PDA

View Full Version : is it legal?



deejfly
11-14-2014, 06:03 AM
In any other purchase, at least in Australia, there are laws as to the fitness and suitability of goods offered for sale.
Quality products and services
All products must be safe, durable, free from defects, fit for purpose, acceptable in appearance, match its description and match any sample or demonstration model.
All services must be delivered with care, skill and within a reasonable time.
Businesses must honour all guarantees, including express and extended warranties.
Honesty and fairness
Businesses must not make false, misleading or deceptive claims about a product or service, including claims about the safety or quality of a product or service.

So how is it we pay increasingly more for products that clearly fail in most respects, and then are forced to pay further for fixes.
Downloads are not free, if you live in some areas there are massive costs compared to average ADSL. Irregardless of the DL costs, law states our costs to be only for the return of the product. If you purchased PC version on disc, no returns policy because of registration process, so no luck there either, only if physically damaged, and then offered a replacement.
Gets back to fitness of product. Only in this industry can they get away with offering products clearly faulty from date of purchase.
I wished I was independently wealthy, a law suit may change this outrageous attitude to customers.

Cortexian
11-14-2014, 06:19 AM
I think most customers agree with you, so I'm not sure how a law suit would change customers attitudes. Unless you meant to say "publishers attitude". As a customer / player myself, it certainly would be nice if there were laws that forced game developers to release working products.

doughy12
11-14-2014, 07:02 AM
No it's not illegal. They advertised Assassin's Creed Unity and they delivered Assassin's Creed Unity.

Here is the reality of the situation

Graphic's of any kind, and stability, have no bearing or effect on product release. This is something that hasn't filtered through gamers heads yet.

Gamers fail to grasp that it is 100% irrelevant if a game developer showcases a game they're releasing in 1080p high end graphics. The developer can choose to release that same game in Nintendo style graphics looking like a 3rd grader painted it and have the main character as a hockey puck. and it's not false advertising because again graphics of any kind, packaging, style and anything else generic, DO NOT APPLY TO ADVERTISING.

If things had to be held to the standard of what they looked like in ads or promo videos, then nothing would ever get released.

Think about this, gamers that complained about the whole Watch Dogs crap, don't apply their complaints to food commercials. What I mean by that is the milk you see in cereal commercials is actually Elmer's glue, so gamers complaining they got lied to about watch dogs, should also be complaining that they aren't getting Elmer's glue in their cereal because the argument is the same exact thing.

I can go on but you get my point.

deejfly
11-14-2014, 07:35 AM
It isn't the quality of graphics, even at lowest settings the mechanics (AI?) and rendering (engine) do not work. Stuck with doors not opening, the many other reported flaws and associated weirdness is nothing to do with graphic settings. I take your point re advertising in general, but I would love to take them to court over this never ending release of beta quality version. Proof of fault is inferred by developers fixing these problems. If it were as simple as saying it's advertising, not our fault, they wouldn't have to fix anything. And nowhere in many pre release vids did I see any disclaimer as to what, when and how the high res grabs were produced with. Perhaps that 'should' be made legally binding, to show min spec vids instead of impossibly high mega renders.
And I think there may be some legal issue with selling a product that is not stable, that is what beta testing is for. And images on advertising may still have legal issues, (All products must be safe, durable, free from defects, fit for purpose, acceptable in appearance, match its description and match any sample or demonstration model.)
With high end machine owners still reporting many basic issues as unplayable or nearlly so, this goes way past just the graphics, and or engine.
I doubt, if argued properly in court, this game could in anyway be seen as fit for purpose, or even close to advertised quality, even on minimum specs.

Black_ICE_321
11-14-2014, 08:23 AM
No it's not illegal. They advertised Assassin's Creed Unity and they delivered Assassin's Creed Unity.

Here is the reality of the situation

Graphic's of any kind, and stability, have no bearing or effect on product release. This is something that hasn't filtered through gamers heads yet.

Gamers fail to grasp that it is 100% irrelevant if a game developer showcases a game they're releasing in 1080p high end graphics. The developer can choose to release that same game in Nintendo style graphics looking like a 3rd grader painted it and have the main character as a hockey puck. and it's not false advertising because again graphics of any kind, packaging, style and anything else generic, DO NOT APPLY TO ADVERTISING.

If things had to be held to the standard of what they looked like in ads or promo videos, then nothing would ever get released.

Think about this, gamers that complained about the whole Watch Dogs crap, don't apply their complaints to food commercials. What I mean by that is the milk you see in cereal commercials is actually Elmer's glue, so gamers complaining they got lied to about watch dogs, should also be complaining that they aren't getting Elmer's glue in their cereal because the argument is the same exact thing.

I can go on but you get my point.

Please don't cause I have no idea what you mean about Elmers Glue in Cereal?
Point is this forum is full of evidence that there is more going on here regarding glitches and bugs. I think when I buy something I would like it to work as advertised.
I so want to get The Division and Far Cry 4... But how in my right mind would I do that only to be on this forum with everyone else unhappy. Pre-Order has shown it is not
the way to go and patches come one after the other as if they were always intended to be part of the game. They should say that when they sell the game.. Beware of up coming
patches. I have nothing against Ubisoft until I spend my hard earned money on something that needs to be further fixed and maybe someday in the future it would be good.

Now I hear there are Embargo's that last 12 hours after the game is released ....lol you must be kidding.
People don't just choose to complain... You see the video's in performance on pc.

I7 4930k OC 4.1ghz
amd 290x
liquid cooled
500gig SSD
850w PSU

jeffies04
11-14-2014, 08:34 AM
They may be able to advertise what they want, but they still can't charge or keep money if the intended functionality of their product is proven to not work. For software, this would boil down to being able to run the application for its intended purpose (entertainment).

It's still a longshot, even as a class action to simply get the $60 returned to each person affected. Any court would probably want to see that Ubisoft a) attempted to fix the problem, b) has been given reasonable time to fix the problem, and c) has reached a point where further work is unlikely to fix the problem. They may want evidence that this is not the fault of the affected consumers' systems.

In the time it would take to even get near this point, retailers will possibly have already refunded your $60 had you just asked, knowing the game is having such issues, or at least offered a store credit.

I don't see it ever getting to this point. I may be angry right now, but I am confident that they will eventually resolve some of these game-breaking issues, and there goes your case--you can run the application for its intended purpose.

Tanyn
11-14-2014, 09:11 AM
Indeed, I've seen many people quoting laws and regulations regarding the serviceability/functionality of goods from various countries. Only one guy got close to getting his money back ... at which point Ubisoft just decided to blatantly ignore him (They were debating with him prior to that, once his side started to win out ... they just holed up and stopped communication). The problem is that there are too many loopholes around these regulations. And, as quoted above, if it ever IS taken to court, the courts tend to treat it as any other sort of goods/merchandise.

What we need is a law that covers game titles specifically. The gaming world is a bit different. Entertainment only lasts so long, and if it's not entertaining, or in ACU's case, damn near completely broken, upon release ... then you move on, and just chock that up as money wasted. "Reasonable Time to fix the problem" should be altered in the case of games, because the gaming industry is such, that by the time they've fixed it, we've moved on, and no longer care. That money still goes to them, and we then essentially payed them for nothing. There shouldn't be a need for a "Reasonable time" to fix anything in regards to games. When you advertised it, marketed it, and took our money for it months in advance, never ONCE did you guys say "Alright guys, this is going to be riddled with performance issues and game-breaking bugs" ... no, you deceitfully let us assume that it was going to be in full working order. Because you had to meet a deadline, because your shareholders and your publisher demanded it. Shareholders are demons and publishers are the devil. We've gotten to the point where the gaming companies just flat out DO NOT CARE if the game is playable, or if it even works ... as long as it's released by the deadline, regardless of its condition.

There are some very shady, profit-mongering tactics being used by these companies these days. A couple of them have gone through it recently. EA and took a huge hit on the ending of Mass Effect 3, and Bioware took hits for both ME3 and Dragon Age 2. There was once a saying "Everything BioWare touches is gold" ... that saying no longer applies, customers are wising up, and we're starting to see just how underhanded the developers are becoming. Anything for our money ... after they get that, we can go get screwed for all they're concerned. It almost shows a complete disregard for future relations, and only focuses on the "Get the money, right now" mentality.

To Ubisoft, I used to say "Shut up and take my money". ... Now? It's just "Stop talking."

But through all my complaining, and everyone else's, this will get fixed. Why? Not because we had a problem with it, or were outraged ... they don't give two ****s about us. It will get fixed because their stocks dropped. Period. They're in damage control mode, and they have to convince investors and shareholders not to jump ship ... anything done to rectify the horrendous release of this game is done for THAT reason. Two things died on 11/11/2014 ... Any semblance of "Customer Appreciation" that Ubisoft once had ... and any faith that I had in them.

All that said, will I hold on? Yes, because when this game is working, it's fabulous. But you cloak-and-dagger bastards have conned me into paying for my last Open Beta that was intentionally disguised as an official release.

nznat2012
12-02-2014, 10:43 PM
No it's not illegal. They advertised Assassin's Creed Unity and they delivered Assassin's Creed Unity.

Here is the reality of the situation

Graphic's of any kind, and stability, have no bearing or effect on product release. This is something that hasn't filtered through gamers heads yet.

Gamers fail to grasp that it is 100% irrelevant if a game developer showcases a game they're releasing in 1080p high end graphics. The developer can choose to release that same game in Nintendo style graphics looking like a 3rd grader painted it and have the main character as a hockey puck. and it's not false advertising because again graphics of any kind, packaging, style and anything else generic, DO NOT APPLY TO ADVERTISING.

If things had to be held to the standard of what they looked like in ads or promo videos, then nothing would ever get released.

Think about this, gamers that complained about the whole Watch Dogs crap, don't apply their complaints to food commercials. What I mean by that is the milk you see in cereal commercials is actually Elmer's glue, so gamers complaining they got lied to about watch dogs, should also be complaining that they aren't getting Elmer's glue in their cereal because the argument is the same exact thing.

I can go on but you get my point.

what a pile of vomit you just stated : here is a link below to disprove everything you just stated. The gamers sued, the gamers won! End of Story. It can and will apply to watch dogs, far cry 4 and unity at any point, and the gamers will again WIN WIN WIN!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-12-sega-agrees-to-usd1-25-million-settlement-in-aliens-colonial-marines-case

remember its for us gamers not against us, so dont dam your friends who play games: go to this link below and sign the petition as Ubisoft will be in court soon enough for their rip off from selling massively broken products.

https://www.change.org/p/ubisoft-fix-ongoing-issues-with-pc-version-of-farcry-4/share?just_signed=true

DanonMight
12-02-2014, 11:55 PM
From some time If you buy game on Origins you can have a refund for any reason within 24h after first launch which is very nice suprise and I think Uplay should have same system.