'Unfinished' Black Ops Reported For Government Investigation

[QUOTE="EndlessPunisher"][QUOTE="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.

Game-fu

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.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"][QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"] When the game box itself basically states that online multiplayer was never guaranteed to work in the first place, how would any problems to do with it constitute a faulty product?Ilikemyname420

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="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.

Pug_Nasty

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.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="EndlessPunisher"] Amazing how people can misinterpret things. As I remember it, cod has been updated around 3-4 times? That's about once a month, I don't call that rare. Well if you want to wait longer for a game to come out and for every glitch known to man to be fixed , go ahead, but I would think it's much faster to release a game and let dozens of gamers find the kinks and quirks..... So I don't call it lazy, I would almost call that a quicker and better strategy for finding and patching bugs. Heck Warcraft 3 has been out for a good 9 years, and they're still updating it.EndlessPunisher

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.

A game that is broken by any stretch of the imagination at launch is unfinished. It is unfinished because the developer/publisher failed to cross the t's and dot the i's before selling it to the public. Developers/publishers either knowingly or unknowingly released a broken product. Bottom line. Based on the consistency of games needing required updates to fix something that was broken when the game shipped; patching has simply been taken for granted. Either way they dropped the ball with quality control. Really, within the context of this entire debate, there's no difference between "broken" and "unfinished." It's just semantics. However, if a game was broken after it has already been working fine previously, then that's just usually a temporary concern that requires a patch of some sort. It would be inaccurate to call it unfinished at that point. Updating or adding additional content doesn't really fit into the same category at all unless you're a stickler. Which I am not.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"] Online multiplayer IS advertised on the box, stating it has that component of the game, when buying a product it is essentially advertising it has online capacity.IF one wishes to use that part of the product overall it must not have garring issues or at least be fixed within a reasonable time space. British law tends to work in favour of the consumer not bend it over like a prisoner grabbing the soap.razgriz_101

I'm getting the government to investigate the makers of Big Rigs.

Cool, having an online with a slew of online problems shouldn't just be accepted.

Just so people are aware, this is the open letter sent last month from GamersVoice to Activision UK.

http://www.gamersvoice.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48

I play Black Ops on PS3 and these connection issues do occur, HOWEVER this is the dumbest thing I have ever seen in my life. Sure, I get frustrated when the i get kicked for no reason or theres like 5 host migrations in one match, but that still doesnt change the fact that the majority of the time i am able to get into a game and play at least 6 or 7 matches in a row. Some people seem to have this issue more than others so I am starting to think that the severity of the situation is isolated. There are problems but the game is FAR from unplayable, if you are having to wait longer to get into a game, develop some patience and life will be A LOT easier.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]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?

Stevo_the_gamer

Unless you have experienced the pain I went through trying to get this damn game to work, you will never understand. I thought I was in the minority when this game launched, I learned shortly after that TONS of people are having problems. Its not simply one or two bugs, they're problems all over the place with the game.

The Framerate is poor, that doesn't make the game unplayable, but its still REALLY BAD considering that I'm playing this on a high end PC. No matter what graphics setting I set, it still dips low. The multiplayer is downright unplayable for me. One of the more common issues is that the game just simply freezes for a second or two. This makes the game unplayable to a certain degree.

These issues still remain in the game to this day. It blows my mind that they can release it in this state, especially considering well the past games launched.

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

It's a pointless case. You signed no contract when buying the game. No matter what, you're at the mercy of the developer. After the transacton has been made, they owe you nothing.

this wont work if it did then bethesda would of had to pay tons for fallout 3 and fallout new vegas

[quote="Pug_Nasty"]

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"] When the game box itself basically states that online multiplayer was never guaranteed to work in the first place, how would any problems to do with it constitute a faulty product?Ilikemyname420

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.

The argument wouldn't be that Activision has to guarantee online functionality for every game they ship that has online functions, but rather what were they selling when they marketed BO, or any COD this gen for that matter. The argument would be that when selling a product by highlighting it's online game modes your disclaimers would suddenly not matter because you sold the online function.

Lawyers are crafty, and it's not always about what is right, but what sounds better to a judge.

If you can demand compensation for bad games, then I want all my money back on APB.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]

[quote="Pug_Nasty"]

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.

Pug-Nasty

The argument wouldn't be that Activision has to guarantee online functionality for every game they ship that has online functions, but rather what were they selling when they marketed BO, or any COD this gen for that matter. The argument would be that when selling a product by highlighting it's online game modes your disclaimers would suddenly not matter because you sold the online function.

Lawyers are crafty, and it's not always about what is right, but what sounds better to a judge.

It's a pointless case. You signed no contract when buying the game. No matter what, you're at the mercy of the developer. After the transacton has been made, they owe you nothing.

Wasdie

This couldn't be more wrong.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

These issues still remain in the game to this day. It blows my mind that they can release it in this state, especially considering well the past games launched.

JangoWuzHere

I had similar issues with Modern Warfare 2 actually. I can't speak for everyone, but Black Ops has always worked 100% perfect for me. MW2 skipped all over the damn place when I first got it, especially in campaign. Then it locked me out of the online by saying my NAT was restricted when it wasn't. I still can't play it all the time. Some days it thinks my NAT is restricted, other days it works fine (not that I play it much anymore - hackers have taken over). So basically, I think this is a general issue with recent CoDs.

I think people should learn to be considerate before they jump to conclusions about the game been functional and this claim been silly. My friends in the UK have COD BlackOps and despite all the recent patches,they can barely get a game rolling till the end without a bug or two so just because yours is functioning perfectly doesnt mean some other peoples complains are silly. Stop been insensitive and ignorant END OF RANT

megaspiderweb09

Why are gamers such whiney entitled crybabies? Activision is not obligated to release Call of Duty on the PS3. I think it would be brilliant if for the next COD, rather than having to deal with people like this, just didn't release the game on PS3.Jonzey123

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

Why are gamers such whiney entitled crybabies? Activision is not obligated to release Call of Duty on the PS3. I think it would be brilliant if for the next COD, rather than having to deal with people like this, just didn't release the game on PS3.Jonzey123

Is this a joke? Because I really can't tell.

[QUOTE="megaspiderweb09"]

I think people should learn to be considerate before they jump to conclusions about the game been functional and this claim been silly. My friends in the UK have COD BlackOps and despite all the recent patches,they can barely get a game rolling till the end without a bug or two so just because yours is functioning perfectly doesnt mean some other peoples complains are silly. Stop been insensitive and ignorant END OF RANT

DragonfireXZ95

More like:

"The last CoD was broked! This new one better fix it!" *purchase* :P

I saw many complaints regarding black ops on ps3 and pc. Hope they get their money back.MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]I saw many complaints regarding black ops on ps3 and pc. Hope they get their money back.Rockman999

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

This is probably why I haven't purchased a CoD game since the first Modern Warfare.

If this has to do with xboxlive, being better than both, than thats because of XBoxlive, I believe it has to do with Xboxlive, since alot of the online compents for xboxlive games are done by MS

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.

Pug-Nasty

Experience is relative in this situation -- even then, Treyarch has released how many updates? And they've already came out and told the community they're working on additional updates right now? Like I said before, this would never stand in court and is a complete joke that someone would even bring it to court. The developer has released patches to fix issues, and are consistently trying to fix problems. The online works, it just has its quirks. Simple as that.

@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

I was there when Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl was broken at launch, and consistently broken for months down the line. I was also there for when Stalker: Clear Sky was broken. It didn't phase me, I knew it would get fixed. Was I irritated? Sure, did I let that irritation cloud my judgement? Not a chance.

Online multiplayer IS advertised on the box, stating it has that component of the game, when buying a product it is essentially advertising it has online capacity.IF one wishes to use that part of the product overall it must not have garring issues or at least be fixed within a reasonable time space. British law tends to work in favour of the consumer not bend it over like a prisoner grabbing the soap.razgriz_101

The plaintiff would have to argue that Treyarch didn't do anything in its power to fix some of the quirks of the online, and somehow try to dismiss the many updates that have came out for Black Ops, and the consistent developer support being shown. He would stand no chance. How do you define reasonable time frame? How do you define garring issues? Such ambiguity I would tear apart in a civil court.

Why are gamers such whiney entitled crybabies? Activision is not obligated to release Call of Duty on the PS3. I think it would be brilliant if for the next COD, rather than having to deal with people like this, just didn't release the game on PS3.Jonzey123

Calling those who are having problems "whiney entitled crybabies" and thinking it fit that "people like this" should be punished for expressing their disapproval is pretty despicable man. Not to mention irrational seeing how you're a consumer yourself.

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

Black ops is much more finished and polished then that turd Modern Warfare2. The online is actually balanced, were as in MW2 is was garbage.

BigBoss255

I found black ops to be quite good from the first initial purchase 2 days after release. if people cant connect, maybe they need to get a new IP and quit crying. its not activisions fault people have crappy internet. if activison loses, its another step closer to a near communist society with too much government control in our economy.

Are games (legally) supposed to be warrantied to work 100%?IronBass

I would also disagree with any legalities involving a single aspect of a game as online experience may change at any time. The publishers have the right to shut down the servers for their game at any time as well which based on the number of reported posts from users may be a viable solution over the free PSN.

SourceDov Carson - Senior Support Representative

This couldn't be more wrong.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Game-fu

I found black ops to be quite good from the first initial purchase 2 days after release. if people cant connect, maybe they need to get a new IP and quit crying. its not activisions fault people have crappy internet. if activison loses, its another step closer to a near communist society with too much government control in our economy.

taterfrickintot

well, While we're at it we should go to Bethesda and Complain about Fallout New Vegas, Then we'll go to LionsGate and complain about Fable 3!

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

This couldn't be more wrong.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Stevo_the_gamer

Part 2 in the context of the post I linked it in. A contract is made at the time of purchase with or without being in writing.

Here's what Activision has to say on that subject.McStrongfast

That's interesting. That pretty much means online is not warrantied to work, in any way.

But what about SP? If I buy a very buggy SP game (let's say Fallout NV)?

[QUOTE="taterfrickintot"]

I found black ops to be quite good from the first initial purchase 2 days after release. if people cant connect, maybe they need to get a new IP and quit crying. its not activisions fault people have crappy internet. if activison loses, its another step closer to a near communist society with too much government control in our economy.

Hahadouken

nice way of putting words in my mouth. im talking about our economy, not labor camps. lrn2gov't. but thats off topic. i think that games are higher quality than ever. remember the good old days where you had to blow on your NES cartiges for 15 freakin minutes only to have tohave the thing disconnect from bumping the console. people complain about anything nowadays. this is almost as dumb as thes fat girls who sued mcdonalds for being fat.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Are games (legally) supposed to be warrantied to work 100%?McStrongfast

I would also disagree with any legalities involving a single aspect of a game as online experience may change at any time. The publishers have the right to shut down the servers for their game at any time as well which based on the number of reported posts from users may be a viable solution over the free PSN.

SourceDov Carson - Senior Support Representative

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Are games (legally) supposed to be warrantied to work 100%?Stevo_the_gamer

I would also disagree with any legalities involving a single aspect of a game as online experience may change at any time. The publishers have the right to shut down the servers for their game at any time as well which based on the number of reported posts from users may be a viable solution over the free PSN.

SourceDov Carson - Senior Support Representative

Too bad the law-suit we've been discussing over the last 8 pages was filed in a country that has consumer laws to protect themselves against that.

Trying to regulate something like this, and threatening to sue a publisher for it is not a good thing.

First: because it's gonna make the lives of devs a hell. See Obsidian. Any big publisher will avoid to work with them, in order to avoid lawsuit. You may say "the publisher should give them more time". Well, they won't. They will simply budget a smaller game, from another dev. It would be the end of Obsidian, and plenty of smaller and independent devs.

Secondly: it will limit the games themselves. Forget about open-world and large scale games. While sure, games like AC and RDR are big and run fairly smooth, publishers are most likely to don't even take the chance. They will have their developer focus on linear, safe games. Even worse, if it's there risk of it being buggy, they're simply gonna make the game shorter and use the time to polish it, instead of giving the dev more time. Result: simpler and shorter games.

Third: definitions. How many glitches are too many? Glitches are not possible to measure accurately, which means people are gonna sue publishers for everything. We'll be filled with lawsuits, which will only make publishers even more careful, in the ways described in 1 and 2.

There have been plenty of buggy games that are still considered great. Fallout 3, Stalker, New Vegas, etc. If there had been laws against it, it's very unlikely publishers had given the games more time to polish it. They would have forced the devs to make less content and use the extra time to get rid of bugs. We would have had more polished games, but ultimately less good.

The best option is the one I always suggest: make informed purchases. It's up to you to get the game that fits your needs the best. Trying to regulate the industry will only led to publishers to further limiting devs.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="McStrongfast"] Here's what Activision has to say on that subject.

[quote="Dov Carson - Senior Support Representative"]I would also disagree with any legalities involving a single aspect of a game as online experience may change at any time. The publishers have the right to shut down the servers for their game at any time as well which based on the number of reported posts from users may be a viable solution over the free PSN.

SourceGame-fu

Too bad the law-suit we've been discussing over the last 8 pages was filed in a country that has consumer laws to protect themselves against that.

(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]"

The fact that it's written on the box that online is not guaranteed fits right into those exemptions, so no the country doesn't have a consumer law 'protecting' people from that.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

Too bad the law-suit we've been discussing over the last 8 pages was filed in a country that has consumer laws to protect themselves against that.

Ilikemyname420

(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]"

The fact that it's written on the box that online is not guaranteed fits right into those exemptions, so no the country doesn't have a consumer law 'protecting' people from that.

Not entirely true. If you purchase it on-line or via digital download (the PC version is in question here as well) then you don't receive the box until after it has been delivered (or no box at all through digital distribution). Its not stipulated on-line via Steam, Best-buy or GameStop that "online is not guaranteed."

What I find more interesting though is how anyone can come here at all and defend this ridiculous assertion that Activision is somehow "in the right" for selling faulty goods. It just blows my mind.

I'd also like to point out the full excerpt from this article:

"Well I have nothing else to offer and I too follow forums and have many friends who play and enjoy the game for all of its features. As an avid gamer, I would also disagree with any legalities involving a single aspect of a game as online experience may change at any time.The publishers have the right to shut down the servers for their game at any time as well which based on the number of reported posts from users may be a viable solution over the free PSN.

In any event, if you would like to send your game disc into us, we can either;

a) Exchange for a sealed (unopened) copy of the game that you can take back to the retailer
b) Swap for another platform
c) Exchange for another Activision title of equal or lesser value.

These are the options that we are able to offer to you as a one time courtesy.


Let us know how you would like to proceed."

But I guess a company like Activision just goes around offering to replace used games with brand new sealed games or other titles of one's choice with no causation to do so. Right?

But I guess a company like Activision just goes around offering to replace used games with brand new sealed games or other titles of one's choice with no causation to do so. Right?Game-fu