Do you think WoTC should be sued?

[VGmaster9]

Ok, you people have taken my topic out of context. I never said I wanted to sue them, I was just asking for your opinion whether or not you THINK they should be sued. Apparently it isn't such a good idea then. I actually don't mind 4e and I think it has some more potential, but there are definitely fans who hate it with a passion.

 

[bobhayes]

In order to sue in civil court, you must show that the plaintiffs have damaged or harmed you in some way. "I don't like what these people have done with their own intellectual property" is so far from being judiciable damage that it isn't even funny.

Now, if WOTC sends thugs over to your house to kick your ass and break up your gaming table because they don't like the way you homebrewed one of their products, you may have a case.

But as it is, you're talking about suing McDonalds because they don't sell the McRib year-round. You'll get laughed out of court and your attorney may well be reprimanded by the judge. Attorneys hate that, so even in our litigation-crazed society you won't find a competent one willing to take the case.

 

[Morrus]

I'm suing you all for not making the posts that I wanted you to! You've caused me emotional distress and made me cry.

And I will sue anyone else who posts in this thread unless they post the post I want them to.

 

[WizarDru]

I agree with Danny, there seems little to sue for.... you also couldn't sue Microsoft for releasing Windows Vista even though you really, really liked XP. I'm not familiar with the US legal system but even as litigious as the courts can be there and as silly as some lawsuits are (OMG this coffee is hot? Really? It burned me, now I sue you and win... WTF? - Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) even they couldn't take something like this on without any merit whatsoever. At least the old woman got burned. Maybe if you can show that 4e gave you third degree burns from playing it or something?

You did READ that wiki article, right? McDonalds displayed a callous disregard for the plaintiff and the public in general...that's why the initial verdict was so large for punitive damages from the jury: to quote the judge, their behavior was "reckless, callous and willful." It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit at all, though it's become a pop culture point that it was. There are plenty of legal blogs that discuss it at length. McDonalds own research showed it was dangerous...they simply chose to ignore their own data, which was used against them in the trial. McDonalds had already settled 700 previous cases, but for some reason felt this one should go to trial. Ironically, the cost of retaining just one of their many experts was almost as much as the initial settlement of $20,000 that Liebeck asked for pre-trial (to which McDonald's counter-offered $800...for third degree burns over 6% over a 79-year old grandmother's body).

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn’t convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."
By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."

A lawsuit over not liking a new version of a game? That's not even a decent troll. Try again.

 

[Barastrondo]

Ok, you people have taken my topic out of context. I never said I wanted to sue them, I was just asking for your opinion whether or not you THINK they should be sued. Apparently it isn't such a good idea then. I actually don't mind 4e and I think it has some more potential, but there are definitely fans who hate it with a passion.

The lady who sued McDonalds for coffee that was too hot suffered third-degree burns, and some people see that as a frivolous lawsuit.

Seriously, edition wars and fan rage need the cold hard touch of perspective every now and again.


Edit: Argh, beat to it.

 

[bobhayes]

Ok, you people have taken my topic out of context. I never said I wanted to sue them, I was just asking for your opinion whether or not you THINK they should be sued. Apparently it isn't such a good idea then. I actually don't mind 4e and I think it has some more potential, but there are definitely fans who hate it with a passion.

Those people have a remedy, known as "not buying the game".

 

[Stoat]

No.

The idea is patently foolish.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Everybody knows that there can only be one lawsuit against D&D in court at any given time.

So, until mine against TSR because of the Complete Book of Elves is through you're out of luck.

 

[Scribble]

the post I want them to.


Am I safe now?

Also add into the fact that a lot of times what gamers leap onto as being "bad business sense" is simply the beginning of a good business move (and they, the gamers, don't know the rest of) or it's a good move (based on strategies and info that they the gamers have no idea about) and there is even less for the shareholders to be upset about.

 

[VGmaster9]

Those people have a remedy, known as "not buying the game".

There are also those who have bought it and were very disappointed with it. Imagine what it would be like if someone sued Wizards for not only 4e (and the changes it made), but also for stuff like them cancelling the miniatures line in favor of monster tokens and them making Dragon Magazine a webzine. I'd think I'd crack up if that actually happened, though dumbfounded at the same time.

Something like that is from an angry D&D fan's perspective, not mine.