential class-action lawsuit here, the state in which an individual purchased and/or plays the game is nearly irrelevant.  And considering that a lot of gaming (in a general sense) happens over the internet, no one state where a person plays a game has jurisdiction.  So that option is out.

Filing in the state the game was developed is a viable option, provided you can prove that the majority of the work was done in that state.  Again, the internet and remote work - especially during and because of the COVID-19 pandemic - make this difficult to ascertain without getting cooperation from the company/developer you want to sue.  So this option is probably not the best one.

This leaves filing in the state that the parent company is headquartered in.  This is the best option for class-action lawsuits as you are trying to gather as many people as possible together who have a common interest and/or complaint about the product they received.  New York General Business Law section 350 allows for the protection of consumers against false, misleading, or misrepresentative advertising in products that are sold to the general public.  While it doesn't specifically call out digital media, it is considered to be included in this section.  Furthermore, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 901-909 deal with class-action lawsuits, providing the framework for how and when consumers can get together and file a class-action.

I would like to point out that all of my research stems from a host of Google searches, as well as getting clarification on things from ChatGPT.  Yes, I talked to the bot this morning because that is the easiest way to get definitions and information these days.  How accurate that is remains to be seen, so take everything I stated above with several grains of salt.  But if you really want to go this route - and I'm going to be frank and say that I doubt this would lead to anything substantial in the long run - what I've stated above is probably the best information you'll get from a non-lawyer.  So talk to a legal professional before going anywhere else on this.

And did you run all this by a lawyer?

[Scarecrow71]

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And did you run all this by a lawyer?

You must have missed the part where I literally said:

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But if you really want to go this route - and I'm going to be frank and say that I doubt this would lead to anything substantial in the long run - what I've stated above is probably the best information you'll get from a non-lawyer.  So talk to a legal professional before going anywhere else on this.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to not read all of what I post.  I was pretty clear that I'm not a lawyer, that I didn't talk to one, and that whoever takes this up needs to.  Please make sure you read what I write instead of making assumptions to drum up drama.

Edited May 4 by Scarecrow71

[dprostock]

41 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Filing in the state the game was developed is a viable option, provided you can prove that the majority of the work was done in that state.  Again, the internet and remote work - especially during and because of the COVID-19 pandemic - make this difficult to ascertain without getting cooperation from the company/developer you want to sue.  So this option is probably not the best one.

 

Incredible! I worked most of my life as a programmer (developer) against deadlines and without having someone breathe down my neck all day. Two or three weeks of solitary work, I presented the semi-evaluated code, forty-eight hours to receive the corrections, seventy-two (at most) to return and finally validate. The pandemic is the biggest justification of mediocrity I've seen in my life in the world of programming. 

If it had worked that way, Wall Street would still be working with an abacus and sending child messengers or using the telegraph. 

[dave1904]

We have no official statement yet and there is 0 evidence ATM that the game will not be finished. What the finished product looks like is a different story but let's be real. We've known for 4 years that things have not being going to plan. 

They said it wouldn't be an EA title. Then it was. You still went ahead and bought it. Did anyone here read the terms of condition when they bought the game? Or any EA game? There are no false promises because anything they say or do is always subject to change.

 If take two decided to cancel the game outright they will refund it to. Even if they sold 100000 copies at 50 euros a pop it would only be 5 million. The money they need to refund  is the least of their issues if that was the case. 

[8umblebee]

58 minutes ago, PopinFRESH said:

No, but you do have to accept the terms of the contract that you willingly entered into; which if I had to put money on it I'd say you and plenty of others didn't bother to read it. If you think it is "unfair", which is not a legal standing for a judge to throw out a contract btw, then feel free to contact a lawyer on your own and let us know how it goes. I think you'll find yourself rather disappointed in the outcome.

Any contract can get thrown out in court if you can reasonably prove you were mislead.

[8umblebee]

23 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

We have no official statement yet and there is 0 evidence ATM that the game will not be finished. What the finished product looks like is a different story but let's be real. We've known for 4 years that things have not being going to plan. 

They said it wouldn't be an EA title. Then it was. You still went ahead and bought it. Did anyone here read the terms of condition when they bought the game? Or any EA game? There are no false promises because anything they say or do is always subject to change.

 If take two decided to cancel the game outright they will refund it to. Even if they sold 100000 copies at 50 euros a pop it would only be 5 million. The money they need to refund  is the least of their issues if that was the case. 

True. But it doesn't hurt to talk hypothetically and brainstorm solutions. Fact is we know the studio is shut down. We know a number of KSP2 devs have been laid off. And we haven't ruled out that it might be ALL of them. 

We don't know if the roadmap is on the table. And if it's not I think a class action lawsuit is something worth discussing if for any other reason than to help strengthen consumer protection. It's rare that a AAA company cancels a game in EA. And if you believe it's wrong for a company to essentially break its word just because a few lines on a corporate website says that's ok then we need to fight that policy in court.

If the game is cancelled or the roadmap is no longer on the table, we shouldn't waste this opportunity to strengthen consumer protections.

Edited May 4 by 8umblebee