Jimquisition Buyer Beware

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I liked this one - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8974-Buyer-Beware

 

 

[spacer]

What's with the new opening music? It doesn't fit the show or the opening credits at all.

 

But Jim is on point as usual. The game industry's current lack of QA and level of shovelware producing game factories is pretty damn disgusting. It's not the consumers job to to have to research whether a game is playable or huge cash-grab/middle-finger to gamers. I especially agree with the Steam argument. Lately, it's extremely obvious how bloated and full of crap Steam's library has become.

[McKay]

What's with the new opening music? It doesn't fit the show or the opening credits at all.

 

 

 

It's the theme song from an old British TV show, this was the theme during the 90's. Every single Brit just got hit right in the nostalgia when they watched his video.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

this is one of the reasons that certain games i always wait before buying. i am not sure if the game is actually going to be worth my money. While other games from certain developers i will always pre-order the game and get it as soon as it is released because i know i can trust the developer not to mess it up.

[trooper11]

But Jim is on point as usual. The game industry's current lack of QA and level of shovelware producing game factories is pretty damn disgusting. It's not the consumers job to to have to research whether a game is playable or huge cash-grab/middle-finger to gamers. I especially agree with the Steam argument. Lately, it's extremely obvious how bloated and full of crap Steam's library has become.

 

I think consumers at least bare some responsibility when buying a product.  In almost every market, people will research the products they are looking at such as cars, computers, phones, etc, etc.

 

I certainly agree that game developers should not release games with serious bugs unresolved, but when it comes to say just bad games or games that are considered 'cash grabs', it all gets a little gray. Games with functional bugs that make the game unplayable in some fashion are clear cut to me and grounds for refunds.  I guess you would have to define unplayable if you wanted to create a specific rule, but there are some clear lines.

 

Today, there is a lot more chances for the end user to know what to expect about a game before they buy it.  The internet alone offers a wealth of information about any game released whether its from official critics or the random guy posting a youtube video.  Again, you can apply this to all products sold as well.  However, pre-ordering games is about the worst thing you can do unless your willing to accept the risk.

 

It would ultimately be better if all games were released in a great state from day one and were all 'great' in quality, but that is not the case nor will it ever be the case.  What that means is that we as consumers have to make an effort to find out the information we need. Sure it means a little work on our part, but its better in the end. The part I do agree with is that something should be done to cut down on games sold as functional even though they have game breaking bugs.  That level of QA is a must.

[LaP]

I think consumers at least bare some responsibility when buying a product.  In almost every market, people will research the products they are looking at such as cars, computers, phones, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Yeah but in many other markets the companies are a lot more liable.

 

Cars come with a 3 years warranty minimum on electronic and 5 years on mechanic. If there's a security flaw they need to recall and correct it. Electronics you buy like TVs can be returned within 7 days if you are not satisfied and comes with a 1 year warranty minimum. Also companies cannot use false advertising.

 

The problem with games is you can't return them if they are ****. You don't have any form of warranty if the game is unplayable. The customers are not protected by any laws when it comes to the gaming market. False advertising is also the norm more than the exception. I'm surprised the industry did not have to fight a class action lawsuit on that cause it is actually illegal in many countries.

 

Footage of games should run on the target hardware and not on dual titan with an overclocked i7 ...

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Yeah but in many other markets the companies are a lot more liable.

 

Cars come with a 3 years warranty minimum on electronic and 5 years on mechanic. If there's a security flaw they need to recall and correct it. Electronics you buy like TVs can be returned within 7 days if you are not satisfied and comes with a 1 year warranty minimum. Also companies cannot use false advertising.

 

The problem with games is you can't return them if they are ****. You don't have any form of warranty if the game is unplayable. The customers are not protected by any laws when it comes to the gaming market. False advertising is also the norm more than the exception. I'm surprised the industry did not have to fight a class action lawsuit on that cause it is actually illegal in many countries.

 

Footage of games should run on the target hardware and not on dual titan with an overclocked i7 ...

 

The UK market used to let people return games years and years ago.

 

But like all good things it was abused. People would rip and return the discs or just good ol' fashion marathoned the game then got refunds. There was literally a time when you could pay ?40 for a game, finish it, take it back and tell them you didn't like it and swap for another no questions asked. Obvious why they put an end to that, but to go from one extreme to another where we have no protective laws is also ridiculous.

 

At least with digital games we're beginning to see that change, and from the least of expected sources as well (EA/Origin). Still a long way to go for a complete overhaul in the market.

[LaP]

Don't get me wrong i agree with the fact that you can't return games.

 

But at least companies should be required (by laws) to ship them in a working state without major bugs preventing to play the game or face some sort of fine or something like that.

 

These days you are better to wait a couple of weeks to buy a game to be sure all the bugs are patched. This is sad. Specially the bugs deleting or corrupting saved games. This happens often.

[trooper11]

Don't get me wrong i agree with the fact that you can't return games.

 

But at least companies should be required (by laws) to ship them in a working state without major bugs preventing to play the game or face some sort of fine or something like that.

 

These days you are better to wait a couple of weeks to buy a game to be sure all the bugs are patched. This is sad. Specially the bugs deleting or corrupting saved games. This happens often.

 

 

I agree, my point was in full agreement that if a game is functionally broken day one, a customer should be allowed to get a refund or the developer taking a hit in some fashion.

 

I was just expanding that to the more dubious spot of wanting a refund for a bad game that may have a few bugs that are not game breaking or just not 'play well' depending on your definition of that.

 

I guess the question becomes how do you craft a law that you can enforce.  You have to define what level of 'perfection' is allowed and the nature of bugs that are allowed (as in say a bug that does not affect all users and shows up after launch versus something that affects all users day 1). Obviously, you would need to create a panel of people that would play games to insure such things don't make it to market and to do testing to verify a problem after end users start to report it. This wouldn't exactly be cheap or quick.

 

It would be akin to creating safety standards for games and we all know how much is required to make and enforce safety standards.