I think the best part of this thread is that there's not a single person who actually agrees with OP. The closest I see is "you're right, Cryptic should be doing a better job, but come on man, grow up."
The vast majority simply think OP is a raving idiot.
If I remember correctly, in the British judicial system, if a judge throws out a case, the plaintiff pays the court costs, right?
I imagine that cuts down on the frivolous lawsuits. I wish we did it that way.
I believe that's true... I'm not 100% sure though. I do know that for small claims (under £50k) the plaintiff has to go through the defendants local county court though. Which can make small claims fairly expensive to pursue just based on travel costs alone.
There are still a lot of incredibly stupid law suits in this country... but that's primarily because of advertising making people think that they can make a few quid out of something stupid.
Let me see if I have this straight. You played in closed beta so you know it was bugged. You know there were connection prbolems and downtine.
You played in open beta so you know it was bugged. You know there were connection problems amd downtime.
Did you think the tooth fairy was going to come out and wave her magic wand and everything would be allright overnight.
Please start a court case and you will be laughed out of town.
Knowingly selling such items to customers would be gross negligence.
Incosequesntial, and getting a refund or exchange would be pretty easy.
STO on the otherhand is just a game. I am pretty sure that in the Term & Conditions it is clearly stated that downtime, errors, bugs, etc are ilkely to happen, and that by purchasing the game you acknowleddge those facts.
I doubt anything has happened to anyone yet that would even warrant anykind of legal action.
Even by a game developer or publisher claiming you agree to downtime, bugs, etc, etc the EULA and ToS are not ironclad. More EULA's and ToS's have been deemed worthless is court then have been upheld.
Oh and the bit about game play changing, that is another bogus byline companies use that does not and never will stand up in a court of law. It is too ambiguous to be used as a legal safeguard.
To put it in a way that any young adult or older should grasp you need to view a game as any other product you pay money for. There is a reasonable expectation attached to all products and services in the U.S. When those reasonable expectations are not met and money has changed hands the customer is due relief or remedy to either replace the faulty product or a refund when no replacement can be made. Tort laws cover this but you will never find a lawyer worth a damn or dumb enough to take one persons case to court over $60. If you could find enough people to fill a class action suit that would make it worth their while then you have something but you would only end up getting about 10% of the $60 you would be seeking.
It would be better to simply do a charge back on your credit card and if that is not possible go to your local magistrate court or small claims court and file something for the return of your $60 because of a faulty product and services that do not meet reasonable expectations. And yes both of these avenues work as they have been documented as working in a host of other games.