Elden Ring Player Sues Over Difficulty

A frustrated Elden Ring player has filed a legal complaint against Bandai Namco and FromSoftware, arguing the game developers deliberately withheld significant portions of game content through excessive difficulty. Discover what sparked this unprecedented lawsuit and whether it has any legal standing.

Elden Ring Lawsuit Reaches Small Claims Court

Game Content Locked Behind Difficulty Barrier

A disgruntled player going by "Nora Kisaragi" on 4Chan revealed plans to sue Bandai Namco this September, alleging Elden Ring and other FromSoftware titles contain undiscovered gameplay elements intentionally obscured by punishing difficulty curves.

While FromSoftware's reputation for challenging yet rewarding gameplay remains undisputed—particularly with Shadow of the Erdtree DLC pushing even veterans to their limits—the plaintiff maintains excessive difficulty serves as camouflage for missing content.

The complainant cites datamined assets as proof that developers haven't delivered promised content, contrary to typical explanations about cut features resulting from development constraints. Unlike standard industry practice where abandoned assets remain in game files, the plaintiff insists these represent intentionally concealed gameplay dimensions.

Without direct evidence, the claimant relies on developer hints—referencing Sekiro's art book clues about alternate narratives and Miyazaki's Bloodborne commentary regarding humanity's symbolic restraints. Their central argument asserts players unknowingly purchased inaccessible content disguised as skill-based progression walls.

The gaming community largely dismisses these claims, noting that substantive hidden content would have surfaced through exhaustive datamining efforts years earlier. Industry experts confirm abandoned assets often linger in game files due to technical constraints rather than deliberate concealment.

Legal Viability of the Lawsuit

Filed in Massachusetts small claims court—where litigants can represent themselves without attorneys—the case rests on proving deceptive business practices under consumer protection statutes. However, the plaintiff faces significant evidentiary challenges.

The crux involves demonstrating both the existence of deliberately hidden content and actual consumer harm—a steep evidentiary burden given speculative nature of the claims. Without documented proof of missing content affecting gameplay value, experts anticipate swift dismissal.

Even if successful, small claims judgments carry minimal financial impacts. Notably, the complainant prioritizes official developer acknowledgment over monetary compensation, stating their primary goal is compelling Bandai Namco's formal response regarding alleged hidden content dimensions.