Originally posted by Robtard
You've explained yourself clearly, the video-game industry should be held up the the standards of others, like you said, if people buy a car and it's a lemon (has glitches), people demand to be compensated and the car industry is held up to fix those errors, or lawsuits ensue.It's as you said, it's people who play video-games to the point where they see it as a defining element (ie calling themselves gamers), knee-jerking because they feel this will somehow ruin their little bubble.
god, where are you in my seminar classes...
Originally posted by The Nuul
Real people have real issues and things to do, not some moron trying to make millions off of suing over a video game.
so you don't think Microsoft has the obligation to create a finished and working product when they make a game?
Originally posted by inimalist
god, where are you in my seminar classes...
What's even more strange with those people, this lawsuit won't cause any harm to the gaming industry, if anything, it will ensure that companies like Microsoft spend a little extra time beta-testing and the final products will be of a higher standard.
Though I'm skeptical of that, as I see game companies in the future just putting warning labels on games "may contain errors", as a chep and easy fix.
Originally posted by Robtard
What's even more strange with those people, this lawsuit won't cause any harm to the gaming industry, if anything, it will ensure that companies like Microsoft spend a little extra time beta-testing and the final products will be of a higher standard.
like, I'm not even sure about the lawsuit, or at least, don't think Microsoft deserves to foot the bill for industry practice.
I'd love to see companies spend more times on games, and further, spend more time making the mechanics of the game work properly rather than making it look good and flashy, though the later sells more (same reason gameplay footage is rarely seen on TV comercials)
Originally posted by Robtard
Though I'm skeptical of that, as I see game companies in the future just putting warning labels on games "may contain errors", as a chep and easy fix.
but, in some cases that might be all that is possible. I think there might be a valid point that mega ambitious games like Fallout 3 would have been scaled back to accomidate these things. Sure, maybe less enemies would pop through walls and the rendering wouldn't mess up (or hell, those ant colonies might have been playable), but a lot of what sold that game was its immense vision. I wouldn't want people to think all they could do is what has been done, for fear it couldn't be executed to some court approved level of functionality.
Well, there is the issue that it's pretty much impossible to create a game where there are no bugs at all.
There are so many fine strands of code that there will always be bugs in there somewhere or another, and it kind of becomes a subjective experience because some people (like the gamer who is suing) seems to have bad luck and happens to encounter them all, while other gamers (like me) never encountered a single one while playing the same game.
I mean, if there's one thing Bungie is known for, it's polish and fine tuning. So if Bungie doesn't meet a high enough standard then I'm not sure there is a standard that can be met that is at all reasonable, unless you want games to get internally tested for several years before being released. In which case, we'd be getting Halo 2 in about six months from now.
There's also the fact that with nearly all gamers having a connection to the internet developers can now retroactively fix their games via patches on consoles, and they do. This is something that most other products being mentioned in this thread (cars, so on) cannot do, and so the comparison becomes moot because of that. A car can't be fixed by downloading a new engine patch or something, while a game bug can be fixed through such means.
If this law suit ends up making companies more alert to bugs and what a truly negative impact they have on the game experience, then great. But I hope this doesn't make people expect that developers can somehow magically ensure that there are no bugs at all, because it's simply not possible.
Cars do have recalls and the repairs are done [usually] free of charge to the consumer. I do understand your point though.
The person filing the lawsuit would have to prove that Microsoft did nothing and has done nothing to fix the problem(s) he's filed against. Which as you mentioned with downloaded patches, this will be hard to do, I'd imagine.
I don't think this case will go very far, probably be settled out of court for a comparatively small amount. This should be a class-action lawsuit though; considering I own Halo 3, I expect my check for $1.42 in the next 3-4 years.
Well, MS does too. MS did expand their warranty of the Xbox 360 to 3 years to combat the red ring problem. And back when Halo 3 first came out and people were having problems with the collector's edition disk falling out and getting scratched during travel they replaced those for free. So when it's a physical defect they recall and will fix it for free.
It just comes down to the fact that software is getting compared to physical items that is problematic in this case. Software of all kind has bugs by default, just by their very nature.
I want a check, too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Angry Gamer sues Bungie, Microsoft
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, in what other industry is a failure rate of 1 in 50 uses considered acceptable?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Electronics. 1 in 50 failure rate is good.
Originally posted by inimalist
no it isn't. Its not 1 in 50 items produced don't work, but that a product that is considered "working" will fail 1 in 50 times.
This is where our conversation gets off. I was using the common "failure rate" term and it appears that inimalist wasn't. I even referenced MTBF and posted a failure rate chart. "1 in 50 times" means 2% failure rate. That's generally measured in 3 years. Failure rate of 2% over 3 years is good, just like I said. This is full blown fail fail. Not temp fail.
Granted, I fueled that "we are not really talking in the same terms" fire by mentioning temporary failures of my 360 and PS3.
The next reply I had to inimalist was NOT about his comment about just simple failures that only require a reboot/powercycling.
And, inimalist: I posted failure rates for electronics. If you want to argue simple fails/temp. malfunctions, that's fine. That's not what I'm arguing.
If you want to be more on topic such as the graphics engine failing to keep up texturing surfaces in the 3d environment (Mass Effect, 360), that's not a complete fail. It doesn't fall under the 1/50 failure rate you refer to. As long as the session remains active and it can continue to be run, it isn't a complete failure, it is a glitch. A complete failure would be the game crashing or the console OS crashing due to the game. Bottom line on this t*t for tat: a 1/50 failure rate over 3 years, for an electronic device, is good.
If you want to argue sessional fails (you play the game 100 times and it crashes 1 time, etc.), then that is more on topic and would be in line with what the IT industry would consider a "failure." Glitches, however, are seen an inevitable evil. Some software programs have more than others. Bungie, as Backfire put it, puts out really high quality software. Surface phasing is really hard to do in the Halo games....a sign of a nicely programed FPS. No sessions ever crashed on any Halo game I've played. Another rarity among video games, especially considering I put more time in on the Halo game than probably 70% of all other games I've played.
It'll damage Bungies name by getting into the press, so maybe the'll re sue for that🙂 crazy world.
Mind you it is well annoying if you spend good money on a game, get well into it and it starts crashing.
Happened to me with "Titan Quest", I got real far, spent hours playing an it crashed and all my save games were gone. I felt like committing murder let alone suing someone.
Thats why I don't buy them anymore, downloading is much cheaper.
Originally posted by Omnislash Kid
He's going to lose for several reason. I think Bungie is going to trump this shit saying, "Both the game and game case state that online gameplay may vary" or something similar. If Bungie is smart (which they are) this idiot is going to lose (though it wouldn't take much to win anyway)
18. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY.
We provide the Service "as-is," "with all faults," and "as available." We do not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of information available from the Service. The Microsoft parties give no express warranties, guarantees, or conditions under or in relation to the Service, this contract or its subject matter. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws that this contract cannot change. We exclude any implied warranties, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, workmanlike effort, and non-infringement.
Originally posted by The Nuul
18. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY.We provide the Service "as-is," "with all faults," and "as available." We do not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of information available from the Service. The Microsoft parties give no express warranties, guarantees, or conditions under or in relation to the Service, this contract or its subject matter. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws that this contract cannot change. We exclude any implied warranties, including those of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, workmanlike effort, and non-infringement.
I guess that's probably the point though "You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws that this contract cannot change."