Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumer rights/protection, false advertisement, and trivialization of issues.

1234568

Posts

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Welcome to the wonderful world of hindsight. QA testers are not omnipotent. The QA testing department of a company does not always communicate with the marketing department.

    It's much easier to notice an incredibly minor graphical glitch when someone specifically points it out to you after it's been discovered.

    And it is amazing to me that you think it isn't the marketing division's responsibility to ensure everything they put in their advertisements is 100% true before doing so.

    One of those steps might be "hey, QA department, please look over this ad and let us know if anything in it is blatantly false."

    I am in awe of how silly your arguments are. "The QA testing department of a company does not always communicate with the marketing department." Brilliant! However, the question isn't what kind of business foibles and cut corners businesses usually DO engage (or fail to engage in), but rather what they should be expected to engage in.

    Another way of wording your argument is this: The company isn't responsible for what the marketing department advertises because the marketing department doesn't always communicate with the tech department.

    That. Is. Nuts.

    Drez on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Using your example of Oblivion

    In the context of a post headed with "would it be so horrible if," in response to your wild claims about the coming death of PC gaming due to willy-nilly returns, not false advertising or Drez or Bioshock. Do try to keep up.
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Your standard would include features that customers presume would be in a game, not just advertised ones.

    No, the standard with which you would like to argue includes "presumed" features, and I'm inclined to let you have whatever conversation you want with yourself.

    EDIT: I wrote this post in anger, then took a shower and now I feel better and my brain works properly again. I'm actually not at all sure that Lawndart intended to misrepresent me with his post; it would certainly be dickish of me not to extend him the benefit of the doubt after I may well have strawman'd him myself on accident way back on page three or wherever. The way I see it, there are a couple of things complicating this issue. The first and foremost is the extreme limitation of software returns in response to fears of piracy, making it extraordinarily difficult to return any software for any reason. This is really what I was writing about in the post where I mentioned Oblivion; I think that game would have looked very different (even if it was only the box being covered in fine print) in a world where software customers had the same recourse available to consumers of nearly every other good.

    The second is the question of triviality, which is helpfully mentioned right in the title of the post. Being that games are entertainment products, and entertainment is a pretty nebulous idea, I think different consumers are going to have very different priorities when it comes to the functionality of game features. So I think the notion that "99% of gamers don't mind, you should fucking suck it up" is very deleterious to having any kind of effective consumer protection. The only thing that should matter is the integrity of the means used to make a sale, and if I take Drez at face value when he says that the lie/misrepresentation about FOV influenced (even subtly) his decision to purchase, then the only conclusion is that this sale was made inappropriately and should be reversed.

    But, some are probably thinking, there's your problem right there! You're accepting Drez' claims at face value! That's a terrible idea, because PC gamers are a bunch of lying, cheating, scurvy dogs! And as flippant as my wording is here, I really do have to admit that as a significant problem - if we assume that people would return software fraudulently, and that this would be even more deleterious to the industry than companies selling software fraudulently. In a world in which BitTorrent exists I just can't see how this could possibly be true.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ok wait so aside from the silliness of the circle vs oval issue does it affect every monitor and graphics card combo, or just certain ones?

    Beyond that at best suing for false advertising you are not necessarily due a refund, at best you might be able to force them to run some form of correction which in this case would pretty much amount to a post on the main page stating "Graphics may appear slightly different at some resolutions." Demonstrating you have been damaged because the ovals are supposed to be circles is going to be a bit of a stretch. Seriously, you say "these guys said the game would look identical regardless of resolution check out these two photos" and the judge is likely to toss your case out.

    If they had made no statement about resolution, or said that it would look very similar would that have prevented you from buying the game?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ok wait so aside from the silliness of the circle vs oval issue does it affect every monitor and graphics card combo, or just certain ones?

    It's been reasonably proven that it is solely the fault of the game code and that a user's end system is irrelevant. The problem is universal - the game itself doesn't scale properly.

    In fact, the community manager of 2k Games has (finally) admitted to me that the problem exists for her as well.

    Not a single consumer, nor 2k Games themselves, have been able to provide a single screenshot . In fact, every single screenshot 2k Games themselves have posted of the game in 16:10 has shown the stretching issue.

    Detharin wrote: »
    Beyond that at best suing for false advertising you are not necessarily due a refund, at best you might be able to force them to run some form of correction which in this case would pretty much amount to a post on the main page stating "Graphics may appear slightly different at some resolutions."

    According to every single thing I've read about "false advertisement" and "good faith," you are not correct. I am 99.99999999999999% sure, given the evidence at hand, that a judge would award me - at the very least - a full refund of the game, even now (almost four months after the release of the game). Not that I actually want that to happen, but from everything I've read, it is the case.

    And that really doesn't solve the problem. Let's say I run an ad selling a flashlight and I include the phrase "Has three brightness settings! - Low, Medium, and High!" You buy it at least in part because you wanted a flashlight with three settings. But it actually only has Low and High settings, not medium. You really don't think I have an obligation at that point to either (a) refund your money if you ask or (b) fix the flashlight so it does have three brightness settings?

    Barring either those options, I almost certainly DO have an obligation to revise the advertisement, but that doesn't do anything for YOU - a person who made a purchase in good faith because of my advertisement and who received a product that was different than what was advertised. I must certainly do that for prospective future customers, though.

    Detharin wrote: »
    Demonstrating you have been damaged because the ovals are supposed to be circles is going to be a bit of a stretch. Seriously, you say "these guys said the game would look identical regardless of resolution check out these two photos" and the judge is likely to toss your case out.

    The issue is very simple: A feature was explicitly advertised and the product doesn't have the feature. It's not a stretch to call that "damage" when you avail yourself of knowledge of "false advertisement" and "good faith" and also apply some rudimentary logic.

    Detharin wrote: »
    If they had made no statement about resolution, or said that it would look very similar would that have prevented you from buying the game?

    Quite possibly. I really have no idea, because by the time I started looking for information on the game, that particular article with that particular statement was already being promoted on the 2k Games website.

    See, there's a big difference between saying "we've ensured that the HUD looks the same on all resolutions" and not saying anything at all about how the HUD looks on all the resolutions. Once you've included a statement like that, you've turned it into a selling point. So it doesn't really matter what I would have done as a consumer if that statement wasn't a part of the advertisement.

    Drez on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    We're not talking about complancency pills, we're talking about pills for your "OCD".

    Hahahahahah.

    You do realize I'm not the only person in the entire universe that has complained about this exact issue for the exact reasons I have complained (which is not "because I have OCD"), right? Well if you weren't aware of it before, you are now. I am not the only one.

    And not everyone who complained about the issue to 2k Games has OCD.

    Nor does it matter.

    So since the OCD has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for my complaint, which is not "it bothers me that it looks stretched" but rather "2k Games explicitly advertised a feature they didn't make good on," these magic OCD pills you are alluding to won't actually fix anything.

    But thank you for playing! Our lovely parting gift for you today is some silly goose pâté, the same crap you've been trying to feed us with every post you've made. I'm sure you'll enjoy the taste as much as the rest of us.

    Do you talk like this in real life? :lol:

    The fact that you've overreacted in every single post to someone questioning if this is really that big of a deal has been entertaining though.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »


    According to every single thing I've read about "false advertisement" and "good faith," you are not correct. I am 99.99999999999999% sure, given the evidence at hand, that a judge would award me - at the very least - a full refund of the game, even now (almost four months after the release of the game). Not that I actually want that to happen, but from everything I've read, it is the case.

    And that really doesn't solve the problem. Let's say I run an ad selling a flashlight and I include the phrase "Has three brightness settings! - Low, Medium, and High!" You buy it at least in part because you wanted a flashlight with three settings. But it actually only has Low and High settings, not medium. You really don't think I have an obligation at that point to either (a) refund your money if you ask or (b) fix the flashlight so it does have three brightness settings?

    Barring either those options, I almost certainly DO have an obligation to revise the advertisement, but that doesn't do anything for YOU - a person who made a purchase in good faith because of my advertisement and who received a product that was different than what was advertised. I must certainly do that for prospective future customers, though.

    Your analogy is flawed, imagine if your flashlight had low, medium, and high settings, but high was almost imperceptibly brighter than medium. I mean you have not shown any real damages to yourself. Can you play the game? Sure. Can you complete the game? Yes yes you can. Are there any game breaking bugs resulting from this glitch? Does the water look like water? Does everything look the same aside from 3 circles? Pretty much. Moreover if they have in fact publicly admitted that the circles appear as ovals on their website would that not pretty much negate your claim? By acknowledging a previously advertised feature was not performing as intended have they not already done what you are most likely going to get?
    The issue is very simple: A feature was explicitly advertised and the product doesn't have the feature. It's not a stretch to call that "damage" when you avail yourself of knowledge of "false advertisement" and "good faith" and also apply some rudimentary logic.

    The absence of that feature may in fact be a bug, or it may not. Moreover the latest patch notes indicate some fixes due to HUD stretching. However arguing that a large number of consumers were directly mislead due to a statement on a website is going to be rather difficult. However as much as you want to stretch "damage" you really have no been damaged in that you can still play and enjoy the game. You are not prevented from doing so. Nothing due to this bug is preventing you from playing or using the game. Hence claiming you have been damaged over a purely cosmetic issue is a bit of a stretch.
    Quite possibly. I really have no idea, because by the time I started looking for information on the game, that particular article with that particular statement was already being promoted on the 2k Games website.

    See, there's a big difference between saying "we've ensured that the HUD looks the same on all resolutions" and not saying anything at all about how the HUD looks on all the resolutions. Once you've included a statement like that, you've turned it into a selling point. So it doesn't really matter what I would have done as a consumer if that statement wasn't a part of the advertisement.

    It does matter, because you are going to need to demonstrate that the deception is likely to affect the purchasing decision of its audience. I highly doubt a significant portion of the audience was swayed by that little blurb on a website. Do you have any proof they acted in bad faith, and it was not just an honest mistake? You really picked a bad example to utilize in this discussion, Ultima 9 would be a much better example IMO given just how unplayable the game was at release.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ok wait so aside from the silliness of the circle vs oval issue does it affect every monitor and graphics card combo, or just certain ones?

    Beyond that at best suing for false advertising you are not necessarily due a refund, at best you might be able to force them to run some form of correction which in this case would pretty much amount to a post on the main page stating "Graphics may appear slightly different at some resolutions." Demonstrating you have been damaged because the ovals are supposed to be circles is going to be a bit of a stretch. Seriously, you say "these guys said the game would look identical regardless of resolution check out these two photos" and the judge is likely to toss your case out.

    If they had made no statement about resolution, or said that it would look very similar would that have prevented you from buying the game?

    Damaged beyond the cost of the game? No. But having the cost of the game refunded to you? I can see that happening.

    We're not talking about complancency pills, we're talking about pills for your "OCD".

    That scaling issue (now that I've seen it) would bug the shit out of me. I do not have OCD of any kind. Can we drop this stupid fucking line of argument now?

    mcdermott on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Except in claiming full damages for the game you would have to claim the product was somehow unusable, which its not.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Except in claiming full damages for the game you would have to claim the product was somehow unusable, which its not.


    No, you just have to claim that you are not satisfied with the product. And just as a bonus, the reason for this is that it lacks an advertised feature.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • QuadrosQuadros Registered User
    edited June 2010
    I could actually drop some legal knowledge here.

    Now, I'll say from the off that I've only studied British law and that's all I can offer by way of insight here. I'm two days away from earning my BA in Law, but I'm not a lawyer nor is any of my analysis legal advice. That may sound like pretentious know it all bullshit but if it saves my ass from being sued by 2K I can live with you guys thinking I'm a stuck up silly goose. Maybe that's a little paranoid, but it has happened to people before.

    Ok, so this issue is one of contract law, but more specifically one of misrepresentation. The guarantee to provide a perfect ratio on all monitors wasn't a condition of your contract to purchase, it was instead a statement made to persuade you to enter the contract. Now, when a misrepresentation is made the go-to for the courts is usually a rescission of the contract. This means that both parties would be returned to their position they were in before the contract, as if it had never happened. Steam give the money back, and would get the game back. However, because it was a digital transfer, this throws a spanner in the works because how can you remove the cost of transferring a game over? How can they claim back whatever transferring it cost them? The cost is minuscule to be sure, and the court would probably just tell them to get over themselves.

    However, another problem is that you made the contract with steam. However, steam aren't the ones who misrepresented here. That was 2k, a third party to the contract who were never directly involved. They have their own licensing agreement with steam, and no direct relationship with the customer. Because of this, the law takes the form of 'undue influence', and the claim is that because of the misrepresentation, the customer did not give truly free and informed consent. You can then claim rescission.

    Now, the actual essence of misrepresentation rests on 2 things. Firstly, was the claim 'mere puff', a kind of sales talk used to boost sales and not readily believed as literal fact. It would be like a car salesman claiming the car 'goes like lightning'; clearly not a literally true statement. Also, it must not be a statement of opinion, like 'I think the graphics look perfect on every screen'. Clearly in this case the statement was made to be, and was meant to be received as, an objectively factual statement. So it is a misrepresentation.

    Secondly, and this is the most important thing, did you rely on this statement when entering into the contract? If you'd have known the truth, would you have bought the game anyway? This is difficult, but the law doesn't allow for an objective view. This would be left to a jury. Because different people approach different things in different ways. Maybe you did buy it because it was claiming perfect graphics regardless of ratio. Maybe graphics aren't as important to you as that. This is a subjective issue which would have to be decided as part of the claim or case. If it ever went to court, the jury would have to decide whether or not you really wouldn't have bought the game because of this, or arguably whether you bought the game because it was perfect in all ratios.

    Should you take this to court? Probably not. Should you make a legal claim? not unless you can pull people together to make it worth your while. The courts sometimes throw the legal costs at a claim they consider to be legally valid by still frivolous, so you'd get your £30 back, and then have to pay thousands in legal fees. This is why class action suits exist. However, the THREAT of legal action, or even sounding like you know what the legal position is, will often make a customer service provider shit themselves. I learnt that with both BT and my local council. Companies are pretty well covered by the cost in both money and time of the legal process, but that doesn't mean you can't use the law to piss them off until they just let it go to shut you up.

    Now how similar the British and American systems are is another story but this stuff is based on common law and equity, systems our two nations both use, so the American state of affairs may be fairly similar.

    Enjoy the essay guys!

    Quadros on
    Heart Gold FC: 1720 6054 1947, Diamond: 0474 9576 8529

    I am almost always up for a battle, get involved.
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Using your example of Oblivion
    In the context of a post headed with "would it be so horrible if," in response to your wild claims about the coming death of PC gaming due to willy-nilly returns, not false advertising or Drez or Bioshock. Do try to keep up.

    No, the standard with which you would like to argue includes "presumed" features, and I'm inclined to let you have whatever conversation you want with yourself.

    You brought up Oblivion as an example of a game that "falsely advertised" certain features. Hence I mentioned it, not BioShock 2. Do try and keep up.
    EDIT: I wrote this post in anger, then took a shower and now I feel better and my brain works properly again. I'm actually not at all sure that Lawndart intended to misrepresent me with his post; it would certainly be dickish of me not to extend him the benefit of the doubt after I may well have strawman'd him myself on accident way back on page three or wherever. The way I see it, there are a couple of things complicating this issue. The first and foremost is the extreme limitation of software returns in response to fears of piracy, making it extraordinarily difficult to return any software for any reason. This is really what I was writing about in the post where I mentioned Oblivion; I think that game would have looked very different (even if it was only the box being covered in fine print) in a world where software customers had the same recourse available to consumers of nearly every other good.

    Fair enough, I'm pretty dickish myself.

    What you're ignoring is that it's not just the consumer protections that differ between software and other consumer goods, but the nature of the goods themselves. In your efforts to expand consumer protection for software, you're placing an unduly extreme and actually impossible burden on PC developers.
    The second is the question of triviality, which is helpfully mentioned right in the title of the post. Being that games are entertainment products, and entertainment is a pretty nebulous idea, I think different consumers are going to have very different priorities when it comes to the functionality of game features. So I think the notion that "99% of gamers don't mind, you should fucking suck it up" is very deleterious to having any kind of effective consumer protection. The only thing that should matter is the integrity of the means used to make a sale, and if I take Drez at face value when he says that the lie/misrepresentation about FOV influenced (even subtly) his decision to purchase, then the only conclusion is that this sale was made inappropriately and should be reversed.

    Except that triviality has to be taken into account when dealing with any solution to an issue that impacts more than just consumers. Plus, Drez never claimed that he read the FAQ on the Cult Of Rapture site before purchasing BioShock 2, or that it influenced his decision to purchase it. He ordered it, played it, noticed the issue, then went to the site and noticed the discrepancy between the FAQ and the issue he was presenting.

    Edit: Ethically, to me, that removes the right he has to claim "false advertising" as a rationale for a full refund, since he didn't see the advertising until after he purchased the game. It certainly leaves 2K Games on the hook, ethically at least, to fix the issue and communicate with their disgruntled customers, but I think that even in this isolated case that a full refund is excessive.
    But, some are probably thinking, there's your problem right there! You're accepting Drez' claims at face value! That's a terrible idea, because PC gamers are a bunch of lying, cheating, scurvy dogs! And as flippant as my wording is here, I really do have to admit that as a significant problem - if we assume that people would return software fraudulently, and that this would be even more deleterious to the industry than companies selling software fraudulently. In a world in which BitTorrent exists I just can't see how this could possibly be true.

    Again, you're looking at this issue from a perspective that, by your own admission, ignores and trivializes any possible impact on game developers and retailers. You're more than welcome to do that, but that's more of an ideological stance than a constructive one.

    First, claiming that a wide-open "no questions asked" return policy would welcome abuse from customers isn't accusing those customers of piracy. It's accusing them of being customers. Ever worked retail?

    Second, just because there are larger negative impacts on PC game sales doesn't mean that making sweeping changes to PC game returns and the resulting negative impact wouldn't be substantial. Because those impacts are cumulative.

    Any way, thanks for not calling me brain damaged for not agreeing with you. :P

    Lawndart on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I am not satisfied the circles are ovals! Seriously though, this is a really bad test case. Looking exactly the same, as opposed to mostly the same is going to be a really hard sell.

    If you think you have a case, sue. However frankly I think while false advertising can be a big issue, this case is laughably trivial.

    EDIT
    BIOSHOCK 2 PC Q&A

    How did you deal with widescreen? How will someone on a regular monitor and a widescreen monitor see the game?
    We support single-screen 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions. The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at. The only major difference for 4:3 and 5:4 users will be the smaller Field of View compared to a widescreen resolution.

    One could also make the case that appearing exactly the same is pure fluff because we know it is not going to appear EXACTLY the same. A game played on a 10 year old CRT is not going to look exactly the same as it does on a modern HD screen. Also they make note of a major difference but that does not preclude their being minor differences. Such as circles appearing to be ovals. Saying they will look EXACTLY the same, and then saying "well aside from this major difference".

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Any way, thanks for not calling me brain damaged for not agreeing with you. :P

    I didn't call you brain damaged because you didn't agree with me. I called you brain damaged because you were arguing like someone with brain damage. Important difference.

    Detharin wrote: »
    I am not satisfied the circles are ovals! Seriously though, this is a really bad test case. Looking exactly the same, as opposed to mostly the same is going to be a really hard sell.

    If you think you have a case, sue. However frankly I think while false advertising can be a big issue, this case is laughably trivial.

    EDIT
    BIOSHOCK 2 PC Q&A

    How did you deal with widescreen? How will someone on a regular monitor and a widescreen monitor see the game?
    We support single-screen 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions. The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at. The only major difference for 4:3 and 5:4 users will be the smaller Field of View compared to a widescreen resolution.

    One could also make the case that appearing exactly the same is pure fluff because we know it is not going to appear EXACTLY the same. A game played on a 10 year old CRT is not going to look exactly the same as it does on a modern HD screen. Also they make note of a major difference but that does not preclude their being minor differences. Such as circles appearing to be ovals. Saying they will look EXACTLY the same, and then saying "well aside from this major difference".

    So you think that any judge - if this exact subject ever came before them - would consider an oval and a circle to "appear exactly the same" or would consider the phrase "appear exactly the same" as fluff despite the fact that two actual circles on a number of different screens/in various different resolutions would look quite identical? I just want to be clear here, if that's what you're arguing.

    I mean it sounds to me like you're suggesting that any company should be excused from any explicit statement they ever make if some pedantic loophole can be found.

    How about taking them to task for making explicit statements in the first place, if they can NEVER be taken at face value by a customer?

    Drez on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    I am not satisfied the circles are ovals! Seriously though, this is a really bad test case. Looking exactly the same, as opposed to mostly the same is going to be a really hard sell.

    If you think you have a case, sue. However frankly I think while false advertising can be a big issue, this case is laughably trivial.

    EDIT
    BIOSHOCK 2 PC Q&A

    How did you deal with widescreen? How will someone on a regular monitor and a widescreen monitor see the game?
    We support single-screen 4:3, 5:4, 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions. The game has been optimized to ensure that all game elements such as menus, HUD, UI, etc appear exactly the same regardless of what resolution the user is running the game at. The only major difference for 4:3 and 5:4 users will be the smaller Field of View compared to a widescreen resolution.

    One could also make the case that appearing exactly the same is pure fluff because we know it is not going to appear EXACTLY the same. A game played on a 10 year old CRT is not going to look exactly the same as it does on a modern HD screen. Also they make note of a major difference but that does not preclude their being minor differences. Such as circles appearing to be ovals. Saying they will look EXACTLY the same, and then saying "well aside from this major difference".

    It's clear that in the context of that statement they're talking only about the aspect ratio...not resolution, color quality, etc.

    And again, the fact that it's an issue that was explicitly addressed in the Q&A suggests it's not trivial. It suggests that 2K knows it's not trivial.

    mcdermott on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    I am not satisfied the circles are ovals! Seriously though, this is a really bad test case. Looking exactly the same, as opposed to mostly the same is going to be a really hard sell.

    If you think you have a case, sue. However frankly I think while false advertising can be a big issue, this case is laughably trivial.

    Don't use the T-word, his rage over ovals is right and justice. For too long they been corrupting our circles, marring their perfection with their elongated ideas, luring them in with promises of a slimmer shape, then addicting them to the non-radially symmetric lifestyle.

    This page needs to hit 100 pages, every person who joins makes it more enjoyable to read.

    tinwhiskers on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »

    So you think that any judge - if this exact subject ever came before them - would consider an oval and a circle to "appear exactly the same" or would consider the phrase "appear exactly the same" as fluff despite the fact that two actual circles on a number of different screens/in various different resolutions would look quite identical? I just want to be clear here, if that's what you're arguing.

    I mean it sounds to me like you're suggesting that any company should be excused from any explicit statement they ever make if some pedantic loophole can be found.

    How about taking them to task for making explicit statements in the first place, if they can NEVER be taken at face value by a customer?

    I think any judge is going to take a long hard look at you and wonder exactly why you bothered with the case given how trivial it is.
    Then they are going to look at the EULA
    Licensor warrants to you that this Software is compatible with a personal computer meeting the minimum system requirements listed in the Software documentation or that it has been certified by the gaming unit producer as compatible with the gaming unit for which it has been published, however, due to variations in hardware, software, internet connections and individual usage, Licensor does not warrant the performance of this Software on your specific computer or gaming unit. Licensor does not warrant against interference with your enjoyment of the Software; that the Software will meet your requirements; that operation of the Software will be uninterrupted or error-free, or that the Software will be compatible with third party software or hardware or that any errors in the Software will be corrected. No oral or written advice provided by Licensor or any authorized representative shall create a warranty. Because some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of or limitations on implied warranties or the limitations on the applicable statutory rights of a consumer, some or all of the above exclusions and limitations may not apply to you.

    I am suggesting if you feel you have a case then by all means sue. Right now part of your problem is you are trying to snowball such a tiny trivial concern, that is causing people to have a hard time taking you seriously, into a representation of a much bigger issue. Per the EULA all the devs need to do is say "it should look the same, it doesn't, its a bug, we may or may not fix it. We are not required to fix bugs per our EULA." You would be better off dropping the while bioshock oval debates and perhaps choosing something a bit more...harmful to the consumer.

    EDIT
    What they should do is just resize all the circles into ovals for every other resolution and then when it gets stretched it would look like a circle. Then give you the option to choose between circles or ovals.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Know what's funny?

    Even if you convince me that Drez is in the wrong, it will only be by also convincing me that game developers are terrible and unworthy of my monetary support.

    EDIT: Like, if you'd have to hide behind an EULA to make up for the fact that your put out a shoddy game that doesn't live up to (fairly basic) technical claims? Go you.

    mcdermott on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Then do not support them? The problem is not that Drez is wrong, the problem is Drez has picked the most retarded point from which to stage his fight. As oppose to acknowledging that this case is so trivially unimportant, dropping it, and moving on to address the issue he refuses to see that no one is going to consider ovals not circular enough to warrant him getting damages. Did someone, somewhere say they would look the same? Sure, however was that person aware that circles may be ovals? Was it a bug that was due to be fixed? Maybe no one even noticed they looked slightly different because no one in the QA department was that anal. Drez has pretty much taken the topic out back and shot it, Circles are his old yeller and ovals are his rabies. I mean we could have a wonderful topic about how game companies have lied to us in their advertising from Ultima 9 being a buggy unplayable mess at release, Or how about when Sony made up a fansite to promote the PSP, got caught, and admitted to deceptive marketing? (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/13/sony-owns-up-to-deceptive-marketing-blog/) How many other examples can we produce of fraudulent claims in the video game industry? Features that were cut and never put back? Outright broken promises? I mean that would be a fun thread.

    However right now all we have is bitching about ovals.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Then do not support them? The problem is not that Drez is wrong, the problem is Drez has picked the most retarded point from which to stage his fight.

    Which brings us to the third topic of this thread.

    Statement A: Drez is not wrong.
    Statement B: Drez has picked something trivial to complain about.

    Explain to me why you wouldn't just stop at Statement A.

    What is so inherently wrong about arguing trivial/retarded/unimportant/whatever-other-condescending-word-you'd-like-to-use issues?

    For my money, if a person is right, a person is right. What difference does it make if they are right about something miniscule? And to relate this back to business, why should any company in any industry get a free pass about any issue, big or small, if the customer is right? And not "the customer is always right" kind of right, but rather the customer is provably right kind of right?

    Drez on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Then do not support them?

    For the most part, I don't.
    The problem is not that Drez is wrong, the problem is Drez has picked the most retarded point from which to stage his fight. As oppose to acknowledging that this case is so trivially unimportant, dropping it, and moving on to address the issue he refuses to see that no one is going to consider ovals not circular enough to warrant him getting damages. Did someone, somewhere say they would look the same? Sure, however was that person aware that circles may be ovals? Was it a bug that was due to be fixed? Maybe no one even noticed they looked slightly different because no one in the QA department was that anal. Drez has pretty much taken the topic out back and shot it, Circles are his old yeller and ovals are his rabies. I mean we could have a wonderful topic about how game companies have lied to us in their advertising from Ultima 9 being a buggy unplayable mess at release, Or how about when Sony made up a fansite to promote the PSP, got caught, and admitted to deceptive marketing? (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/13/sony-owns-up-to-deceptive-marketing-blog/) How many other examples can we produce of fraudulent claims in the video game industry? Features that were cut and never put back? Outright broken promises? I mean that would be a fun thread.

    However right now all we have is bitching about ovals.

    Nothing is stopping you from bringing up other issues, like the ones you allude to. The reason we have bitching about ovals is because a bunch of people were willing to take up 2K's banner in defense of those ovals...which is bullshit. Otherwise we might have been able to talk about other ways in which game developers/publishers, and hell companies in general, abuse their customers.

    mcdermott on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Then do not support them? The problem is not that Drez is wrong, the problem is Drez has picked the most retarded point from which to stage his fight.

    Which brings us to the third topic of this thread.

    Statement A: Drez is not wrong.
    Statement B: Drez has picked something trivial to complain about.

    Explain to me why you wouldn't just stop at Statement A.

    What is so inherently wrong about arguing trivial/retarded/unimportant/whatever-other-condescending-word-you'd-like-to-use issues?

    For my money, if a person is right, a person is right. What difference does it make if they are right about something miniscule? And to relate this back to business, why should any company in any industry get a free pass about any issue, big or small, if the customer is right? And not "the customer is always right" kind of right, but rather the customer is provably right kind of right?

    Heres a simple example: suppose I bought some sheets. Sold as 500 thread count. Suppose for some reason I decide to count the threads in my particular sheet, and it turns out that some segments of my sheets, actually have 499 threads per inch. Does it really make sense for me to demand a refund from the company over a handful of threads? Are my sheets ruined because of this and thus I will be unable to use them?

    I have a box of tissue on my desk, it says there are 180 in there, what if my box is defective and only has 179. Should I complain and get refunded 1/180th of the cost of my tissues? Should the company mail me a single tissue to rectify the problem?

    tinwhiskers on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Heres a simple example: suppose I bought some sheets. Sold as 500 thread count. Suppose for some reason I decide to count the threads in my particular sheet, and it turns out that some segments of my sheets, actually have 499 threads per inch. Does it really make sense for me to demand a refund from the company over a handful of threads? Are my sheets ruined because of this and thus I will be unable to use them?

    I have a box of tissue on my desk, it says there are 180 in there, what if my box is defective and only has 179. Should I complain and get refunded 1/180th of the cost of my tissues? Should the company mail me a single tissue to rectify the problem?

    Well you can't use the tissues obviously, since they're a defective product apparently thanks to the false advertising.

    Too long have we buckled under the tyranny of the paper products manufacturers. Why the other day I had a spill and the Brawny man on the front did not come to life and shoot me a knowing wink when I cleaned up said spill. Obviously, we've been lied to.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Then do not support them? The problem is not that Drez is wrong, the problem is Drez has picked the most retarded point from which to stage his fight.

    Which brings us to the third topic of this thread.

    Statement A: Drez is not wrong.
    Statement B: Drez has picked something trivial to complain about.

    Explain to me why you wouldn't just stop at Statement A.

    What is so inherently wrong about arguing trivial/retarded/unimportant/whatever-other-condescending-word-you'd-like-to-use issues?

    For my money, if a person is right, a person is right. What difference does it make if they are right about something miniscule? And to relate this back to business, why should any company in any industry get a free pass about any issue, big or small, if the customer is right? And not "the customer is always right" kind of right, but rather the customer is provably right kind of right?

    Heres a simple example: suppose I bought some sheets. Sold as 500 thread count. Suppose for some reason I decide to count the threads in my particular sheet, and it turns out that some segments of my sheets, actually have 499 threads per inch. Does it really make sense for me to demand a refund from the company over a handful of threads? Are my sheets ruined because of this and thus I will be unable to use them.

    I have a box of tissue on my desk, it says there are 180 in there, what if my box is defective and only has 179. Should I complain and get refunded 1/180th of the cost of my tissues? Should the company mail me a single tissue to rectify the problem?

    Instead, let me ask you a question about your own examples:

    Do you think the company in each example is obligated to do (a) nothing or (b) something?

    Drez on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Which brings us to the third topic of this thread.

    Statement A: Drez is not wrong.
    Statement B: Drez has picked something trivial to complain about.

    Explain to me why you wouldn't just stop at Statement A.
    Because it is probably the most pants on head, anal retentive, not worth mentioning example of the point you were trying to get across. Some marketing guy, on the official website, made a statement that may or may not have been intended to convey exactly what you are complaining about. Did he know the circles would be ovals? Was he thinking in the back of his head "They will look exactly the same, aside from the circles being stretched out a tiny bit, but who is going to notice or care."
    What is so inherently wrong about arguing trivial/retarded/unimportant/whatever-other-condescending-word-you'd-like-to-use issues?

    For my money, if a person is right, a person is right. What difference does it make if they are right about something miniscule? And to relate this back to business, why should any company in any industry get a free pass about any issue, big or small, if the customer is right? And not "the customer is always right" kind of right, but rather the customer is provably right kind of right?

    You are right in spirit, but no one cares but you. The rest of us have to point out that "dude you are being way to freaking anal about this." because you do harm to our cause. If your position were upheld to be correct in court it would irreparably harm the industry, and ultimately be of direct harm to gamers themselves. Sure you may be correct under the most stretched out definitions of damages, and if we just hand wave away that there is no real way to establish how the presence or absence of that statement would have effected sales, moreover you yourself were not swayed by the statement until after you had bought the game if the thread is correct. Congrats you found a bug, in a game, that the EULA says they do not have to fix. Moreover based on their patch notes they have made attempts to fix various similar stretching bugs. So you get to go to court, say you were damaged by a bug and want a refund based on a promise you were not aware of when you bought the product. All they need to say is that "They should look the same, if it does not it is a bug, per the EULA we do not have to fix bugs." Hell you should sue and record everything. One way or another it would be awesome on you-tube.

    Can you imagine if anyone could just find some quote someone from the dev team made that is no longer true with the final product and just go demanding a refund? Moreover if they could win? No one would advertise anything given just how much stuff could change. Furthermore shitty content that would be better of cut could not be cut because some art guy mentioned how awesome this statue in the lava level was. BAM promised lava level.

    If there is going to be a case of false advertising on video game promises we want it to be something big, something that a jury can understand, not some guy getting way to worked up because his circles look more like ovals.

    You have chosen to bear the cross of probably one of the most laughable stupid examples (and wonder why people keep making you repeat it out of sheer disbelief this is what you are bitching about) and just wont put it down. If all you need from us is for us to say "yes someone on the internet advertising a game said something that turned out to be not true depending on just how nit-picky you want to get" then by all means you have it. It was from a Q/A session'/podcast where they say down with someone and asked some questions.

    I mean lets talk about circles being ovals in the same context as making sure cold medicine does not kill you, or that your new Sham-wow doesn't absorb itself creating a black hole dropping us all into some alternate dimension where we all have evil mustaches, wear monocles, and spend our free time riding polar bears across the arctic tundra.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User
    edited June 2010

    Heres a simple example: suppose I bought some sheets. Sold as 500 thread count. Suppose for some reason I decide to count the threads in my particular sheet, and it turns out that some segments of my sheets, actually have 499 threads per inch. Does it really make sense for me to demand a refund from the company over a handful of threads? Are my sheets ruined because of this and thus I will be unable to use them?

    I have a box of tissue on my desk, it says there are 180 in there, what if my box is defective and only has 179. Should I complain and get refunded 1/180th of the cost of my tissues? Should the company mail me a single tissue to rectify the problem?

    You can choose to do whatever you want. However, you should have the right to get your 180 tissues in a box if you demand it.

    Otherwise we're just opening a ridiculous slippery slope with no boundaries in the degree to which accountability can be lost.
    If 179/180 is okay, is 177? Is 176? Is 169? That's still over 90% after all. What if only .01% boxes come with 179/180? What if it's .1%? 1%? 10%?

    To avoid abuse you need some sort of real boundaries when we discuss matters like this. So yeah, if your box of tissue comes with 179/180 tissues and you're outrageously anal about it you should have some kind of legal avenue to getting a refund for it. Because if you didn't, I don't see what's to prevent all hell from breaking loose in a series of precedents.

    Cognisseur on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Do you get your full refund after using 179 tissues sobbing quietly to yourself in your parents basement in mourning for the loss of tissue 180?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    If there is going to be a case of false advertising on video game promises we want it to be something big, something that a jury can understand, not some guy getting way to worked up because his circles look more like ovals.

    Honestly, I have to disagree. This wouldn't be a very interesting thread if someone came in and said "hey guys, I just bought ShootEmUp4000 and when I got to the main menu I found out that there is no game, they ran out of money in development so they just put the menu on the disc and sold it".

    What would that amount to? A bunch of us standing around going "er... yep... probably should've been a game there"? It's not like people were going to come in here and argue "fuck false advertising laws, I should be able to sell you whatever I want!"

    This thread is worthy of discussion precisely because of the triviality. We already know false advertising is bad. A big story would get us nowhere. With this, we're exploring the boundaries of the rights to protection against false advertising. When something becomes too trivial, do you lose your rights? That's what I'm interested in.

    Cognisseur on
  • RaburoRaburo Registered User
    edited June 2010
    You did get 179 tissues, you should only be compensated for tissue number 180. You should have to be willing to provide documentation to prove you didn't simply miscount or throw away the tissue (video footage).

    Raburo on
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Do you get your full refund after using 179 tissues sobbing quietly to yourself in your parents basement in mourning for the loss of tissue 180?

    I dunno. I don't really know the specifics on what condition a product has to be in to get value back due to false advertising. I'm just pretty sure that they have to give you as many tissues in a box as they advertise and any amount lower, regardless by how much, is not okay.
    Raburo wrote: »
    You did get 179 tissues, you should only be compensated for tissue number 180. You should have to be willing to provide documentation to prove you didn't simply miscount or throw away the tissue (video footage).

    Fine, fine. We can make the logistics of this sound as impossible and absurd as we want. Nonetheless, the simple question remains: do you have the right to that 180th tissue, a right you can pursue? Or is it too trivial that you legally lose your right to it?

    Cognisseur on
  • RaburoRaburo Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Do you get your full refund after using 179 tissues sobbing quietly to yourself in your parents basement in mourning for the loss of tissue 180?

    I dunno. I don't really know the specifics on what condition a product has to be in to get value back due to false advertising. I'm just pretty sure that they have to give you as many tissues in a box as they advertise and any amount lower, regardless by how much, is not okay.
    Raburo wrote: »
    You did get 179 tissues, you should only be compensated for tissue number 180. You should have to be willing to provide documentation to prove you didn't simply miscount or throw away the tissue (video footage).

    Fine, fine. We can make the logistics of this sound as impossible and absurd as we want. Nonetheless, the simple question remains: do you have the right to that 180th tissue, a right you can pursue? Or is it too trivial that you legally lose your right to it?

    If its written on the box you have a right to it. That is my stance.

    Raburo on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Do you get your full refund after using 179 tissues sobbing quietly to yourself in your parents basement in mourning for the loss of tissue 180?

    HURF DURF SOBBING QUIETLY YOU'RE SO FUNNY
    Heres a simple example: suppose I bought some sheets. Sold as 500 thread count. Suppose for some reason I decide to count the threads in my particular sheet, and it turns out that some segments of my sheets, actually have 499 threads per inch. Does it really make sense for me to demand a refund from the company over a handful of threads? Are my sheets ruined because of this and thus I will be unable to use them?

    I have a box of tissue on my desk, it says there are 180 in there, what if my box is defective and only has 179. Should I complain and get refunded 1/180th of the cost of my tissues? Should the company mail me a single tissue to rectify the problem?

    HEY WOW IT'S TERRIBLE ANALOGY TIME

    I love terrible analogies. Can I play?

    See, yours doesn't fit...because you're ignoring the fact that this isn't some minuscule difference (as with 499 versus 500 threads) that nobody would ever likely notice. It's a significant difference that will detract from the experience greatly for some players. Say you buy some sheets that are 500 thread count, but they're blue when it said they'd be green. Blue sheets still feel the same on your skin, right? They'll be under your blankets anyway, nobody will notice. And it's not like they're pink or anything...nobody will mistake your room for a girl's. No problemo, right?

    Or, say you ordered them because in the catalog they were depicted as having a pattern you liked. They show up, but while they are still predominantly green and the color scheme is the same, the pattern isn't the one depicted...again, they still work, they perform the function, and they probably still match your bedroom's color scheme. No big deal, right?

    Except that it is a big deal, because that's not what you fucking ordered. And in the "real world," (which is to say the world in which game developers don't get to be lazy fucktards and/or liars) that's not good enough.

    Oh, and feel free to try and pick apart my new (improved) analogy. I'll just respond by saying you're the dumbass who decided it was stupid analogy time. I'm just going along.
    If its written on the box you have a right to it. That is my stance.

    How about the manufacturer's website? Because somebody's going to claim that's different...I can feel it.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    This thread is worthy of discussion precisely because of the triviality. We already know false advertising is bad. A big story would get us nowhere. With this, we're exploring the boundaries of the rights to protection against false advertising. When something becomes too trivial, do you lose your rights? That's what I'm interested in.

    I get what you're saying, and I agree, but I'll just point out for the hundredth time:

    The developers knew this was not a trivial issue, because they addressed it specifically in their Q&A.

    mcdermott on
  • RaburoRaburo Registered User
    edited June 2010
    As long as they don't retract it I think its the same. If it turns out they cannot provide something they originally said they could, they need to make a retraction, and put a dollar value on on what's missing. Anyone that particularly wanted those ovals to be circles should be given a partial refund, not of a significant size though.

    Edit: and the partial refund should only be applicable if the info was on the manufacturers website when you bought the game.

    Raburo on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    I still think Drez is having an epic troll on all of us, TBQH. I don't think mcdermott is in the know but man is he taking this seriously!

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raburo wrote: »
    As long as they don't retract it I think its the same. If it turns out they cannot provide something they originally said they could, they need to make a retraction, and put a dollar value on on what's missing. Anyone that particularly wanted those ovals to be circles should be given a partial refund, not of a significant size though.

    Except, as Quadros pointed out, it's entirely possible that the promise that this would be fixed in this installment was the entire reason they were willing to enter into the purchase to begin with. Had they known this was not the case, they simply would not have bought the game. Because, having played the previous installment, they knew this was unacceptable to them. At this point, the value on those ovals truly is the entire purchase price of the game.

    If they entered into the purchase based on the information provided on the developer's own website, and that information was wrong (and we're assuming good faith on the developer's part, which is hardly a given), then that should void the entire purchase. A two dollar coupon doesn't cut it.

    mcdermott on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raburo wrote: »

    If its written on the box you have a right to it. That is my stance.

    Well here is your 1 tissue. Now what if it also says on the box "Maybe contain +/- up to 3 tissues and we will not be refunding missing tissues." Now what?

    Dev's say "It is supposed to look the same." Therefore if it does not look the same it is a bug. EULA the legal contract you agreed to says "We are under no obligation to fix bugs."

    Since you have already played the game, and it is of diminished value as it is now used, how much should you be compensated for the bug? This is why we need to determine "damages". See if the bug made the game unplayable, not unenjoyable mind you because your EULA states if you do not like the game it is not their problem, just unplayable and you take it back the next day sure you might have a case for a refund.

    However instead we have a case where someone is bitching about a cosmetic defect, months after release. Well you used up 179 of your 180 tissues and are now demanding a full refund. Your case is shaky at best, your reward negligible. You should pursue it, it will be a source of great amusement one way or another.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I still think Drez is having an epic troll on all of us, TBQH. I don't think mcdermott is in the know but man is he taking this seriously!

    There be trolls in this thread, this I know.
    However instead we have a case where someone is bitching about a cosmetic defect, months after release. Well you used up 179 of your 180 tissues and are now demanding a full refund. Your case is shaky at best, your reward negligible. You should pursue it, it will be a source of great amusement one way or another.

    Well, unless we're talking about a platform like Steam, where you can (for the most part) tell how much the customer has actually played the game. In some cases (where Steam achievements are present) you can even tell how far they've progressed.

    mcdermott on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    DAMMIT my troll repellent only works on Intranet trolls! Damn you manufacturer website, damn you.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I still think Drez is having an epic troll on all of us, TBQH. I don't think mcdermott is in the know but man is he taking this seriously!

    There be trolls in this thread, this I know.

    I think you may be confusing troll with "can't believe he is serious about this say what".

    Also eagerly looking forward to Penny Arcade user "Drez" on G4 explaining his lawsuit to a disbelieving host.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • RaburoRaburo Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Raburo wrote: »

    If its written on the box you have a right to it. That is my stance.

    Well here is your 1 tissue. Now what if it also says on the box "Maybe contain +/- up to 3 tissues and we will not be refunding missing tissues." Now what?

    Dev's say "It is supposed to look the same." Therefore if it does not look the same it is a bug. EULA the legal contract you agreed to says "We are under no obligation to fix bugs."

    Since you have already played the game, and it is of diminished value as it is now used, how much should you be compensated for the bug? This is why we need to determine "damages". See if the bug made the game unplayable, not unenjoyable mind you because your EULA states if you do not like the game it is not their problem, just unplayable and you take it back the next day sure you might have a case for a refund.

    However instead we have a case where someone is bitching about a cosmetic defect, months after release. Well you used up 179 of your 180 tissues and are now demanding a full refund. Your case is shaky at best, your reward negligible. You should pursue it, it will be a source of great amusement one way or another.


    Its completely different if the box says it may contain plus or minus three tissues, unless the box contained even less than 177. If the game was unplayable you should have a right to a full refund, I don't care what EULA states. That's what consumer protection should be all about. However if the defect is simply cosmetic, than it should be at the companies discretion.

    I have bought a few games that were unplayable or unbeatable due to bugs that were never fixed by the companies that manufactured them. One of these games I believe was Cthulu dark corners of the earth. On the PC there is a problem with the run speed, and it is impossible to win the final boss battle without altering the game. In that case, I feel regardless of what their EULA states, I deserve a refund.

    Raburo on
Sign In or Register to comment.