Final Fantasy VII Accidentally Re-released
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
**sigh**
This is why I paid 600 bucks for a Fat PS3. I can still play my PSX copy of FF 7 (or 8, or Xenogears, or Parasite Eve) with nearly infinite safe files.
As far as the issue being argued in the thread goes... guys, middle ground.
Yes, they should be able to play their game. And they can - when it's released. Once the game goes live to everyone, then those who bought it early will be able to play.
All this "they paid money and got no product" is not true - they got a product that will work when it is released.
On the other side, yes Square screwed up. If some of their fans are upset, they should offer a refund for those people who wish one. However, just because Square made a minor mistake (ie, letting the game go live before the DRM was ready) doesn't mean that they've committed some sort of crime. They aren't even denying people use - the DRM isn't ready yet. When it is, they can play. It isn't like Square meant to release the game - they weren't selling a faulty product, some people accidentally were able to buy an incomplete product.
This isn't black and white, people. Square screwed up, but only a little. They made a minor technical malfunction. Should they apologize to those affected and try to make it right? Sure. But have they committed some sort of horrible crime? No, they have not. Digital distribution is still getting the kinks worked out, and fuck-ups happen. If you buy digital, you have to accept that shit will sometimes happen.
Middle ground, people. Both sides have good points, and both sides have made mistakes. No need to freak out over a minor technical glitch.
Seriously, has no one ever dealt with file presentation? You ALWAYS load the file before you're ready to sell it, to test it to make sure it works. You keep it hidden... which is a single click to undo. If someone accidentally clicks it, the product goes live.
Maybe it's because I used to work in online sales that I know how very easy it is to screw up like this.
This is why I paid 600 bucks for a Fat PS3. I can still play my PSX copy of FF 7 (or 8, or Xenogears, or Parasite Eve) with nearly infinite safe files.
As far as the issue being argued in the thread goes... guys, middle ground.
Yes, they should be able to play their game. And they can - when it's released. Once the game goes live to everyone, then those who bought it early will be able to play.
All this "they paid money and got no product" is not true - they got a product that will work when it is released.
On the other side, yes Square screwed up. If some of their fans are upset, they should offer a refund for those people who wish one. However, just because Square made a minor mistake (ie, letting the game go live before the DRM was ready) doesn't mean that they've committed some sort of crime. They aren't even denying people use - the DRM isn't ready yet. When it is, they can play. It isn't like Square meant to release the game - they weren't selling a faulty product, some people accidentally were able to buy an incomplete product.
This isn't black and white, people. Square screwed up, but only a little. They made a minor technical malfunction. Should they apologize to those affected and try to make it right? Sure. But have they committed some sort of horrible crime? No, they have not. Digital distribution is still getting the kinks worked out, and fuck-ups happen. If you buy digital, you have to accept that shit will sometimes happen.
Middle ground, people. Both sides have good points, and both sides have made mistakes. No need to freak out over a minor technical glitch.
Um, you un-click the box that says "hide this product" before the release date.canadamus_prime said:
Seriously, has no one ever dealt with file presentation? You ALWAYS load the file before you're ready to sell it, to test it to make sure it works. You keep it hidden... which is a single click to undo. If someone accidentally clicks it, the product goes live.
Maybe it's because I used to work in online sales that I know how very easy it is to screw up like this.
Since you've explained your logic without using the phrase "stupid entitled pricks" I'm going to respond with my stance.Scrustle said:
To me, law and ethics are not the same thing. SE's actions were a mistake, but their handling of it is legally dubious (selling broken products and refusing to answer a reasonable refund request) and in my view extremely unethical. Not to mention a show of poor customer service.
As for those who bought the game and are now thinking of piracy, let us consider the legality and morality of their actions. Is it legal to pirate in this instance? Probably not, I concede that much, but I very much doubt there's a court on this Earth who'd convict someone who bought a broken game and then pirated a working copy after being ignored by the seller. As for the morality, I reckon they're in the clear. They've paid money for the game, expecting a working product. The main arguments against piracy are that it's lost sales and it's a form of theft. In this situation, both arguments are null. SE hasn't lost a sale in this case. And as for theft, I'd say right now SE are the thieves in this case.
In this very unique situation, calling it piracy is probably the wrong word. Piracy implies consuming non-free media without paying for it. That isn't what's happening here.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting this whole brouhaha was due to one berk clicking one box? No checks whatsoever? Not even a "are you sure you want to do this?" button to confirm? Seriously? Because if that's the case, then...fuck. I have no idea what to say to that. It's like, damn, surely it can't be a reason that stupid?Bara_no_Hime said:
As has already been pointed out, there was never any announced release date. People probably just noticed it sitting on the store page and figured it that it was released. And no, I don't want to hear any "Well they should have figured that Square would announce the release date ahead of time" or any-other such BS. Point is, it was on the store page, so anyone who bought it needs to be honored. Doesn't matter if it was meant to be released or not.Tony2077 said:
Back when I was getting my degree, I worked with my university bookstore coordinating with Amazon. It is indeed that easy to post up something that hasn't been released yet.Zoomy said:
You think this is bad, try doing it with a physical product. You've just told people they can buy something that hasn't been published yet. Whoops.
But yeah, if you have page edit rights, then the "hide this entry" option is just one click, with no warnings or anything. At least it was when we worked with Amazon a few years ago. The "default" mode for any item is to be sold, so you have to specifically check the "don't display this product" box to keep it away from customers. If someone unclicks that box, then the product goes live instantly.
Of course, I can't be sure that PSN works the same way, having not worked there. However, I've seen similar systems elsewhere. It seems like a fairly standard user interface.
[sub]Just to be clear, I am not a programmer - I just worked with the pre-programmed online User Interface setting book release dates and providing stock to - and receiving stock from - Amazon. I was a University employee, not an Amazon employee.[/sub]
If a product isn't finished and they haven't replaced the sound files in the package yet, then yes, they should apologize for releasing it early, but they should also inform everyone that it's still being worked on. We have no idea if they will be putting in the newer/higher quality sound files because it hasn't officially been released yet. I think that the fact that it's not ready is exactly why they have no right to be asking "what the hey?" Also, like I said, and in full agreement with you, they should just ask for a refund and wait to complain until the actual release.Charli said:
I have, but people are complaining that a game that they bought, which isn't finished, isn't up to the highest quality. If this was an official release then they are more than allowed to complain, but knowing what they know they should just ask for their money back and complain when the game actually comes out, if it still has the shit sound.8-Bit_Jack said:
sorry that last bit was kind of a joke... since square enix made no announcement or anything, it just seems odd that someone was browsing their store just looking for ff7. I do suppose that if it were on the front page that would make sense, but it seemed (to me at least) like someone would have to dig a bit to find a rerelease that was accidental.Rednog said:
>.> people actually bought that thing ....
while I'm in agreement that they should seek legal action, cause, mistake or not, square sold them faulty merchandise, and no one should get away with that, for any reason.
I'm still inclined to called them dumb asses for buying an inferior version of a game when there are other, better options out there for the same game
while I'm in agreement that they should seek legal action, cause, mistake or not, square sold them faulty merchandise, and no one should get away with that, for any reason.
I'm still inclined to called them dumb asses for buying an inferior version of a game when there are other, better options out there for the same game
Let me highlight a few problems here.
Yes, they should be able to play their game -- the people who bought it did so in good faith expecting a working product. However, they have no assurance that it will ever work. They have every right to ***** and complain and demand refunds and dispute the charges on their credit cards for goods not received. They received a defective product and have no assurance that the vendor will make it right.Bara_no_Hime said:
They did sequel 12 lol it was that horrible revenant wings bs.SkarKrow said:
given how things are these days the could easily put VII, VIII and IX with redone graphics and fixs on one blueray and happily walk to the bank.
you may not get a prequel but they are "supposed" to be doing a 10 remake.
Um, yes they have. It was released EARLY. When it is released officially, their copies will work.evilneko said:
If they don't work once it is released, then they have a right to freak out.
And as I said, they can still be upset that Square screwed up. It was Square's error. However, just because it doesn't work today doesn't mean it won't work when it's properly released.
But they DID receive goods. They downloaded the code. Goods received. Goods that will work (or had better work) when the game is actually released.evilneko said:
It's not defective - it's not turned on yet.evilneko said:
And again, I'm not saying Square didn't mess up. They did. They should try to work something out with their fans who are upset.
But they didn't lie, cheat, or steal anything. And the people screaming that they did are just as wrong as Square is.
Shades of gray - both sides are in the wrong. Both sides are being pig-headed about it. Hence my general disgust with everyone involved.
You keep saying that. What is the basis for this claim? It's an assumption.Bara_no_Hime said:
What you're missing is that it doesn't mean it will work then, either. This is why I said the customers have no assurance it will work.
If they do, point me to it.
Defective goods. Goods they do not know will ever work.
From the customer's standpoint it is defective. You're assuming a lot.
Damn right Squeenix fucked up. The customers have every right to complain about not receiving what they paid for. Squeenix should've acknowledged the error and provided refunds promptly.
As far as I can tell (and I rechecked the linked forum thread, and did some googling) they haven't.