No problems with my PS3 version except a super human immortal Russian guy. Just the once though. Don't see why it can't just be his PS3 that's at fault if it's sooooo buggy.
Disgruntled PS3 Owner Starts Black Ops Refund Petition
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For all you people saying its only a FEW people having problems, I invite you go to check out the PS3 section of the Black Ops forum. Look at the last week or so, and you will see 100's of threads talking about these issues.
Stop saying just because you dont have problems that no one has the right to complain. Sounds like you are the spoiled brats..
Stop saying just because you dont have problems that no one has the right to complain. Sounds like you are the spoiled brats..
Korolev said:
Are you even reading what I'm saying? I guess not, because you sound so far out of context to the discussion that it's insane.
While it should be obvious, I am not claiming any kind of "civil rights issue", nor have I used the term "oppression". I am addressing this from the perspective of a business mistreating their customers.
I am not suggesting any kind of "uprising" or legal action on the part of fans. I'm simply saying that with the gaming industry charging outrageous prices for things like downloadable content, and doing things like releasing buggy or defective games (even if it's just one version of a multi-platform title) we should not continue to give them money. A company is not going to stop holding back content to release later as DLC, or charging $15 for a couple of maps if people keep paying that money.
Though technically, at least by law in the USA the game industry is engaged in criminal behavior, though not connected to THESE issues. The gaming industry does things like set prices, and adjusts release schedules so that titles won't compete directly against each other. Like when a bunch of games were pushed up to avoid having to compete with "Modern Warfare 2". The way things are supposed to work in the US is that companies compete with
each other to produce the highest quality goods for the lowest prices. With the gaming industry you don't see that, indeed irregardless of it's budget a new game is going to cost
a standardized price that has been agreed upon by the industry.
You might think "that's just business, that's not illegal!", but yes it is. What's more you probably know it is if you listen to the news. What is being done here is exactly what gas companies are accused of with setting, and manipulating gas prices at the pump. It leads to constant investigations by both state and federal goverments. In the case of the game industry however it's not even as subtle as the gas companies who might have a penny or so differance to try and throw people off. The price of a console game is $60. By the same token if there was evidence of companies like Exxon getting together with other big gas/oil companies that are supposed to be the opposition to set prices and policies, certain federal prosecutors would have a bloody field day. The gaming industry however does this blatently like they did when there was the $50 to $60 price hike, and what apparently goes on with things like the "Game Developers Conferance". It's just that so far the issue isn't big enough, and there haven't been enough complaints, for the goverment to look into it.
That is off topic from what I was saying, I point it out only because you act so mocking on the idea of there being any big "rights" related issues here. In the USA at least we believe in capitolism, but not unfettered capitolism, laws exist that are supposed to keep prices down and quality up through competition. Cartels, Monopolies, and similar things are illegal in The United States, if the nature of a business prevents viable competition then the goverment sets the prices (which is an entirely differant issue).
There are organizations out there based on the idea of "consumer advocacy" this is to say that they watch out for unethical and illegal business practices. One of the most famous and most powerful, whom you might remember from commercials as a kid is called the "Better Business Bureau". None of these groups have so far taken up the torch for video games in paticular, a lot of the people calling the shots don't "see" the industry fully, or even really understand games (as we see in things like the recent Escapist article on Billy Bob Thornton).
On the subject of games themselves, why should a company like Capcom hold back characters to release as DLC later? They never did this before. It's only part of the business model because people keep paying for this kind of thing, even as they complain about it (which started this discussion). My comments here are simply that if we don't want to effectively pay $60 for a game which requires us to pay another $60 for the entire thing a bit at a time, we need to stop paying them. If they aren't making money doing it anymore, they aren't going to continue doing it.
It's very true, gamers so far have never been very good at any kind of "solidarity". The most we can usualy get going is an internet petition, and that's why the cost of games is raising at an astronomical rate, even if it isn't apparent from the basic sticker price. On the other hand if we worked on getting a bit more organized, worked on getting our own consumer advocacy going, and actually participated in some of these boycotts instead of just calling for them, I think we'd actually benefit. Right now the gaming industry doesn't care what anyone says or thinks, because we have so far proven that we can be ignored.
I get the whole "I want to play this fun game" and "all my friends are going to be playing it, and I don't want to be the one guy left out of the peer group due to some kind of principle". That's the problem in getting anything like this started.
You don't have to agree with me mind you, but don't go putting things into my mouth that I never said or implied. This is a business matter, consumers against producers. It's a timeless conflict as old as business, and has nothing to do with civil liberties, or fundemental human rights. While I *CAN* raise legal questions about the game industry (based on other business conflicts in the US) as I demonstrated, that has nothing to do with this paticular discussion or what I was saying.
... and yes, games are luxury items, as are many products. However as a consumer you should br striving to get a fair price and a fair value for what you pay. Businessmen by their very nature want to charge you as much as possible for as little as possible. Consumers who are not willing to stand up for themselves wind up getting exploited to the breaking point. We need to be careful to define what the market will bear, rather than letting businessmen do it entirely on their own.
While a differant issue, involving govermental taxation, remember that one of the reasons why Tea was taxed so heavily in the US was that it was being presented as a "Luxury Item". This lead to "The Boston Tea Party". Whether it's the goverment, or the merchants setting the prices ridiculous is ridiculous. Nothing so extreme is nessicary here, or being suggested, but there are some vague analogies if you think about it. Letting an issue related to business be dismissed because it's a luxury is a bad idea, and opens unpleasant doors in the long run.
Be careful what you say - people managed to bring that awful Roswell show back by sending enough bottles of Tabasco sauce to the network...just goes to show anything can happen in this crazy world...TaboriHK said:
As for the game, I confess I haven't played it - although I have enjoyed watching the incredible fuss that's been made over it. MW2 was enough for me - it didn't leave me with a compulsion to play more.
I'm sorry this guy's having problems with his game, but it seems he and his followers are in a minority? Maybe his disk is scratched or something??
EDIT: Ah, so there are a lot of people with this issue? Hm, well, maybe they'll release a patch to fix some of it...either that or I'd trade it in and try to cut my losses.
The petition is idiotic. The game runs fine. If we start the comparison game I'm sure it's on par with the 360 and better than the PC versions.Jack and Calumon said:
Some people just can't get off their 360 high-horses, though. Which is sad as I know my ps3 isn't going to brick on me.
That we can completely agree on, Internet petitions in general are goddamn ass backwards retarded, but when you make one over an issue THIS STUPID well.....yeah, not good.dathwampeer said:
Well you can go tell the companies that their policies are flawed and argue it into the ground then. It's always going to be easier for them to implement a blanket ruling on returns then to specify. Because when a system does get breached and pirated games start to be run on it you'd hate to be the store that ends up with a bunch of returned (less valuable since they are opened) games because a pirate came in and ripped them all to his hard drive.Ilikemilkshake said:
On this thread multiple PS3 owners have said there have been no problems running BLOPS and that split screen works. This is not PC gaming where having different parts will affect performance, a PS3 is a PS3. The game does what it says on the box.Therumancer said:
You were right about only paying for whats worth your money. Thats why I'm holding off 12 months for FO: New Vegas. Obsidian/Bethesda games are a frustrating, buggy, mess on release and not worth full price of entry.
BULLSHIT. It does have online split screen, Geez, this is ridiculous? Can people really take him seriously?Logan Westbrook said:
What are you morons talking about? So what if it's the new CoD game, it'd be the same for any game. If the version is inferior yet advertising made people think otherwise then he has every right to be pissed off with it, as would I if I purchased a game that had less features on another console but cost the same.
I know where you're coming from, im just saying if you were to talk to a manager who knows their stuff and isnt a dick, you could wriggle a return from them if you use the right arguement.Veloxe said:
Its fairly simple really. An Xbox360 is essentially a P3-450 grade processor with "Windows-Like" programming which is easy for them to adapt to PC. The Ps3 however is a different can of worms. And would require them essentially programming the game twice. So instead they did a quick slap together for the PS3. I've seen it happen to games on the Ps2 as well. Not a real shock. Its just more of the same from my point of view.
Come to think of it, I ain't no expert on the technicalities of game development, but is it possible that extra chunk of horsepower is what's made some PS3 version virtually broken? Like, with virtually the same kind of controllers as such, porting a game to both 360 and PS3 should be easy, but somehow, that extra power is messing things up? Of course, they should dpend more time testing and fixing said issues, a point backed up by the tons of other multiplatform games that play the same on both consoles, but I'm just wondering why this problem pops up every once in a while.fix-the-spade said:
To be honest, I think he's well within his rights to complain. I don't have a PS3, but I used to play wii mostly, and I remember how irritating it was when a game that was said to be as good, if not better than the other versions due to motion control turned out to barely work not because of the motion controls but because no-one took the time to actually test whether the damn game was working properly.
Well, eh. I had the PS3 version for the use of split screen multiplayer.
Unfortunately, the graphics and the frame rate suffer when there is 4 players playing.
You also cannot use killstreaks for players 2-4. Which sucked and is why i just went and traded it for a 360 version.
Problem solved.
Unfortunately, the graphics and the frame rate suffer when there is 4 players playing.
You also cannot use killstreaks for players 2-4. Which sucked and is why i just went and traded it for a 360 version.
Problem solved.