Ok lets be realistic, lets say they wait another 3 months, so they release it in time for Christmas and we play like version 1.3 or 1.4 of the game and it runs fine and the AI is good and all the slide works etc. That would have been great!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I'm a 'law man' as you would call it. And there's not even a remote violation of your consumer or human rights in sight here. A non-registered user can view the General Discussions just fine. He can also read AARs. So he can form himself an opinion of the game before buying it.
The registering then gives a paying customer some extra benefits: they get to see the manual, strategy guide, get to post bugs and ask tech specific problems. Also they get to see download mods.
This is no way a violation of any rights. In order for rights to be violated, you'll have to prove that 'identical' persons or situations are handled 'differently' for no good reason at all. This is not the case, since a paying customer =/= someone that merely wants to form himself an opinion of the game.
Also, there's no reason for people without registrations to get to download the patch is there? Since they do not have the game anyway. This is an anti-piracy measure. Which is once again allowed
Interesting antipiracy measure.
Original one.
Let us remember that in Third Reich there was allmost no crime.
We all know why.
Can you tell us something about rumors that this forum is currently on observation from the side of one Organisation for promotion of human wrights?
Is this the reason we suddenly have this "Democratic" thread after a sloughter of any criticism of people who payed for the product, in the previous weeks?
Last edited:
If so, then said organization is free to contact me and I'll have an elaborate chat with them. I majored in human rights during law school. It'll be an interesting chat, I'm sure.
In the meantime, I will not have you comparing me to a Nazi. This elaborate thread was left open, because the HOI3 moderators judged it best to 'canalize' the complaints and to keep the forum somewhat orderly.
Now this is just getting silly. Human "rights" in relation to a computer GAME? And comparing this to the 3rd Reich? Yeah, I'm pretty sure we fought that war to protect the rights of people to complain about a game online. People obviously have no understanding of international law if they think Paradox couldn't just shut down the entire forum if they wanted to.
Have some self respect. We may 'just' be computer game consumers, but we're still consumers - it doesn't matter if we bought a game, shoes or a nuclear power plant.
And consumers have rights.
Which are being trodden here.
This thread is like the ultimate Godwin's Law proof. It should be linked on here as a reference for people to use when they are trying to learn about Godwin's Law.
Of course you do. Consumer rights you have. But go on yapping about 'human rights being trodden' is downright silly from a legal point of view. Human rights - such as freedom speech - are valid here, but only to a certain extent, since it's a privately owned message board.
Consumer rights =/= human rights law
As a customer you are entitled to full support for your product and the means to ask for that support. I think this message board provides that extensively. Technically, you're entitled to nothing more.
Everyone knows Volkskrieg is a nazi...
I've seen this on the Total War Center in discussions about ETW too. Although I'd have to think that a WWII game makes this much more probable.
Yes, there are consumer rights, but seriously.... you (not VK) think the world should be up in arms because a $40 computer game doesn't work the way you want? I don't ever remember spending $40 on something, thinking it wasn't what I really wanted, and feeling like my rights were violated.
You have consumer protections, not rights; the only right you have is your ability to spend your money or not on any product that you please.
I wasn't backing up his hyperbole - just pointing out that we, indeed, have rights.
And we are still to see 'full support', so I'm just sayin'.
Maybe in your country, but at least in Belgium (and probably in the majority of Europe) consumers have, in effect, a codified law protecting their rights. Called 'consumer law'. And the phrase 'the consumer has the right to...' appears in it a heck of a lot.
So don't play semantics with me.
According to you and some others. What I stated is similar to opinion held by not just myself but a significant portion of long time PI fans and posters here. That should be obvious from the quote I originally cited and a spending 10 minutes or so casually reading what people have to say about the current state HoI 3. I accept that we don't agree and I respect your opinion.
The funny thing is that there was a similar discussion for another highly complex niche-product, that is Falcon 4.0. Still, after its 1998-original release, well supported by modding teams and very worth playing. But technically at its limits.
Same discussion as here, far off mainstream and too few freaks interested and willing to learn to operate a real F-16's instruments before even being able to takeoff. Too risky for a game developer. A lot of voices have claimed that they gladly would pay more for a successor if it was that complex, high quality and off-mainstream again.
And look at PI's fans. A broken game (yes, it is), a broken game after 1.1 (yes), even after 1.2 (yes). Still a lot of patience, constructivism and good faith (ok...and here and there a touch of fanboiism...). I don't know if so many would also pay a higher price for more quality but I think so. I certainly would.
I don't want to give PI the advise to raise it's prices....a lot......maybe a littlebit.....just to be able to afford a real QA.
Excellent points which I had not considered. Thank you.
And here's a summary: http://www.elfri.be/Familierecht/Consument/koopwet/koopwet overzicht.htm (in dutch)
Relevant part:
Translation:
"[The goods conform to the consumer law when]the purchased good offers the quality and performance that are normal for objects of this kind and that the consumer may reasonably accept, taking in consideration the nature of the good and the public announcements made by the producer or representative of the producer of this good, concerning the special traits of this object in advertising and description"
Considering a vast part of the promised content of this product do not meet the advertising that preceded it (just think of all the dev diaries that hyped up stuff that didn't even turn out to work, like the supply system or the AI etc.); nor the quality that one would reasonably expect from it (i.e. it's full of bugs); we have the fullest right to sue Paradox for false advertising; and ask our money back plus damages.
Not that I will, just sayin'.
Relevant part:
Translation:
"[The goods conform to the consumer law when]the purchased good offers the quality and performance that are normal for objects of this kind and that the consumer may reasonably accept, taking in consideration the nature of the good and the public announcements made by the producer or representative of the producer of this good, concerning the special traits of this object in advertising and description"
Considering a vast part of the promised content of this product do not meet the advertising that preceded it (just think of all the dev diaries that hyped up stuff that didn't even turn out to work, like the supply system or the AI etc.); nor the quality that one would reasonably expect from it (i.e. it's full of bugs); we have the fullest right to sue Paradox for false advertising; and ask our money back plus damages.
Not that I will, just sayin'.
And then any good lawyer would also point to the first part of the sentence, regarding the standard of the industry and 'likewise products' and that patches are customary and such. Also: you have exactly zero rights to damages. Europe is not the USA. You have the right to get your product repaired or refunded. Period. We don't do damages in Europe regarding a malfunctioning product. Please do inform yourself a bit more into legal details before stating stuff like that.
Also just sayin'...
I only want to point out it's not as black-white as some people would want it to be, or portray it so.
I guess that's where the court comes in - but I'd wager money on the fact that the court would most likely decide in 'our' favour.
Also, the fact that other games are crap too sometimes is a pretty weak excuse.
I'd wager money that most courts would throw out a case about a $40 game.
Heh? No they wouldn't. It's not like they sold one copy, they sold millions. So that's 'fraud' on a grand scale.
Things like that aren't brushed aside.
*EDIT* Plus, there's no price minimum on this anyway. Law's absolute - it doesn't scoff at things because of arbitrary judgements on wether it's 'costly enough to warrant legal protection'.
*EDIT2* I never quite understood Americans - they always seem to take the side of the "big boys", even when it's obviously to their own detriment. Just look at the current Medicare rumble, for instance. But anyway, that's off-topic...
Off topic: Some of the theoreticians I mentioned are fascists bust since that weltanschauung is as equally broad as those labeled democrats your lack of specificity demonstrates the soundness of my earlier reply. It should also be obvious that some of the theoreticians I mentioned are not fascists of any form and your mislabeling them as such again confirms my prior statement.
On topic: Your other observations are relevant and correct to the extent that those features can be made to work properly.
- Status