'Unfinished' Black Ops Reported For Government Investigation

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]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?IronBass

It's very uncommon to give something away for free when you don't have to.

It's very uncommon to give something away for free when you don't have to.Game-fu

This is not something that costs Activision much (in small scale), since the game is already done, so their only cost is the 20 cents of the CD and shipping.

Add to the fact that the guy already gave $60 (meaning $35)to them.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]It's very uncommon to give something away for free when you don't have to.IronBass

You mean like a lawsuit?

You mean like a lawsuit?Game-fu

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

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.

Game-fu

(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.

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.

[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.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"] From the act that you posted: "The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory-

(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.

Ilikemyname420

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.

That's just Steam covering their end of the game. That says absolutely nothing about the dozens of other online retailers without the proper stipulations stating what you call "perfectly covered." It certainly doesn't remove accountability from Activision.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Oh, ouch! McStrongfast

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.

Exactly. Especially since he's quoting the ESRB which isn't at all facilitated by Activision.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]You mean like a lawsuit?IronBass

And that's what this whole topic is about. A "LETTER" threatening to take action in the name of the entire community against Activision if they don't do something about it.

And that's what this whole topic is about. A "LETTER" threatening to take action in the name of the entire community against Activision if they don't do something about it.Game-fu

[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

Stevo_the_gamer

If the game doesn't work and they buy it for the part that doesn't work they are entitled to compensation, if I order a steak at a restraunt well done and it is delivered mooing to me then I get my money back. I know quite a few people who have had issues with the PC version. If that isn't enough take a look on their tech support forum which speaks for itself.

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]And that's what this whole topic is about. A "LETTER" threatening to take action in the name of the entire community against Activision if they don't do something about it.IronBass

But it's got everything to do with every post i've made. It wasn't important that we could find one satisfied customer out of the whole bunch who got their "refund." Who cares? The point is that this is a widespread problem and by openly offering this solution to one, he has effectively offered it to all.

The point is that this is a widespread problem and by openly offering this solution to one, he has effectively offered it to all.Game-fu

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]The point is that this is a widespread problem and by openly offering this solution to one, he has effectively offered it to all.IronBass

To that one person. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that replacing this one dude's game was a "one-time courtesy" to the whole community. And why wouldn't it be a one-time courtesy? If he makes the same mistake again that's his fault.

sorry for the (sort of) off topic but i just saw this.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/20/mandatory-xbox-360-update-sneakily-halts-call-of-duty-pirates/

http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=727227

ms just shut down all pirated copys and hacks of blops with an update this morning.

To that one person. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that replacing this one dude's game was a "one-time courtesy" to the whole community. And why wouldn't it be a one-time courtesy? If he makes the same mistake again that's his fault.Game-fu

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]To that one person. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that replacing this one dude's game was a "one-time courtesy" to the whole community. And why wouldn't it be a one-time courtesy? If he makes the same mistake again that's his fault.IronBass

Right, so when/if they get the same complaint in a "class-action law-suit," you don't think their response will be similar?

Right, so when/if they get the same complaint in a "class-action law-suit," you don't think their response will be similar?Game-fu

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]Right, so when/if they get the same complaint in a "class-action law-suit," you don't think their response will be similar?IronBass

No one knows. I'm just following your logic of 'complain 'til you get what you want.' I would imagine a law-suit would be the highest form of that method.

No one knows. I'm just following your logic of 'complain 'til you get what you want.' I would imagine a law-suit would be the highest form of that method.Game-fu

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]No one knows. I'm just following your logic of 'complain 'til you get what you want.' I would imagine a law-suit would be the highest form of that method.IronBass

Activision would "settle" before it even became a full-fledged law-suit. I guarantee one way or another they will succumb to the community regardless. And that's all these people are asking for in the first place.

Activision would "settle" before it even became a full-fledged law-suit. I guarantee one way or another they will succumb to the community regardless. And that's all these people are asking for in the first place.Game-fu

GS is a joke, they lower GT5 score harshly because some cars look ugly and they give this rehashed piece of crap that doesn't even work a 9 just because Activision probably "invests" on GS interests. Gs is a joke confirmed again.kuraimen

[QUOTE="Jonzey123"]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.McStrongfast

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.

Where were these guys when Fallout New Vegas released?

What I see here is that most gamers now know that most games come with glitches nowadays. Now we just expect developers to release patches to fix their games. What this leads to is a sense of complacency which is bad for the industry. QA standards are slowly going down just because most of us "expect" the problems to be there at launch and that all of it can be patched later anyways.

And when somebody actually rants about glitches of problems he/she has with a game, they are shot down or ignored just because they didn't expect it or because they should have waited for a review.

Just my 2 cents.

Where were these guys when Fallout New Vegas released?

BPoole96

At this rate,i hope thier is a review needed to be done by the law protecting consumers against video games because it seems the developers are in a position to sell us unfinished games and take off thier servers for multiplayer if they wanted to

[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

I wouldn't want any 'compensation' I just want the ******'s at Treyarch/Activision to fix the following problems:

• connection
• infinate loading screens
• stuttering during campaign (you read that correctly)
• freezes (making you turn your PS3 off from the back)
• inability to hear people over your mic during games (which can continue into 3+ matches in a row)

MW2 may have been Unbalanced Warfare 2 but Black Ops is Lag Ops/Broken Ops which is a shame because the game features so many worthwhile additions.

[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.

Stevo_the_gamer

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.

They've released a number of patches, that fix things very minor and usually make the bigger problems (lag, connection stability, chat, and party stability) worse. It doesn't matter if they release patches that do more harm than good. That isn't support, it's sabotage.

If the case is going to court, that means that an attorney accepted the case, either because he/she thinks they can win or that the other party will settle. Either way, the attorney thinks the case has merit, and that's certainly a more reliable opinion on the matter than a bunch of posters on system wars.

Hopefully the investigation will make Activision fix their game sooner and send a warning to Activision that consumers are not going to put up with buying products that don't work as advertised.

If the PS3 and PC versions of the game are indeed so glitchy you can't play them and enjoy them, how did every video game Critic give ALL 3 versions (PS3, 360, PC) the same review score???

That was a huge injustice to the customers that read these website and magazine ratings. Gamers trust the opinions of these "professional" editors and purchased a game that was no where near the quality that the review advertised. The right thing to do was warn the consumer that the PS3 and PC versions were really glitchy and rate them appropriately. The Critics are partly responsible for this problem because they allowed Activision to get away with selling a product of low quality. Had the reviews reflected how bad these games were then we could all blame the consumer for not reading the reviews.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Where were these guys when Fallout New Vegas released?

Riverwolf007

Yes it did, and it could have most likely gotten a 9.0 is it didnn't suffer from the same glitches/freezes that were notorious from Fallout 3. Obsidian should not have released NV until they had all those problems worked out

I didn't think Black Ops was that bad when I got it at launch for PS3. Much better than the connection issues I had with MW 1 when I first got it and my PS3 in December 07. I can clearly remember "Downloading Game Settings" forever in MW 1. Didn't have issues like that with Black Ops.

This is why you buy your multiplats on the 360.

Anyway, if I wasn't so lazy I would post every game I've ever played that's buggy. Probably would be over 300 games, easy.

So what's their case here ? Couldn't this be applied to any crap game ? raiden509

[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

This is a very good lawsuit.
1. because activision sues for everything.
2. because we're entering the era of DLC, and thus incomplete games.
3. because hdd on consoles (the future) has led to enormous amounts of bugs.
4. because they are getting more and more bold with delivering half products: Lara Croft and the guardian of light.

We need this lawsuit.

But what's it with lawsuits and 'setting an example'? Justice =/= setting an example. You get what you deserve, period.

what irks me the most about black ops is the online part, dear god how is it that myWi-fi is 80% and i got 1 single bar and lagging like hell:x

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[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.

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.

They've released a number of patches, that fix things very minor and usually make the bigger problems (lag, connection stability, chat, and party stability) worse. It doesn't matter if they release patches that do more harm than good. That isn't support, it's sabotage.

If the case is going to court, that means that an attorney accepted the case, either because he/she thinks they can win or that the other party will settle. Either way, the attorney thinks the case has merit, and that's certainly a more reliable opinion on the matter than a bunch of posters on system wars.

Ridiculous.. I played it on a PS3 and it was fine. 'Unfinished' is like Big Rigs. By comparison to a LOT of commercial titles that have far less coverage from the media than the Call of Duty series, Black Ops should be considered polished.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

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.

delta3074

They've released a number of patches, that fix things very minor and usually make the bigger problems (lag, connection stability, chat, and party stability) worse. It doesn't matter if they release patches that do more harm than good. That isn't support, it's sabotage.

If the case is going to court, that means that an attorney accepted the case, either because he/she thinks they can win or that the other party will settle. Either way, the attorney thinks the case has merit, and that's certainly a more reliable opinion on the matter than a bunch of posters on system wars.

I think it's great that they are working on it, not so great that they have continually broken the game further with each patch though. If one should not be able to count on them to fix the game's problems post-launch, surely we can at least hope to not have them make the game worse after we paid for it.

I am not familiar with UK courts, laws, or anything else... other than most of our laws are carried over from there. Of course, there are a lot of differences now, but I imagine this will still come down to best argument and to whom the judge sympathizes more with. In civil suits, there is no reasonable doubt, just most damaged and who's fault it is.

We live in a world in which OJ didn't do it and you can win a law suit against a major restaurant because you took the lid off the coffee you just ordered, held it between you legs while trying to open a creamer, spilled it on you crotch and burned the crap out of yourself.

[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

Completely fair point if you ask me. If you bought anything else and it was chipped of scratched etc, you'd want something done about it. Bit of an exagurated comparison but the point still stands, you'd either want your money back or you'd want it fixed. Yes they can apply patches etc, but i still believe devs are in such a rush to get their games out and make mo money they sacrifice quality.

Games are getting pretty expensive, for what you are paying you'd expect it to work properly, and we as consumers have a right to submit such a complaint.

lucfonzy