[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="Darth_Revan_666"]
Thats COMPLETELY non sensical. Nobody ever buy's a game thinking ''Im going to hate this game, but Im going to burn 60 $ on this anyway''. People get screwed, period.
DvnDrgnXD
No, it's completely right
There is no excuse at all for someone failing to do research in this day and age
It's like walking onto a car dealership and getting a crappy car that doesn't do well in crash tests. If someone researched it they'd get a better car
Same exact thing with games
Except that automakers are held accountable..., all I am saying is that every other industry is held accountable, it seems the gaming industry is immune to accountability. I think the main issue with the TC's argument is that he seems to misunderstand the use of accountability legally. Usually, a company is held "accountable" for things that damage a person or their life. For instance, look at the Toyota recalls earlier this year and last year. There was an issue with some of their vehicles that caused immediate danger to the persons using them. The same occurs when toy manufacturers are sued and forced to recall toys painted with lead-based colors or with choking hazards or sharp pieces. Using them could actually harm a child.You could make the argument that there are false-advertising laws out there, and that a completely broken product should not be sold. This is true, but only if the product was deliberately and knowingly placed on the market despite being non-functional. For instance, if a game company released a game that simply caused a black screen and was unable to load or boot and could not be patched, you can bet they would be forced to recall it. However, there is a HUGE difference between a completely non-functional product and a low-quality one. Just because a game has bugs/glitches/other issues that ruin the experience for you as an individual does not mean that the company should be legally "accountable" for that. It's the same scenario as if you bought a movie ticket and disliked the movie due to filming mistakes, bad acting, or poor special effects and demanded your money back. It just wouldn't happen, and nor should it. As others have pointed out, the ultimate responsibility falls on you to make sure you make good decisions.
Your second issue is your focus on capitalism. You seem to be a big pure capitalism guy, so I would just like to point out that it is hypocritical to criticize a company for producing an extremely low quality product (thus keeping their overhead down) and charging the same to maximize their profits. If they can make a product that costs them $15 a unit and then sell it for $60 to people who are too lazy or naive to not do their research, why shouldn't they? That is what happens in a capitalist economy, like it or lump it. Yes, there are some companies out there that care about looking after their customers, but a large majority are in it for the money. That is true in the entertainment industry, the auto industry, and every other industry you could possibly think of. The products are inferior but not harmful, and you made the mistake of buying them.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you shot yourself in the foot with your mention of capitalism. By your own logic, the best way to hold a company "accountable" should be to speak with your wallet. If you really want the "weak to fall" then you need to deny them the resources they need to survive and instead put them towards the stronger, more responsible companies. But the onus is on you, and you alone, to make sure that happens. Nobody needs to be held accountable for your bad purchasing decisions but yourself.
Log in to comment