'Unfinished' Black Ops Reported For Government Investigation

WTH???? No one force them to buy a buggy game. This is ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Gosh.magicalclick

This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. They should be compensated because the game isn't as good as they wanted?Stevo_the_gamer

Do you not understand what this is even about? The game is broken, simple as that. I honestly think the majority of PC users are having tons of issues with the game. Even after they patched it, I still cannot play it properly. My computer ran ME2,WaW, and CoD 4 just fine...why doesn't this one work?

doesnt matter

ps3 and Pc gamers will rush out and buy the next Cod in millions, than complain again, buy the $15 map packs, rinse and repeat, gamers have no backbone

i also heard rumors that microsoft paid activision to make cod worse on other platforms, not sure how true that is, but i wouldnt be surprised at all

HaloinventedFPS

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] Maybe now but the game had some serious issues at launch. Game-fu

Every game has an issue or two at launch.. look at RDR... the first day I played that game I saw 4 flying women that talked as if they were horses and many other issues. That game is still wicked and even won GOTY, dispite TONS of bugs. When I got Black Ops I was able to get online, I was able to play campaign and I was able to play ZOmbie mode, everything that was announced in the game I was able to play.

Am I the only one that remembers gaming before the internet became a mainstream function of it? Developers used to have to ship games that worked properly and finding one that was virtually unplayable the day you got it almost never happened. Now, developers can rush a product to release because they can just patch it up a week or so after the consumer has already paid for it. Why on earth would anyone want to defend this type of lazy salesmanship? If a law-suit gets companies to actually release finished products, how does this somehow hurt you in any way?

Do you not understand what this is even about? The game is broken, simple as that. I honestly think the majority of PC users are having tons of issues with the game. Even after they patched it, I still cannot play it properly. My computer ran ME2,WaW, and CoD 4 just fine...why doesn't this one work?

JangoWuzHere

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. They should be compensated because the game isn't as good as they wanted?Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

doesnt matter

ps3 and Pc gamers will rush out and buy the next Cod in millions, than complain again, buy the $15 map packs, rinse and repeat, gamers have no backbone

i also heard rumors that microsoft paid activision to make cod worse on other platforms, not sure how true that is, but i wouldnt be surprised at all

Riverwolf007

it was a rumor, someguy who worked at acti or MS (i cant remember) mentioned something about it, its kind of a joke how bad the PC version was, it was most likely done on purpose, they didnt even test it

IF you bought a car with a broken heater, the car still RUNS perfectly fine, but its not running to its required or desired performance. It's WIDELY known that the Call of Duty franchise' main attraction is the Online Multiplayer... Come on.lucfonzy

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]IF you bought a car with a broken heater, the car still RUNS perfectly fine, but its not running to its required or desired performance. It's WIDELY known that the Call of Duty franchise' main attraction is the Online Multiplayer... Come on.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. They should be compensated because the game isn't as good as they wanted?MFDOOM1983

The launch of the PC version was acceptable because it was fixed right away. ;)Stevo_the_gamer

My copy would oh so like to disagree with you.

Ok lets assume the MULTIPLAYER is not part of the £50 people paid to purchase the game. Does that mean people paid £50 for a 6hour Campaign and Zombies ?

I'm not sure how the PS3 version was. But I do know that the PC version was completely unplayable to the majority of people on release day. It was a buggy mess. There were so many people that couldn't even get past the menu. I was surprised that a company that has a lot of workers and money could make something so broken.

Why isn't it logical? Your still handing over money for it, surely you expect a certain standard, hey maybe your standards are lower, each to their own I guess.lucfonzy

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

Every game has an issue or two at launch.. look at RDR... the first day I played that game I saw 4 flying women that talked as if they were horses and many other issues. That game is still wicked and even won GOTY, dispite TONS of bugs. When I got Black Ops I was able to get online, I was able to play campaign and I was able to play ZOmbie mode, everything that was announced in the game I was able to play.

EndlessPunisher

Am I the only one that remembers gaming before the internet became a mainstream function of it? Developers used to have to ship games that worked properly and finding one that was virtually unplayable the day you got it almost never happened. Now, developers can rush a product to release because they can just patch it up a week or so after the consumer has already paid for it. Why on earth would anyone want to defend this type of lazy salesmanship? If a law-suit gets companies to actually release finished products, how does this somehow hurt you in any way?

So, what you're saying is: given any opportunity to be lazy, the developers should take it. Am I right? Patching through the internet should only be an option in RARE situations. It shouldn't be the status quo.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]The launch of the PC version was acceptable because it was fixed right away. ;)PBSnipes

My copy would oh so like to disagree with you.

Wow, this is like 1 versus 10 :shock:

I feel sorry for teh Stevo

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]Why isn't it logical? Your still handing over money for it, surely you expect a certain standard, hey maybe your standards are lower, each to their own I guess.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]The launch of the PC version was acceptable because it was fixed right away. ;)Stevo_the_gamer

My copy would oh so like to disagree with you.

BUT they released a broken game. ;) Pathetic excuse of a developer. Maybe someday they will invest in a QA department. We can only hope. Heil68

[QUOTE="lucfonzy"]Why isn't it logical? Your still handing over money for it, surely you expect a certain standard, hey maybe your standards are lower, each to their own I guess.Stevo_the_gamer

You find logic in disproving something that only exists to make your experience better?

Wow, this is like 1 versus 10 :shock:

I feel sorry for teh Stevo

Master_ShakeXXX

You should not feel sorry for him,he hasnt lost anything painful

Ok, what if I went out and bought a DVD boxset, every single episode worked apart from the last episode, I want my money back. There you go, thats a nice comparison. :)lucfonzy

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

Wow, this is like 1 versus 10 :shock:

I feel sorry for teh Stevo

megaspiderweb09

You should not feel sorry for him,he hasnt lost anything painful

Well I know how much of a pain it can be trying to reason with a couple people simultaniously, let alone a whole thread of people. I'm not saying I agree with him exactly. I'm neutral on the subject.

You find logic in disproving something that only exists to make your experience better?

Game-fu

Oh we know it's not perfect..there was that one thread..what was it called..put your money or something or other..let me see if I can find that, it explains everything deliciously. :) Heil68

Wow, this is like 1 versus 10 :shock:

I feel sorry for teh Stevo

Master_ShakeXXX

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]You find logic in disproving something that only exists to make your experience better?

Stevo_the_gamer

That's not the point. Try looking at the bigger picture. Even if only Activision became accountable for their products then there would be a lot less games on the market that were released unfinished.

That's not the point. Try looking at the bigger picture. Even if only Activision became accountable for their products then there would be a lot less games on the market that were released unfinished.Game-fu

[QUOTE="EndlessPunisher"][QUOTE="Game-fu"]

Am I the only one that remembers gaming before the internet became a mainstream function of it? Developers used to have to ship games that worked properly and finding one that was virtually unplayable the day you got it almost never happened. Now, developers can rush a product to release because they can just patch it up a week or so after the consumer has already paid for it. Why on earth would anyone want to defend this type of lazy salesmanship? If a law-suit gets companies to actually release finished products, how does this somehow hurt you in any way?

Game-fu

So, what you're saying is: given any opportunity to be lazy, the developers should take it. Am I right? Patching through the internet should only be an option in RARE situations. It shouldn't be the status quo.

PC version has ALWAYS worked perfectly for me. Since day one.

Edit: Oh and New Vegas is one of the best games this gen. Haters gonna hate. I've put 50 hours into one playthrough and I'm nowhere near slowing down. I can sympathize with console gamers maybe, but on my PC with some mods the game is sick. It's too bad the engine sucks. :(

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Your definition of functional is clearly not the same as everyone elses. The game is ass, and performs as such. Their main excuse is that most of the problems are found online, and the online isn't officially part of the product, as they can stop supporting it whenever they want. As such, nothing will come of this, other than a loss in sales of the next installment of the series.

Stevo_the_gamer

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say the defining portion of the game, the part people buy the game for, doesn't work properly. The games online portion is one of the laggiest games I've ever played, including many games with "tacked on" multiplayer. It's as simple as the product doesn't work, and there's nothing in peoples minds making this so, it's subpar development by people with no standards other than making their release date.

It's very obvious, after having played the game, the majority of the budget for the title went to marketing and voice over actors, because the game itself is underdeveloped. The SP campaign was the best part, of a COD game? And even that wasn't particularly good.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Your definition of functional is clearly not the same as everyone elses. The game is ass, and performs as such. Their main excuse is that most of the problems are found online, and the online isn't officially part of the product, as they can stop supporting it whenever they want. As such, nothing will come of this, other than a loss in sales of the next installment of the series.

Pug-Nasty

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say the defining portion of the game, the part people buy the game for, doesn't work properly. The games online portion is one of the laggiest games I've ever played, including many games with "tacked on" multiplayer. It's as simple as the product doesn't work, and there's nothing in peoples minds making this so, it's subpar development by people with no standards other than making their release date.

It's very obvious, after having played the game, the majority of the budget for the title went to marketing and voice over actors, because the game itself is underdeveloped. The SP campaign was the best part, of a COD game? And even that wasn't particularly good.

@Stevo

You're very 'matter-of-fact' aren't you. Imagine if you bought a game and it didn't work and there was nothing you could do about it, it'd **** you off wouldn't it?

Now, i never bought the game, i learnt from MW2 but many of my friends did and they're pretty pissed that they couldn't complete games online because of the issues. Lets have a bit less cynical absolutes.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]A small portion of the game isn't up to par in some gamer's minds; that doesn't mean the product itself is not functional.

Ilikemyname420

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say the defining portion of the game, the part people buy the game for, doesn't work properly. The games online portion is one of the laggiest games I've ever played, including many games with "tacked on" multiplayer. It's as simple as the product doesn't work, and there's nothing in peoples minds making this so, it's subpar development by people with no standards other than making their release date.

It's very obvious, after having played the game, the majority of the budget for the title went to marketing and voice over actors, because the game itself is underdeveloped. The SP campaign was the best part, of a COD game? And even that wasn't particularly good.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]That's not the point. Try looking at the bigger picture. Even if only Activision became accountable for their products then there would be a lot less games on the market that were released unfinished.Stevo_the_gamer

Yep. You've addressed several things. That doesn't mean your train of thought adds up. All I hear are excuses for the developers, but no real reason why they shouldn't be accountable. Black Ops isn't the first and won't be the last game released that is terribly faulty at launch. However, if this problem was isolated to a handful of examples I doubt we'd be having this conversation. This should be more about raising the benchmark for "finished products" and not being one of the only industries that releases UNFINISHED products as completed assets.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="EndlessPunisher"] Yes but as you said, that's before it was mainstream. I believe that would mean less people playing online = Less people having the chance of connection errors or bugs. People did not have updates on earlier systems, so if the game was unfinished, it was unfinished. Also there are much more people playing online, and no beta team would of been nearly big enough to find out all the problems. (Talking about Black ops specifically)EndlessPunisher

So, what you're saying is: given any opportunity to be lazy, the developers should take it. Am I right? Patching through the internet should only be an option in RARE situations. It shouldn't be the status quo.

Misinterpreting you say? I said patching should be RARE, not the status quo. I was merely pointing out that when you start making excuses for poor craftsmanship/salesmanship then you get what you "ask for." And patching via an update versus patching to fix a broken game are two different things.

@Stevo

You're very 'matter-of-fact' aren't you. Imagine if you bought a game and it didn't work and there was nothing you could do about it, it'd **** you off wouldn't it?

Now, i never bought the game, i learnt from MW2 but many of my friends did and they're pretty pissed that they couldn't complete games online because of the issues. Lets have a bit less cynical absolutes.

DarthJohnova

Just a friendly heads up, you don't have to censor piss :P

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

@Stevo

You're very 'matter-of-fact' aren't you. Imagine if you bought a game and it didn't work and there was nothing you could do about it, it'd **** you off wouldn't it?

Now, i never bought the game, i learnt from MW2 but many of my friends did and they're pretty pissed that they couldn't complete games online because of the issues. Lets have a bit less cynical absolutes.

Master_ShakeXXX

Just a friendly heads up, you don't have to censor piss :P

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say the defining portion of the game, the part people buy the game for, doesn't work properly. The games online portion is one of the laggiest games I've ever played, including many games with "tacked on" multiplayer. It's as simple as the product doesn't work, and there's nothing in peoples minds making this so, it's subpar development by people with no standards other than making their release date.

It's very obvious, after having played the game, the majority of the budget for the title went to marketing and voice over actors, because the game itself is underdeveloped. The SP campaign was the best part, of a COD game? And even that wasn't particularly good.

razgriz_101

I have been educated by this topic. I now realize that the multiplayer section of a game is not part of what i pay for,and its just a priviledge the developer includes to give the game a lasting appeal. I will definately note that when reviewing games next time and so should Critics such as Gamespot

Extreme comparison is extreme. Those are integral parts of the vehicle--online is not for the game. Otherwise, if one didn't have access to online play, wouldn't they have a foundation to return their game? ;)Stevo_the_gamer

The issues behind the Call of Duty issue are not due to the disk, but because of online-networking issues on Treyarch's end due to software. It's another one of those apples and oranges deals.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]A small portion of the game isn't up to par in some gamer's minds; that doesn't mean the product itself is not functional.

Ilikemyname420

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be to say the defining portion of the game, the part people buy the game for, doesn't work properly. The games online portion is one of the laggiest games I've ever played, including many games with "tacked on" multiplayer. It's as simple as the product doesn't work, and there's nothing in peoples minds making this so, it's subpar development by people with no standards other than making their release date.

It's very obvious, after having played the game, the majority of the budget for the title went to marketing and voice over actors, because the game itself is underdeveloped. The SP campaign was the best part, of a COD game? And even that wasn't particularly good.

If you read my previous statement, you would know I think Activision has protected itself, for the most part, with its disclaimers claiming "online MP free with every copy" and whatnot.

However, legal battles aren't black and white, "so it was written, so shall it be done" affairs. It really boils down to who makes the best argument. And, if you honestly think that legitimate and compelling argument can't be made that Activision sold COD: BO using its online components as the backbone for its marketing, then I can't help you.