Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

From DustFollow

#27 Aug 23 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Except that it is a faulty product. That's the whole point.

Except it isn't, what the **** is wrong with you? Idrownfish hasn't even bought the product yet, you can't possibly say it is faulty. He explicitly said he was going to return it just to get a free game out of it.

Did I just waste this much time? I hope I'm being trolled.
#28 Aug 23 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Ubisoft announced that they are going to release a patch in two weeks that will remove the need for a constant connection to play the game.

http://kotaku.com/5833482/does-this-fix-the-from-dust-disaster
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#29 Aug 23 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All the reviews I've seen said that, DRM aside, it's a pretty ****** port so I think I'll still pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Aug 23 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Except that it is a faulty product. That's the whole point.

Except it isn't, what the **** is wrong with you? Idrownfish hasn't even bought the product yet, you can't possibly say it is faulty. He explicitly said he was going to return it just to get a free game out of it.

Did I just waste this much time? I hope I'm being trolled.


lolwut?

The whole reason he'd be guaranteed a full refund is because the game is faulty. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT.

And that's only considering one issue which is large enough to warrant a full refund. Nevermind the myriad of other problems with the port.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Aug 23 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Even that was too much. I got trolled, you win.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2011 8:32pm by Allegory
#32 Aug 23 2011 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
****
5,599 posts
I just think arguments about something I said are funny when I'm not even a part of them.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#33 Aug 24 2011 at 4:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Screenshot.

Edited, Aug 24th 2011 6:57am by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#34 Aug 24 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,373 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Screenshot.
Wow, I'm surprised he actually updated.
#35 Aug 25 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The whole reason he'd be guaranteed a full refund is because the game is faulty. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT.


This is somewhat negated when he knows the exact fault in question and buys it specifically because it has that fault and he figures he can get a refund and keep the game anyway. The point of the refund is to compensate those who would not have bought the game knowing that it had that fault. That's clearly not the case here though.

Quote:
And that's only considering one issue which is large enough to warrant a full refund. Nevermind the myriad of other problems with the port.


Yeah. I tend to steer away from console game ports unless I know they were done well. There's nothing more irritating then playing a game on a computer and yet still having to navigate through a control system that clearly assumes I've only got two buttons a joystick and four directional buttons to work with. A clear example of a bad port is a game that allows for like 8-10 weapons/skills/whatever, which you can freely switch between, but only four of them can be hotkeyed at a time. Um... What?

Yeah, I'm looking at you Avatar! Smiley: motz
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Aug 25 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The whole reason he'd be guaranteed a full refund is because the game is faulty. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT.


This is somewhat negated when he knows the exact fault in question and buys it specifically because it has that fault and he figures he can get a refund and keep the game anyway. The point of the refund is to compensate those who would not have bought the game knowing that it had that fault. That's clearly not the case here though.


That still seems like it should be completely mitigated, imo, by the fact that the company would have CHOSEN to allow you to keep the game and get a refund. They would have been well aware of this possibility and deliberately chose to allow it (rather than allow for full refunds with a mandatory return of the game).

I'm imagining, of course, that the full refund is temporally limited to when you bought the game (and will likely be completely discontinued in a week or two when they release the patch eliminating the always-online requirement).

If you can get the refund in two months when you finish, it may or may not be a different story. But that would still have been the company's choice. It's not like you would be doing something shady, or even like you were trying to find a very specific loophole.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Aug 25 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
/shrug

Call me old fashioned, but to me a moral choice has to do with more than just what someone else will let you get away with.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Aug 25 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
"get away with" seems like a stretch in this case.

I'd say someone "got away with" something if, say, they broke a no-turn on red law because they knew cops were never there and that there was no camera on the light.

I wouldn't use it to describe a scenario in which you got a free item for buying $200 worth of goods, and got to keep said item if you returned the $200 worth of items. I'm not prepared to call this moral, but I don't think it's obviously immoral. Quite frankly, I'd argue that it falls outside those boundaries with the current moral system modern western societies tend to use. I mean, the reason I personally wouldn't do it is because it FEELS dishonest.

But it doesn't seem to be dishonest in any kind of way I can actually substantiate, is what it comes down to. Why? Because you don't even have to care about always-on to get the rebate right now. Literally. All you have to do is call customer service and point out that they breached their ToS by making it always-on. That's what the actual point is to me. Knowing ahead of time that a company is going to breach their agreement with me doesn't make it any less acceptable that they breach it.

If this was just because of an uproar about it being always-on, without that ToS violation, I might not have the same position I do now.

I might as well point out that I wouldn't do this, as I do feel it is somwhat dishonest. But I can't come up with any valid reasoning for arguing that, so my official position is to each his own on this one.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Aug 25 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I smell an awful lot of rationalization. Who are you trying to convince?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Aug 25 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
Why would I rationalize anything? This was neither my idea, nor have I attempted to do it. And I doubt my computer is powerful enough to even make the pc version worth getting even if it WAS free.

But nice try on the ad hominem argument. I know you like to turn to them when you don't have anything legitimate to add.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Aug 25 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
For someone with no stake in this, and who has admitted that he wouldn't do it because it feels dishonest, you're spending a **** of a lot of time arguing that it's perfectly ok to do it anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Aug 25 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
My personal FEELING about something is just that--a feeling. Taking the moral highhorse against an issue without any rational reason is stupid and absurd. Because, all things considered, this is nothing like bringing a bug to a restaurant.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, since you think the entire world should agree with you regardless of how illogical you are being. :)

Would I do it? No. Can I think of a good reason with which I can argue that it is immoral? No.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#43 Aug 25 2011 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Former ZAM Editor-in-Chief
Avatar
**
295 posts
Fony's BFF Report this week is on From Dust: http://www.zam.com/bffreport.html?bffreport=79.

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Screenshot.


Holy crap, I forgot all about VG Cats. I'll have to add it back to my list of webcomics and see if it's updated again this year.
#44 Aug 26 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My personal FEELING about something is just that--a feeling. Taking the moral highhorse against an issue without any rational reason is stupid and absurd. Because, all things considered, this is nothing like bringing a bug to a restaurant.


Of course it is. In both cases, you are deliberately taking advantage of the policy of a business to gain their product for free. They are not identical, but they are certainly similar. From an ethical standpoint what you are trying to do (get something for nothing at someone else's expense) is the same.

Quote:
Would I do it? No. Can I think of a good reason with which I can argue that it is immoral? No.


You can't? Deliberate personal gain at someone else's expense doesn't constitute an immoral (I'd say unethical is more correct) act? Methinks you aren't thinking hard enough. Or maybe have deliberately shut your brain off?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 26 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
You can't? Deliberate personal gain at someone else's expense doesn't constitute an immoral (I'd say unethical is more correct) act? Methinks you aren't thinking hard enough. Or maybe have deliberately shut your brain off?


Aren't you a capitalist? Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#46 Aug 26 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
I never thought I'd agree with gbaji over idiggory. Smiley: frown
#47 Aug 26 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
/shrug

It doesn't seem like wronging anyone to me. They are the party that wronged their customers. If they chose to let you keep the game and get a refund, to make amends, it would seem par for the course. Because at the end of the day, they are the ones who set the parameters for refunds. If it's a scenario they find acceptable, I'm not going to beat myself up over it.

[EDIT]

Or am I supposed to be assuming that the company WOULDN'T have seen this coming, and that we are exploiting some kind of loophole in the rebate system? Because I can't imagine that happening.

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 8:07pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#48 Aug 26 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
/shrug

It doesn't seem like wronging anyone to me. They are the party that wronged their customers. If they chose to let you keep the game and get a refund, to make amends, it would seem par for the course. Because at the end of the day, they are the ones who set the parameters for refunds. If it's a scenario they find acceptable, I'm not going to beat myself up over it.

[EDIT]

Or am I supposed to be assuming that the company WOULDN'T have seen this coming, and that we are exploiting some kind of loophole in the rebate system? Because I can't imagine that happening.

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 8:07pm by idiggory


To me, it doesn't matter if they "saw it coming" or not. They were trying to make amends to the people who were wronged, and to take advantage of that doesn't seem right to me.

This is all just opinion, of course.
#49 Aug 26 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
My gut reaction is that the population that was wronged is far larger than the number that had actually bought this game before the news broke. To me, the ToS violation is just that--a breach of their agreement with the community.

Considering that, if THEY chose to let anyone who wanted it keep the game, it doesn't seem awful to me to do so.

What bugs me about the idea of it being "dishonest" (like I feel it is) is that you don't need to actually be dishonest at all. You can flat out call the company, say that you bought the game knowing that it was always-on but not okay with them breaking their ToS, and get a full refund. Whether or not they let you keep the game on top of that is ENTIRELY their decision.

Just strikes me that this should clear you of blame.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#50 Aug 26 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My gut reaction is that the population that was wronged is far larger than the number that had actually bought this game before the news broke. To me, the ToS violation is just that--a breach of their agreement with the community.

Considering that, if THEY chose to let anyone who wanted it keep the game, it doesn't seem awful to me to do so.

What bugs me about the idea of it being "dishonest" (like I feel it is) is that you don't need to actually be dishonest at all. You can flat out call the company, say that you bought the game knowing that it was always-on but not okay with them breaking their ToS, and get a full refund. Whether or not they let you keep the game on top of that is ENTIRELY their decision.

Just strikes me that this should clear you of blame.


Clear you of blame, sure. The company doesn't blame you for it. But that doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "moral." Or "honest," if that's a better term. All of those seem a little too strong to me, considering the situation.

It's sort of like, I wouldn't do it because I'd feel bad, but I wouldn't think less of someone if they did... make sense?
#51 Aug 26 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
My gut reaction is that the population that was wronged is far larger than the number that had actually bought this game before the news broke. To me, the ToS violation is just that--a breach of their agreement with the community.

Considering that, if THEY chose to let anyone who wanted it keep the game, it doesn't seem awful to me to do so.

What bugs me about the idea of it being "dishonest" (like I feel it is) is that you don't need to actually be dishonest at all. You can flat out call the company, say that you bought the game knowing that it was always-on but not okay with them breaking their ToS, and get a full refund. Whether or not they let you keep the game on top of that is ENTIRELY their decision.

Just strikes me that this should clear you of blame.


Clear you of blame, sure. The company doesn't blame you for it. But that doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "moral." Or "honest," if that's a better term. All of those seem a little too strong to me, considering the situation.

It's sort of like, I wouldn't do it because I'd feel bad, but I wouldn't think less of someone if they did... make sense?


Yes, lol, because that's exactly how I feel about it. :P I couldn't do it, because it just wouldn't feel right. But beyond that, I can't find anything with which to fault someone who does do it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 85 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (85)