There was something like this in Australia vs Ubisoft over Settlers 7 always online DRM and the servers being down for over a week(so the game did not work)Peter Storer said:
i don't know how it turned out
Class Action Against Bad Programing.
- Thread starter Peter Storer
- Start date
i don't know how it turned out
You chose to buy it, they never advertised it as being perfect or glitchless. Glitches are problems that people didn't have a chance to fix due to time constraints or were missed by developers. It's not their fault that there were problems and more often than not they are fixed.
Let's start with basic semantics: It's spelled, "programming."
I don't think I need to fill you in on how hair-brained this idea is, everybody else is doing such a good job already.
I don't think I need to fill you in on how hair-brained this idea is, everybody else is doing such a good job already.
If this were to work you would not sue for money but sue on the grounds that you and many others paid for a product that was supposed to so "A" but it was broken and did not deliver. So you want the company to fix it so it will work as it was supposed to when you bought it.
Note that becoming a class action is a pain but not impossible for this.
I would say waste of time as fan patches are easier, and don't require fees.
Note that becoming a class action is a pain but not impossible for this.
I would say waste of time as fan patches are easier, and don't require fees.
public class ResponseToThreadTopic {Peter Storer said:
public static void main)String[] args) {
System.out.print("Programming is harder than you think it is.");
System.out.println("It is virtually impossible to account for all possible technical issues.");
System.out.println("Especially considering the the technological complexity of modern video games");
System.out.println("And if there are such grievous oversights, that the game is unacceptable, the consumer is in no way obligated to purchase the game.");
}
}
//Also, "game releasers"? Come on, man.
Let's start suing the makers of bad movies, too, and the writers of books we don't enjoy! Oh, and the TV stations that play annoying advertisements at 4 AM!
We have the legal right to be entertained at all times, dammit, and anyone who fails to do so in any respect should starve!
Seriously. If a game is broken and doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund of what you paid for it. That's it. No pain and suffering, no recompense for the loss of your time, no extra money because they lied to you... your gaming time is not sacred, and you can't sue people because you think it could have been spent better.
Return the thing, buy a better game, go outside, read a book. If the game still keeps you staring at the screen despite the bad code, then it is, apparently, still the best use of your time... which means you aren't entitled to a damn thing.
We have the legal right to be entertained at all times, dammit, and anyone who fails to do so in any respect should starve!
Seriously. If a game is broken and doesn't work, you are entitled to a refund of what you paid for it. That's it. No pain and suffering, no recompense for the loss of your time, no extra money because they lied to you... your gaming time is not sacred, and you can't sue people because you think it could have been spent better.
Return the thing, buy a better game, go outside, read a book. If the game still keeps you staring at the screen despite the bad code, then it is, apparently, still the best use of your time... which means you aren't entitled to a damn thing.
What a silly idea. Not reward developers for making shitty games? That's crazy talk. >.>Saltyk said:
Yeah, this is completely stupid. The case would be thrown out of court. In general in order to have a tort, you need a few things:
-The Plaintiff is owed a duty of care
-That duty was breached
-the defendant directly injured the plaintiff
-Damage in some form occurred to the plaintiff
-there is proximate cause, that is the defendants actions recognizably lead to the injury
In this case you really have no of those.
-The Plaintiff is owed a duty of care
-That duty was breached
-the defendant directly injured the plaintiff
-Damage in some form occurred to the plaintiff
-there is proximate cause, that is the defendants actions recognizably lead to the injury
In this case you really have no of those.
Here you go.Saltyk said:
The western economic system doesn't get better quality products by suing bad quality, they get it by NOT BUYING OR SHOWING ANY INTEREST IN BAD QUALITY. People don't seem to grasp this.
I like the idea of punishing publishers who squeeze their programmers into tight deadlines and release a project prematurely (it compiles! Ship it!). However, such a law would not be practically possible. Being a programmer myself, (one who prides himself on correctness), I would love to see my fellow programmers give a shit for the code they are writing, but I know that deadlines only increase stress levels and tend to produce shoddy code from even the best programmers (right now I'm currently dying on an assignment I put off 'till two days before it's due... heh, heh... oh dear.). I'm pretty sure the publishers would only carry the punishment over to their programmers and QA testers instead of thinking "Oh, we better give our programmers a bit more time to fix things up as best they can!". They might even make it harder for inexperienced programmers to get in the industry.
Not to mention that modern video games are massive feats of human engineering. Seriously. You'd have to be more capable than rain man to be able to fully comprehend the complexity of a system such as a modern triple-A title. It'd be a miracle of a new product is released with zero bugs. It'd be nicer if the more flagrant bugs would be fixed though.
In summary, no. This is idea breaks down quickly when some reality is applied to it.
Not to mention that modern video games are massive feats of human engineering. Seriously. You'd have to be more capable than rain man to be able to fully comprehend the complexity of a system such as a modern triple-A title. It'd be a miracle of a new product is released with zero bugs. It'd be nicer if the more flagrant bugs would be fixed though.
In summary, no. This is idea breaks down quickly when some reality is applied to it.
much as my first instinct was to agree, it seems to me game companys have been getting lazy when they can use patches to fix stuff after release so releasing buggy games doesnt seem to be an issue.
But then i remember that a lot of games companies would probably go under from this and we might end up with EA ruling, so no, sue EA, they could probably do with it, but otherwise it might just sink the industry.
But then i remember that a lot of games companies would probably go under from this and we might end up with EA ruling, so no, sue EA, they could probably do with it, but otherwise it might just sink the industry.
Get one or two cases like that in the courts, and I'd bet you would see a sudden and sharp decrease in the number of people willing to make games. Althought not a programmer myself, the idea that bugs would get you sued sounds like a damn good reason to quit.Peter Storer said:
Part of me wants to wag my finger at you for an unnecessary 'low blow', but it made me laugh too hard to mean it.Phlakes said:
RespondToResponse.cDarkRyter said:
#include <stdio.h>
include RespondToResponse.h
char FindProgramLanguageType(char input) {
..............
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
char Language = FindProgramLanguageType(post="18.320401.13090443");
printf("Not to mention that different people learn different programming languages. "
"You've learned %s, I've learned C. If we worked on a project ", Language);
printf("together, we'd never come up with consistent code, causing dozens of glitches.\n");
/*My apologies for most likely butchering C, only demonstrating my point a bit harder.*/
}
gcc -Wall RespondToResponse.c -o ExecuteResponse
./ExecuteResponse
As a programmer myself, we do try to iron out the bugs - it's not as simple as the post author thinks. Also, with time constraints and constantly changing design specs, the testing, debugging and recoding process can become a bit of a nightmare (especially if a "must-have" feature is planned at the last minute). The fact is we can't test on every single possible computer build (blame budgets for not having over a thousand different computers each with a different hardware and software setup in order to test every possible deployment scenario).
That won't compile - wrong bracket for main method. Unfortunately, most bugs aren't that easy to correct =].DarkRyter said:
Wow. Someone vastly underestimates the complexity of game programming.
Put it this way. The average computer game ranks among the most complex and performance sensitive pieces of computer programming we've got.
A first problem here is that 'performance' and 'reliability' are often contradictory goals.
The second is that games are made in rather short stretches of time, already cost a fortune to make, and would be very expensive indeed if they had to be as bulletproof as this idea would suggest.
Could games be less buggy? Yes. But it's not likely.
Bugs aren't simply caused by the game code itself. They are frequently caused by the combination of the game code, the hardware, and pretty much every other driver, background task, OS component and other software on any given computer.
The hardware combinations alone amount to thousands of variations.
Add in the software environment and the possible sources of problems outside of the programmer's direct control are almost incalculable.
There are programming practices that can reduce the risk of serious bugs making it through, and the industry could stand to deal with this a little better.
But it is by no means something that can be fixed that easily...
Put it this way. The average computer game ranks among the most complex and performance sensitive pieces of computer programming we've got.
A first problem here is that 'performance' and 'reliability' are often contradictory goals.
The second is that games are made in rather short stretches of time, already cost a fortune to make, and would be very expensive indeed if they had to be as bulletproof as this idea would suggest.
Could games be less buggy? Yes. But it's not likely.
Bugs aren't simply caused by the game code itself. They are frequently caused by the combination of the game code, the hardware, and pretty much every other driver, background task, OS component and other software on any given computer.
The hardware combinations alone amount to thousands of variations.
Add in the software environment and the possible sources of problems outside of the programmer's direct control are almost incalculable.
There are programming practices that can reduce the risk of serious bugs making it through, and the industry could stand to deal with this a little better.
But it is by no means something that can be fixed that easily...
Or we could just buy better games rather then starting a massive problem when it isn't needed.
Why thank you captcha.
Why thank you captcha.