Quote:The Advocate news in Baton Rouge, Louisiana is reporting about a federal case against Nintendo that claims the company failed to follow consumer protection rules. A family has gone to court with Nintendo after their son had a seizure playing a game. Their attorneys say that Nintendo’s games contain defects that present a “substantial hazard” of serious injury or death to those that can suffer from seizures while playing games. Some people’s brains are extremely sensitive to certain patterns and flashing lights and can have a seizure. Striped clothing, helicopter blades, and strobe lights can also have the same effect.
After three days of testimony Nintendo settled the personal injury claim in the case for an undisclosed amount. That’s only the beginning though, the judge has to decide whether Nintendo knew about an unusually high risk and didn’t do enough about it. Nintendo has been putting warnings on their packages about games possibly causing seizures for years, but there are several other guidelines and rules to follow.
Nintendo’s professional witness says "Video games don't cause epilepsy or seizures. They are caused by a pre-existing neurological condition." The defense also testified that Nintendo donated funds to the Japanese Epilepsy Association to help fund research into the connection of games and seizures.
The family is going to tremendous lengths in their demands, they’ve asked Nintendo to require there to be warnings about seizures on the screen while games are in use. They want Nintendo to rank all games according to seizure risk and reformat all their games to reduce the chance of seizures. And as if this wasn’t enough they also want Nintendo to fund a nationwide advertising campaign to inform the public about seizures from games and to institute a refund program so that anybody that wants to get their money back from Nintendo games can do so.
In total there were six complaints related to seizures from Nintendo's games in 2003, down from 22 in 1999.
They're not asking for much are they?
N-Philes
I don't want some stupid warning on the screen at all times, or some sort of "seizure meter" on there. I also don't want all those cool l337 looking flashy graphical effects removed! I mean, then half the "cool" of the battle against Ganondorf in OOT is like... gone! Such as, I dunno, seing the thing you are supposed to bounce back. What, are they supposed to turn it into a rock or something? Oh yeah, that's really enthralling there.
Yeesh, this sort of thing has been known for years, as the article said, and isn't JUST from video games. Heck, the first real case of this, widespread, happened with a TV show, not a video game (that show was BASED on a video game, but that's not the point). Why not sue helicopter makers because the blades go too fast and create a pattern, forcing them to slow the blades down? *crash* And let's not forget that all striped suits should be banned!
I just can't believe Nintendo settled. Nintendo ALWAYS wins when people sue them over stupid things.
I THINK a warning in the precaution booklets is MORE than enough. If parents don't read those, then they are to blame. It's like blaming a toaster maker because the warning not to put metal objects in it while it's on is ONLY in the instruction manuel and not emblazoned on the sides, and the toaster doesn't have a built in metal detector that shuts the toaster off if something metal is nearby.
More liberal red tape. Some kid gut his hand shot off, some kid had a seizure, so we all must beware now.
Quote:The family is going to tremendous lengths in their demands, they’ve asked Nintendo to require there to be warnings about seizures on the screen while games are in use. They want Nintendo to rank all games according to seizure risk and reformat all their games to reduce the chance of seizures. And as if this wasn’t enough they also want Nintendo to fund a nationwide advertising campaign to inform the public about seizures from games and to institute a refund program so that anybody that wants to get their money back from Nintendo games can do so.
WHOA! You'd think something this
serious would have been recognized somewhere along the 20+ years Nintendo has been in this business! How blind we all are! Give me a break. This is all the parents fault and they're being a thorn in Nintendos side to avoid people realizing that. Who bought that console and the game in question? Who didn't read the clear-as-day warning on the inside cover of the manual? Who allowed the child to play this game when they were more than likely aware he was epileptic? All the answers are the same: Mom and Dad.
A nationwide ad campaign about seizures? Nintendo doesn't even have a codified campaign to SELL their games!
Yeah, the warning in the manual (or, for the GB, in a seperate pamphlet that comes wtih the game) of EVERY NINTENDO GAME I OWN should be enough! Stupid lawsuits really are a plague on our society... if Nintendo had no warning about this they'd have a point, but Nintendo warns you in the manual that epileptics probably shouldn't be playing games.
It's like suing a company that makes chainsaws because you cut your face off trying to shave with one of their products.
Or the lady who sued McDonald's when she spilled coffee in her lap... AND WON!
EdenMaster Wrote:A nationwide ad campaign about seizures? Nintendo doesn't even have a codified campaign to SELL their games!
This one deserves some recognition.
Besides, what's the big deal if all these toys have these sharp edges and concrete slabs and seizure inducing bright lights? Let the little one-eyed bastards play!
A Black Falcon Wrote:Or the lady who sued McDonald's when she spilled coffee in her lap... AND WON!
Does that make you angry? You're the guy who thinks people should be protected from their own stupidity.
That woman was stupid.
Woman: Well...I didn't know that the hot coffee was hot! They should have told me that if it spilled on me while I was trying to drive and drink it at the same time that it would burn me! I want a million dollars!!
Parents like these two make me sick. I have a nephew who suffers from epilepsy and his parents are extremely careful about what they let him watch or do, and because of this and the medication he's on, he hasn't had a seizure in over a year now. These parents who sued Nintendo do not give a rat's ass about their kid's own well-being, they did it soley for the money. Make no mistake about that.
@ EM. Well said.
There are warning labels about seizures already in some places.
There was a Cartoon in Japan were 5,000 Japanese kids got a seizure all at once because the cartoon character had flashing eyes.Does that mean we go out and sue the channel and everything thats related to tv's.
Yeah. That show was Pokemon. Luckily it wasn't Nintendo's fault for that incident, tho.
However after that incident they changed Pokemon so that it wouldn't cause seisures like that...
And Weltall, people should be protected from criminal negligence and stuff but Europe gets along pretty well and they don't have our absurdly litigatious society!
Criminal, like toys with unobvious dangers like potentially exploding? Sure.
They didn't change pokémon, only the ONE episode that had that one issue (that episode occuring in a virtual world, explaining the rather unusual lighting effects used). Later they chilled a bit on the special lighting, but now that it's well known what sort of pattern instigates this, they are using those a lot more. It was an odd frequency of alternating red and blue lights. A lot of people have tried and failed to make a "seizure web page" as you might know.
Anyway, it's only an issue for those with that particular neuralogical condition. It seems to be common enough in Japan for around 500 or so people to have seen it, out of millions upon millions who likely also saw it, and ONE kid in America after all this time. Well, likely it's been caused many more times, but the parents and the actual patients themselves were decent enough to realize it's just something that happens in life and it wasn't anyone's fault.
This is akin to a person with no legs suing a car company because they decided to drive a car but couldn't reach the breaks and got in an accident. When you have a disability, you need to accept and move on. If you can't watch certain patterns of light, you don't. You may need to find a creative solution so you can enjoy the things others take for granted. Perhaps surgery, perhaps an innovative video system of some sort that negates these sorts of patterns before they are seen, but you just aren't capable of viewing certain things most people can safely, and you can't sue a company just because they make products generating these patterns. If they were dangerous to EVERYONE, then you have something, maybe. However, there's just things you need to accept. One can't deprive everyone else of cool effects they CAN enjoy just because, at the moment, they can't.
If you don't have legs you get a specially made car with handles on the sides of the wheel for acceleration...
These people give disabled people a bad name.
Maybe they should have some games with options to turn off flashing or something?
How about they ware some kind of protective glasses or maybe not even play games at all.
No, I'm saying they should come up with their own option and leave the "normals" (that's us) alone! :D Now, when a seizure type flashing thing is put outside on a billboard, where it's pretty much forced upon the poor person and they didn't have a choice, then there's something. That's IF they were aware of it of course, because a similar thing could happen with a helicopter, and there's no way they can sue helicopter companies for OBEYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
I think it's more than enough to simply warn them of it, which they do. Keep in mind that TV has NO warnings for this sort of thing. The kid may just have to find a way around it or go without.
Keep this in mind as well. It's very possible that the kid has been playing a lot of video games before this incident without any sort of side effects, and this was the first time this occured. In that case the kid and parents were willing to take the risk. Perhaps they are still willing to take the risk because most games likely won't do this. However, it's STILL a risk they are willingly taking, and if you are willing to take a risk, then you MUST be fully willing to take full responsibility of the consequences. That's what taking a risk MEANS.
It depends on what causes it. If it's something easily graphically disabled (and replaced with grey textures or something) why not add the option...
Because it's likely never going to be so easy, and likely cause glitches and add a lot to development time for something that's just not practicle. A better solution is to get to the source, which is what neuroligists are constantly striving towards. Better to eliminate the glitch completely.
It's colors and patterns and stuff! That's all I think...
Quote:The kid who had a seizure just happens to be the son of the mayor of St. Martinville, Louisiana.
Look what somebody posted on N-Philes :). Now it's starting to look like something to bolster his campaign.
Quote:Nintendo’s professional witness says "Video games don't cause epilepsy or seizures....
Professional witness? I wonder how you get that job...
I wonder if this story is True? I havent heard of it anywhere except here.
Remember when that woman sued Burger King because her child (who, if I recall correctly, was UNDER 3 YEARS OLD, and the package of every toy clearly states AGES 3 AND UP) choked on a Pokéball AND WON? It was freaky to see that commercial from Burger King warning everyone about the Pokéball, all because some whore was too busy doing it doggy style to notice that her child was chewing on a piece of plastic.
There are several other dumb, yet successful, lawsuits out there. I once got an email containing the top 5 dumb lawsuits, known as the Stella Awards. (Stella being the name of the woman who sued McDonald's because she spilled coffee on herself.) One woman was at the store when she tripped over someone's child, who was horseplaying in the store, and sprained her ankle. She sued for several thousand dollars because of the injury that this child caused. And here's the damn thing about it all: it was HER child that she tripped over. Well hell, I'm just going to go to Wal*Mart right now, take my cousin with me, purposely trip over her, and sue Wal*Mart for a million dollars! Apparently, our judges are dumb enough to declare me the winner.
The first place dumb lawsuit? A man put his vehicle into Cruise Control, thinking that it would steer itself, then went into his trailer hooked to the back of the van to make some coffee. He soon learned the hard way that he couldn't do that. He sued for over a million dollars and won. The company changed their manuals on the basis of this lawsuit just in case there were any other complete morons driving their recreation vehicles.
Now are these REAL lawsuits (aside from the coffee thing)? Some of those sound just way BEYOND stupid, and possibly people believe them just because they WANT to believe in the absurd. Did you just get this in an e-mail or is there actual proof of these lawsuits?
I only saw them in an email, so it's very possible that they're not true. Indeed, they are absolutely absurd. I would pray that we could have more confidence in our justice system than THIS.
Yeah, I thought our justice system would be smarter than that. After all, they put Martha Stewart in her place. :D
On very weird charges though...
FBI Person: We're going to charge you with insider trading.
Martha Stewart: Well...I had a deal with my broker to sell if it went below a certain amount, plus I have this document here.
FBI Person: Did I say insider trading? I meant lying to investigators and obstructing justice.
Martha Stewart: ...
I think they had already made their decision to put her in prison back in 2002. All they had to do was convict her of something, anything at all. Even if it was molesting a little boy. Luckily, things didn't have to come down to that.
Why would the FBI have a conspiracy against her? That's stupid.
They wanted to convict her and put her in jail for insider trading, but there wasn't enough evidence.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Why would the FBI have a conspiracy against her? That's stupid.
They wanted to make an example out of her. Basically Martha was convicted for being a huge raging bitch. And rich. People hate rich people.
As for this lawsuit, it's beyond ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is the idea that they're supposed to change games becuase some people can't play them. Oh no, some people can't play games with flashing lights, therefore nobody should be able to! It's just not fair!
You were born with a disability, it's not fair. But guess what, life isn't fair and nobody ever said it was. I don't know where people got this idea that life's supposed to be fair. Is it fair that some people are born smarter then others and can go on to do great things while the dumb person is relegated to a life of mediocrity? Is it fair that some people are born beautiful and get to have sex with other beautiful people while some are born ugly and die alone? Life's not fair, get over it.
Yes, Martha is a raging bitch. That's really the only reason I hate her. I was just kidding about it being good that she's in prison.