Acclaim offers free upgrade to "fixed" ASB99!!!
Jimi Mack
Before you all start going berserk and cheering, the header of this
message is NOT something that I heard from Acclaim or anywhere else for
that matter. It's just something that I want to get off of my chest.
All of us who put out our hard earned $60+ for this game know that it is
buggy and a bit annoying. It is however better than Juniors game and I
really want to keep and play ASB99. But, on the other hand, $60 is a lot
of money to put out of all of our pockets for something that is
"defective". I just want a copy that I can play and not be bothered by
the silly quirks that this game has. When a consumer buys a product, he
purchases it with all intent that the product is free from defects.
Imagine buying a Bingo Game with 2 of the balls missing, or a deck of
cards with only 51 cards. Not much fun, huh? PC and console game
companies (and all software companies) have fancy lawyers that write up
all of this crap on how we can't do this and that with their software,
and you NEVER see anywhere on a video game box, "Guareenteed, if not
completely satisfied return for full refund". How come we consumers have
to follow such strict guidelines when we use a software companies
products (such as not making copies of PC games for friends) but these
same companies can sell us a cart or CD full of crap and bugs and we
have no recourse and have to either play with handicapped software or
put it on the shelf and let it collect dust.
Is there any chance that Acclaim would fix ASB99 and offer a free
replacement to us folks that spent our hard earned money on. I doubt it!
I'm sure the big shots at Acclaim are looking at sales of this game and
already working on the improvements for ASB2000. So, us consumers have
to spend $120+ for a great game. Great marketing technics! There are
"Lemon" laws for the auto industries, amybe someday there will be a
similar one for video and PC games.
Jim
ps. I do not support or encourage piracy of video or PC games. I was
just using it as an example.
VANCE HOLMES
First of all, I think Griffey is better (of course thats my opinion) and
you don't hear about it having half the troubles of All Star Baseball
Second of all, it is a good idea to rent games before you buy them, if
people didn't rent games I don't think you would have any trouble getting a
refund, but they do rent games and thats why its as much your fault as it's
Acclaim's.
If companies did Guarantee games there would be more criminals than ever
copying games. And I don't think that they should guarantee games because
of that reason and the fact that all you have to do is spend a couple of
dollars to rent the game and see what its all about, difficult huh?
Jimi Mack <jimi...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<357F283F...@pacbell.net>...
Jeff Shirton
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:43:43 -0700, Jimi Mack wrote:
> All of us who put out our hard earned $60+ for this game know that it is
> buggy and a bit annoying.
Those of us who *rented* the game also know that it's buggy, without
losing "our hard earned $60+".
Those of us who have read all the relevant threads on the game in this
newsgroup know that it's buggy, without losing "our hard earned $60+".
> really want to keep and play ASB99. But, on the other hand, $60 is a lot
> of money to put out of all of our pockets for something that is
> "defective".
If it does all it specifically claimed to do, then it's not "defective".
It's just not "perfect", that's all.
> I just want a copy that I can play and not be bothered by
> the silly quirks that this game has.
I haven't yet found a baseball game that didn't have "silly quirks" of
some sort or other. And I've read posts from those who have played just
about every game out there and say the same thing.
> When a consumer buys a product, he
> purchases it with all intent that the product is free from defects.
If you buy software with the expectation that it's gonna be completely
free of any bugs, then you're expectations are not realistic.
> completely satisfied return for full refund". How come we consumers have
> to follow such strict guidelines when we use a software companies
> products (such as not making copies of PC games for friends) but these
> same companies can sell us a cart or CD full of crap and bugs and we
> have no recourse and have to either play with handicapped software or
> put it on the shelf and let it collect dust.
Caveat Emptor.
If you're *STUPID* enough to buy a product when 100's of users have already
written posts about all the bugs in the game, then that's nobody's fault
but your own.
If your'e *STUPID* enough to blindly buy a game without renting it first
to see if you're gonna be satisfied with it, then that's nobody's fault
but your own.
If you're *STUPID* enough to buy a game that you don't know you're gonna
love, from a store that won't allow you to return it, then that's nobody's
fault but your own.
The bottom line is if you're "stuck" with a $60+ game that you don't want,
then there are enough recourses available to avoid that situation that you
have nobody to blame but yourself.
> Is there any chance that Acclaim would fix ASB99 and offer a free
> replacement to us folks that spent our hard earned money on. I doubt it!
If you didn't like ASB99, you shouldn't have *bought* it!!!
Perhaps (and this is just a thought) if people like you didn't stick
*themselves* with unacceptable quality software in the first place,
then the companies would work harder to bring quality out before their
product hits the shelves. But as long as there exist people like you
who blindly throw away your money on a pretty looking box, then they
have no real incentive to improve their quality earlier.
*YOU* are the problem.
> I'm sure the big shots at Acclaim are looking at sales of this game and
> already working on the improvements for ASB2000. So, us consumers have
> to spend $120+ for a great game. Great marketing technics! There are
Wrong!
Nobody has to spend $60 for ASB99. I haven't, yet. It may very well be
that I'll just wait for ASB2000, and only end up spending $60 for it.
There's no reason to spend $120 on it. If you did, then that's your
problem.
> "Lemon" laws for the auto industries, amybe someday there will be a
> similar one for video and PC games.
1) *ALL* software is buggy. Live with it.
2) *NO* software is perfect. Any game will be incomplete. Live with it.
3) Caveat Emptor. Don't buy a game unless you know you're gonna like it.
And if you do, then don't bitch to everyone else because of your
stupidity. There are many ways to check out a game before forking over
your money, such as renting it, trying it in a demo unit, trying a
friend's copy, reading reviews (professional, and Usenet), etc. etc.
> Jim
Jeff Shirton shi...@hwfn.org
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"He didn't sound like a baseball player. He said things like
'Nevertheless', and 'if, in fact.' " -- Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
--
__
Coach C
Well put!
The Dude
<devil's advocate mode on>
Jeff Shirton <aa...@james.hwcn.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:43:43 -0700, Jimi Mack wrote:
>
> > All of us who put out our hard earned $60+ for this game know that it is
> > buggy and a bit annoying.
>
> Those of us who *rented* the game also know that it's buggy, without
> losing "our hard earned $60+".
>
> Those of us who have read all the relevant threads on the game in this
> newsgroup know that it's buggy, without losing "our hard earned $60+".
>
1. Not everybody rents before they buy. I have not rented a game
since before Donkey Kong Country, and I have yet to buy a poor game.
Well, 32X Cosmic Carnage... that's $1.50 wasted. :) Still, the
original poster spent money and bought a game like most gamers do.
2. Read all relevant threads? C'mon, some people have a life outside
the NG. I'm not saying you don't, but I am saying that I don't read
every post online before I buy a game.
> > really want to keep and play ASB99. But, on the other hand, $60 is a lot
> > of money to put out of all of our pockets for something that is
> > "defective".
>
> If it does all it specifically claimed to do, then it's not "defective".
> It's just not "perfect", that's all.
>
I believe a few web sites reported that Acclaim was taking complaints
because of a possibility of a revised version. It is my understanding
that the game is defective, or at least not up to par.
<snip>
> > When a consumer buys a product, he
> > purchases it with all intent that the product is free from defects.
>
> If you buy software with the expectation that it's gonna be completely
> free of any bugs, then you're expectations are not realistic.
>
Naturally. However, much of the buzz around the gaming populace says
the bugs in this title are not acceptable. I mean, every game has a
problem or two... but from what I've heard about this one, it's a
genuine menace.
> > completely satisfied return for full refund". How come we consumers have
> > to follow such strict guidelines when we use a software companies
> > products (such as not making copies of PC games for friends) but these
> > same companies can sell us a cart or CD full of crap and bugs and we
> > have no recourse and have to either play with handicapped software or
> > put it on the shelf and let it collect dust.
>
> Caveat Emptor.
>
> If you're *STUPID* enough to buy a product when 100's of users have already
> written posts about all the bugs in the game, then that's nobody's fault
> but your own.
>
> If your'e *STUPID* enough to blindly buy a game without renting it first
> to see if you're gonna be satisfied with it, then that's nobody's fault
> but your own.
>
> If you're *STUPID* enough to buy a game that you don't know you're gonna
> love, from a store that won't allow you to return it, then that's nobody's
> fault but your own.
>
> The bottom line is if you're "stuck" with a $60+ game that you don't want,
> then there are enough recourses available to avoid that situation that you
> have nobody to blame but yourself.
>
So you're saying anyone who buys a game without renting it is an idiot?
Be realistic. With the N64, a lot of renting happens. Personally, I
don't even own that many N64 titles, but I have never rented one before
purchase. No problems yet. If a genuine stinker comes out with bugs
that seem to be admitted to by the company (like I said, I wasn't
following too closely), then the consumer *is* entitled to a refund.
What if there was some genuinely catastrophic bug in Windows 98 or Mac
OS 9.0 that caused some very annoying things to happen? Odds are
people would ask for a refund. And from what I've heard on the topic
of this game, it might qualify.
I don't own this game. I'm not a big sports fan when it comes to home
gaming. And I must say your attitude is really obnoxious. Maybe this
person is a newbie, and didn't read all of the posts. Sure, that's
annoying, but no reason to explode on the individual!
So he didn't read every post on the web. SO WHAT? I don't. Lots of
people don't. Heck, some posts might turn him in a different
direction! They're here for reference if you need them, but like lots
of reference, they can prove and disprove a point. So there's really
no reason to read every last post, or even the vast majority, in this
situation.
> > Is there any chance that Acclaim would fix ASB99 and offer a free
> > replacement to us folks that spent our hard earned money on. I doubt it!
>
> If you didn't like ASB99, you shouldn't have *bought* it!!!
Okay. So by your thinking, if you didn't like your meal at the
restuarant, you shouldn't have *bought* it? Buyer beware, right?
Like I said before, renting is not something I like to do. It just
doesn't seem necessary for me. I'm not alone here. Some people just
don't like certain games, and this seems like a bad game from a
technical perspective. That's reason to complain if you ask me.
> Perhaps (and this is just a thought) if people like you didn't stick
> *themselves* with unacceptable quality software in the first place,
> then the companies would work harder to bring quality out before their
> product hits the shelves. But as long as there exist people like you
> who blindly throw away your money on a pretty looking box, then they
> have no real incentive to improve their quality earlier.
>
People buy games expecting a good title. Truth be known, the N64 is
not known for games with bugs that destroy gameplay. So it's quite
natural for this to happen. I know I don't go scouring the web for bug
reports the day before I buy a game. Previews online or in game mags
and the occasional look at an import are generally what I base purchases
on. And it usually works pretty well-- the only lemon I bought cost me
$1.50 on clearance and out of the vast amount of games I bought, few
went unplayed. Many cost the same as a rental or two. So why rent
when I can get a new Saturn game for $10?
When I rented games, I generally bought the vast majority of titles I
assumed I would've bought anyway (FF2, Super CastleVania IV, Super Mario
3, etc.) Renting became an extra step that I didn't need to spend $2-3
on after a while. Maybe the poster is in the same boat.
A "pretty looking box" and a halfway decent screenshot is enough to sell
a game to the average consumer. Actually, that is what sells games to
the average consumer. The die-hard groups online have other ways--
reading posts, for instance. I've never been sold on a cover or name
alone (well, the Star Wars, Zelda, and FF games, but that's been it),
but I'm not your average consumer.
> *YOU* are the problem.
>
No, I'd say posts like this certainly don't help. Why not contact
Acclaim and get the full story? Why not *help* the poster rather than
insult him? Be productive, not constructive. Blame Acclaim.
> > I'm sure the big shots at Acclaim are looking at sales of this game and
> > already working on the improvements for ASB2000. So, us consumers have
> > to spend $120+ for a great game. Great marketing technics! There are
>
> Wrong!
>
> Nobody has to spend $60 for ASB99. I haven't, yet. It may very well be
> that I'll just wait for ASB2000, and only end up spending $60 for it.
> There's no reason to spend $120 on it. If you did, then that's your
> problem.
>
Nobody has to play video games. Nobody has to discuss them online.
Nobody has to know what an N64 is. Your point here is weak. Yes, if
you want ASB99, you probably have to pay $60 for it. So the guy likes
Baseball. He bought it. Perfectly logical.
> > "Lemon" laws for the auto industries, amybe someday there will be a
> > similar one for video and PC games.
>
> 1) *ALL* software is buggy. Live with it.
>
But from what I've heard about ASB99, Acclaim may not have intended some
of them to get out. *THIS* is something that should not have to be
lived with. Minor bugs and glitches make gaming fun. This is
different.
> 2) *NO* software is perfect. Any game will be incomplete. Live with it.
>
Nope, sorry. Some games are fine. While *you* may not like it, it
might be complete. I seriosuly doubt Mario64 was released sub-par and
was rushed, and I'd say the same about many titles over the past twenty
years. *OF COURSE* it isn't perfect, nothing is.
> 3) Caveat Emptor. Don't buy a game unless you know you're gonna like it.
> And if you do, then don't bitch to everyone else because of your
> stupidity. There are many ways to check out a game before forking over
> your money, such as renting it, trying it in a demo unit, trying a
> friend's copy, reading reviews (professional, and Usenet), etc. etc.
>
This is true, but you're forgetting name recognition. Baseball is
something most average gamers hear and say "hey, this might be good."
Or they might have another baseball game and say "I liked that, I'll
probably like this." That's a part of consumerism that will never go
away. "I like Coke, so I'll try Diet Coke." "I loved that Zelda on
the NES, I'll buy the sequel." "I really dug that Star Wars flick,
I'll go see the Empire Strikes Back."
That's just the way that is. Not everyone reads reviews because they
don't have the time/drive or maybe they don't want to be talked out of
buying a game they've been looking forward to.
Sometimes the reviews are not necessarily in synch with your
experiences. Lord knows Sonic R was more fun for me at a demo kiosk
than it was at home.
The poster is not stupid. Maybe not informed, and maybe that's
intentional. I've sworn off all FF8 info (except release dates and
merchandising tie-ins) so I don't get the plot spoiled ala FF7. Some
people, believe it or not, see a name or logo and expect quality. You
hear "Nintendo", you generally expect a good game. That's not always a
good move, but it's generally true. Someone might've made a connection
between ASB99 and Turok... both N64 titles from Acclaim. So they
expected quality. They were let down big time, and I do believe
IGN64.COM mentioned that Acclaim is working on the bugs. The original
poster is allowed his statements, you're allowed yours, but calling
someone an idiot? C'mon, this just perpetuates a stereotype.
Everyone gets stuck with a lemon once in a while. Bad software
happens-- you said so yourself. So give the guy a break, he lost $60,
and odds are he will rent next time. Maybe he won't. But he doesn't
deserve a B-product and he has every right to complain... I don't
remember reading "THOU SHALT RENT" anywhere. :)
<DA mode OFF>
--Adam
More junk: http://www.primenet.com/~apawlus
VANCE HOLMES
I don't think most of the people that are saying this guy is an idiot
because he didn't rent before he bought (I don't do it, but I know I'm
risking $60). I think they are calling him an idiot because he made a
mistake and comes in here and bitches about it and then blames it on
Acclaim.
The Dude <apa...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<1998061200...@ip-22-051.phx.primenet.com>...
> > And if you do, then don't bitchit to everyone else because of your
> > stupidity. There are many ways to check out a game before forking
over
> > your money, such as renting it, trying in a demo unit, trying a
> Everyone gets stuck with a . So give the guy a break, he lost $60,
> and odds are he will rent nextlemon once in a while. Bad software
> happens-- you said so yourself time. Maybe he won't. But he doesn't
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 11 Jun 1998 14:49:57 GMT -- Author: "VANCE HOLMES"
<sho...@gcnet.com>
>Second of all, it is a good idea to rent games before you buy them, if
>people didn't rent games I don't think you would have any trouble getting a
>refund, but they do rent games and thats why its as much your fault as it's
Oh bull. The reason they don't give refunds on games is because they
can get away with it. Most stores started this policy a while back
with computer software and eventually video games got lumped in with
computer software. Of course, we all know that there is a big
difference between the two - computer software is a heck of a lot
easier to copy than videogames.
If anything, the availability of rentals should mean that returning a
video game SHOULD be allowed. If I had a cartridge copier I could
just go rent everything that I needed to copy and would not have to
mess with buying and then returning.
==================================================
http://snake.srv.net/~got/adam.html - my homepage
==================================================
Used cd's and books at great prices!
==================================================
Will pay $$$ for used stamps from your country!
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 00:45:00 -0700 -- Author: apa...@primenet.com
(The Dude)
>purchase. No problems yet. If a genuine stinker comes out with bugs
>that seem to be admitted to by the company (like I said, I wasn't
>following too closely), then the consumer *is* entitled to a refund.
>What if there was some genuinely catastrophic bug in Windows 98 or Mac
>OS 9.0 that caused some very annoying things to happen? Odds are
>people would ask for a refund. And from what I've heard on the topic
>of this game, it might qualify.
Right. We have a certain 'right' to expect reasonable performance out
of anything that we buy. Something about 'consumer's rights' I guess.
It is not as if these rights suddenly do not exist when one starts
talking about computer or video game software.
Scott Marriott
You are absolutely right! Was this always the case? I can't remember if
stores would take back opened Atari cartridges way back when.....
Scott
Adam Gott/usenet wrote in message <35813c9b...@news.srv.net>...
>Dateline: 11 Jun 1998 14:49:57 GMT -- Author: "VANCE HOLMES"
><sho...@gcnet.com>
>
>>Second of all, it is a good idea to rent games before you buy them, if
>>people didn't rent games I don't think you would have any trouble getting
a
>>refund, but they do rent games and thats why its as much your fault as
it's
>
>Oh bull. The reason they don't give refunds on games is because they
>can get away with it. Most stores started this policy a while back
>with computer software and eventually video games got lumped in with
>computer software. Of course, we all know that there is a big
>difference between the two - computer software is a heck of a lot
>easier to copy than videogames.
>
>If anything, the availability of rentals should mean that returning a
>video game SHOULD be allowed. If I had a cartridge copier I could
>just go rent everything that I needed to copy and would not have to
>mess with buying and then returning.
>
>
The Dude
Adam Gott/usenet <g...@srv.net> wrote:
> Dateline: 11 Jun 1998 14:49:57 GMT -- Author: "VANCE HOLMES"
> <sho...@gcnet.com>
>
> >Second of all, it is a good idea to rent games before you buy them, if
> >people didn't rent games I don't think you would have any trouble getting a
> >refund, but they do rent games and thats why its as much your fault as it's
>
> Oh bull. The reason they don't give refunds on games is because they
> can get away with it. Most stores started this policy a while back
> with computer software and eventually video games got lumped in with
> computer software. Of course, we all know that there is a big
> difference between the two - computer software is a heck of a lot
> easier to copy than videogames.
>
I was always under the impression that the policy had something to do
with beating a game in a couple of days and then returning it... maybe
not. :)
--Adam
Free Star Wars Newsletter: http://www.jedinet.com/collecting
See go figure! magazine at newsstands (because I write for it)
More junk: http://www.primenet.com/~apawlus
Jeff Shirton
On 12 Jun 1998 00:45:00 -0700, The Dude wrote:
> <devil's advocate mode on>
You know, the bottom line is that society today tends to try to *SHIRK*
their *RESPONSIBILITY*. Individuals are responsible for what they do.
Individuals are responsble for how they spend their money. And if they
don't like the outcome of it, they have nobody to blame but *themselves*.
> > Those of us who have read all the relevant threads on the game in this
> > newsgroup know that it's buggy, without losing "our hard earned $60+".
> >
> 1. Not everybody rents before they buy.
Well that's their problem, isn't it?
> I have not rented a game since before Donkey Kong Country, and I
> have yet to buy a poor game. Well, 32X Cosmic Carnage... that's
> $1.50 wasted. :)
Good for you. That means you're lucky. Or perhaps your standards are
lower. Or perhaps that you are a wise shopper in other ways (eg. trying
out friends' copies, trying demo units, reading reviews, etc.)
GOOD FOR YOU.
The only game I've bought without trying it first was Wave Race 64,
and I couldn't wait until my local Blockbuster got it, I heard such
great reviews that I went out and bought it without trying it first.
I was lucky too. I loved it. And if I ended up hating the game,
I would have had no one to blame but myself. Because I can take
RESPONSIBILITY for my actions, even if others cannot.
> Still, the
> original poster spent money and bought a game like most gamers do.
Yeah, and if he wants to spend money *GAMBLING* on a game he doesn't
know that he's gonna like, then he has to learn that sometimes gambles
lose. And if he can't accept that, then he should stop gambling, and
only put his money on sure things (like trying it out before he buys).
> 2. Read all relevant threads? C'mon, some people have a life outside
> the NG. I'm not saying you don't, but I am saying that I don't read
> every post online before I buy a game.
It takes 10 seconds to go into DejaNews and search on "+N64 +Griffey".
It takes maybe 10-15 minutes to read the relevant threads that come up
as a result of that search. That doesn't sound to me like an unreasonable
amount of time to research the spending of $60+, especially if he's gonna
whine about it if he doesn't like the game afterwards.
> > If it does all it specifically claimed to do, then it's not "defective".
> > It's just not "perfect", that's all.
> >
> I believe a few web sites reported that Acclaim was taking complaints
> because of a possibility of a revised version. It is my understanding
> that the game is defective, or at least not up to par.
If the game is "defective" by the Acclaim's own standards, then I would
be very surprised if they didn't allow consumers to send the defective
cartridge back for a corrected one. In fact, in most cases they should
be able to get an exchanged copy at the retailer level. So what's the
problem?
My understanding was the gripes about AI such as bunting decisions,
poor baserunning, and lack of appropriate pinch hitting. This kind
of AI limitation would be a different category than an actual "defect",
but rather a case of, "you want the game out now, you've been screaming
for months for us to release it, well this is what you get" kind of thing.
It really amazes me how *SELFISH* and *UNREASONABLE* consumers can be.
You scream and whine for months about delays in getting games out, and
when the gaming companies try to get their games out in a timely manner,
you scream and whine about the game not playing perfect baseball.
GIMME A BREAK!
Games are like food.
You can have it fast.
Or you can have it done well.
Pick one!
> > If you buy software with the expectation that it's gonna be completely
> > free of any bugs, then you're expectations are not realistic.
> >
> Naturally. However, much of the buzz around the gaming populace says
> the bugs in this title are not acceptable. I mean, every game has a
> problem or two... but from what I've heard about this one, it's a
> genuine menace.
If that's the case, then DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!
Sheesh!
> > The bottom line is if you're "stuck" with a $60+ game that you don't want,
> > then there are enough recourses available to avoid that situation that you
> > have nobody to blame but yourself.
> >
> So you're saying anyone who buys a game without renting it is an idiot?
Well, if they buy a game not knowing if they're going to like it, when
there are *MANY* avenues for them to take to determine that before buying
it, and they end up buying it, hating it, and then griping about wasting
money on it, then yes.
> Be realistic.
I am.
> With the N64, a lot of renting happens. Personally, I
> don't even own that many N64 titles, but I have never rented one before
> purchase. No problems yet. If a genuine stinker comes out with bugs
> that seem to be admitted to by the company (like I said, I wasn't
> following too closely),
I've read all the threads, and I don't remember reading anything to
that effect.
> then the consumer *is* entitled to a refund.
No.
I would say in that case, the consumer would be entitled to a
non-defective cartridge of what they bought.
> I don't own this game. I'm not a big sports fan when it comes to home
> gaming. And I must say your attitude is really obnoxious. Maybe this
Well, I find the poster who blindly goes out to buy a game that he doesn't
like, and then going around complaining for what is in effect his own
laziness and stupidity, to be just as "obnoxious".
> person is a newbie, and didn't read all of the posts. Sure, that's
> annoying, but no reason to explode on the individual!
Reading the posts was only one of *MANY* ways to find out if a game was
worth buying before laying out the actual cash.
> So he didn't read every post on the web. SO WHAT? I don't. Lots of
> people don't.
I just *love* your response!
"Lots of people don't rent games."
"Lots of people don't read posts on the web."
That's very true, and that's all well and good, but that's also *their*
own fault if they blindly and stupidly throw away money without learning
about what they're buying.
Heck, some posts might turn him in a different
> direction! They're here for reference if you need them, but like lots
> of reference, they can prove and disprove a point. So there's really
> no reason to read every last post, or even the vast majority, in this
> situation.
Yes, different posts differ, but if some posts say there are baserunning
problems, and one or two posts say there aren't, then at least you know
that the game *MIGHT* have that problem. This is useful information.
> > If you didn't like ASB99, you shouldn't have *bought* it!!!
> Okay. So by your thinking, if you didn't like your meal at the
> restuarant, you shouldn't have *bought* it? Buyer beware, right?
If the first couple of bites are lousy, then you should definitely send
your plate back. And if you eat the entire meal before complaining about
it, then *yes* you are stupid for eating a meal that you didn't like
(and implicitly accepting it).
That being said, your analogy is not great as it refers to a consumable
product, while a video game is a non-consumable.
> Like I said before, renting is not something I like to do. It just
> doesn't seem necessary for me. I'm not alone here.
Fine.
And I won't make anyone rent a game against their will.
Just don't go around whining and demanding a refund for a game you bought
that you *chose* to buy even though you didn't like it, since there is
ample *OPPORTUNITY* for you to have determined that before you made the
purchase.
> People buy games expecting a good title. Truth be known, the N64 is
Yeah, so what?
People also go to the movies expecting a good movie.
Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
> natural for this to happen. I know I don't go scouring the web for bug
> reports the day before I buy a game. Previews online or in game mags
"Scouring"?
Perhaps you should learn to use DejaNews.
> went unplayed. Many cost the same as a rental or two. So why rent
> when I can get a new Saturn game for $10?
Oh, I agree. I'll often buy used games or previously viewed movies
sight unseen, since the low price reduces the risk of a big loss if I
don't like it. And then if I don't like it, I don't go around whining
and complaining. I took my gamble and lost. And it sounds like you're
the same way. You (apparently) make wise choices in general, so you've
been usually satisfied, and AFAIK you haven't made a big stink about that
$1.50 purchase you didn't like. It was low risk, and you only lost a
little. You knew the chance you took, and you accepted it. That, I
have no problem with.
> > *YOU* are the problem.
> >
> No, I'd say posts like this certainly don't help. Why not contact
> Acclaim and get the full story? Why not *help* the poster rather than
> insult him? Be productive, not constructive. Blame Acclaim.
And I'm not "helping" him by suggesting ways for him to become a better,
better informed, more satisfied consumer?!?!?!?!
Because if he:
1) rents before he buys;
2) tries friends' copies;
3) tries demo units;
4) checks out magazine previews and reviews;
5) checks out amateur (ie. gamer peers) reviews on the net;
...is he not going to become a better informed, more satisfied consumer?
Now yes, they may not all be available, but at least three of the five
usually are.
> > Nobody has to spend $60 for ASB99. I haven't, yet. It may very well be
> > that I'll just wait for ASB2000, and only end up spending $60 for it.
> > There's no reason to spend $120 on it. If you did, then that's your
> > problem.
> >
> Nobody has to play video games. Nobody has to discuss them online.
> Nobody has to know what an N64 is. Your point here is weak. Yes, if
No it's not.
He didn't have to spend $60 on ASB99.
But he *DID*. And now he's complaining about it.
Well, I for one don't care to hear him whining, because he made the choice
himself. Nobody forced him at gunpoint to buy the game.
> you want ASB99, you probably have to pay $60 for it. So the guy likes
But the point is he *doesn't* want ASB99!
He bought something he didn't want!
He's trying to avoid *RESPONSIBILITY* for his purchases, and instead of
assuming the responsibility of being an informed buyer, he wants the
gaming company to give him back money because *HE* bought something
blindly.
> Baseball. He bought it. Perfectly logical.
Nope. That's like going to a car dealership, throwing a suction dart up
in the air, and buying whatever car it lands on.
Lessee...
"So the guy likes [cars]. He bought it. Perfectly logical."
Do you agree?
> > 1) *ALL* software is buggy. Live with it.
> >
> But from what I've heard about ASB99, Acclaim may not have intended some
> of them to get out. *THIS* is something that should not have to be
> lived with.
This is the third time you've mentioned it. And while I've read all the
posts on ASB99, I haven't heard anything about it. Perhaps you could
quote it for sure before we actually deal with this rumour.
> Minor bugs and glitches make gaming fun.
And this is what we're talking about. And one person has posted
"workarounds" for *all* the glitches in ASB99.
> > 2) *NO* software is perfect. Any game will be incomplete. Live with it.
> >
> Nope, sorry. Some games are fine.
Nope, sorry.
I've spent years working in software development. Have you?
> This is true, but you're forgetting name recognition. Baseball is
I'm not "forgetting" it, it's irrelevant.
It may be a reason why people by certain titles, but it is certainly
not a valid reason to expect a money-back guarantee if they don't like
it after buying it sight-unseen.
> That's just the way that is. Not everyone reads reviews because they
> don't have the time/drive or maybe they don't want to be talked out of
> buying a game they've been looking forward to.
Then that's *their* problem if they're not satisfied with their purchase.
If people are too lazy to research their purchase, if they don't care
enough about the value of money they're throwing away that they can't
be bothered making a wise purchase, then they only have their own
stupidity to blame.
Caveat Emptor.
> The poster is not stupid. Maybe not informed, and maybe that's
> intentional.
Intentionally uninformed is "not stupid"?!
> Everyone gets stuck with a lemon once in a while. Bad software
> happens-- you said so yourself. So give the guy a break, he lost $60,
He lost $60 through his own stupidity.
So why should anyone give him a break?
I haven't lost $60 on the game because I'm not stupid.
I haven't decided yet whether or not the game is worth buying, but if
I do buy it, I won't be dissatisfied.
That's the difference.
> and odds are he will rent next time. Maybe he won't. But he doesn't
> deserve a B-product and he has every right to complain... I don't
If he didn't *want* "a B-product" then he shouldn't have *BOUGHT*
"a B-product".
> --Adam
Jeff Shirton
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:36:59 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> Oh bull. The reason they don't give refunds on games is because they
> can get away with it. Most stores started this policy a while back
> with computer software and eventually video games got lumped in with
> computer software.
Hey, Einstein...
Video games *ARE* "computer software".
But not only is the no-refund policy there because video games *can*
be copied, but also because many games can be "beaten" within a few
days, and there was (and still is) a lot of abuse with people "buying"
a game, "beating" it, and then returning it for either a refund or a
new game, thereby getting to play the complete game for *free*.
> Of course, we all know that there is a big difference between the two
> - computer software is a heck of a lot easier to copy than videogames.
Videogame copying is a lot more widespread than you probably realize.
> If anything, the availability of rentals should mean that returning a
> video game SHOULD be allowed. If I had a cartridge copier I could
> just go rent everything that I needed to copy and would not have to
> mess with buying and then returning.
In your scenario, why would game stores even sell games at all (nobody
would be them since they can copy it for a rental fee!), let alone be
more "customer-friendly" by allowing returns on the games they can't
sell anymore? That makes no sense.
Jeff Shirton
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:40:28 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> Right. We have a certain 'right' to expect reasonable performance out
> of anything that we buy. Something about 'consumer's rights' I guess.
> It is not as if these rights suddenly do not exist when one starts
> talking about computer or video game software.
Yes, but "consumer rights" are only limited to what the company actually
advertises about the product.
It advertises a baseball game. It's a baseball game.
It advertises MLBPA license. It's got the license.
It advertises all the ML ball parks. It's got all the ball parks.
It advertises two-player play. It has two player play.
It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect baserunning.
It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect subsitutions.
So if you expected better baserunning AI than you got, then you have no
"consumer rights" to protect you. Only Caveat Emptor.
VANCE HOLMES
It might be easier to copy computer games but tens of thousands (and
probably more) of people do copy Nintendo games, are you saying that that
is not enough for a company to worry about?
The point is they do rent games. So if you don't rent the game and make a
mistake why come in here and whine about it?
Adam Gott/usenet <g...@srv.net> wrote in article
<35813c9b...@news.srv.net>...
> Dateline: 11 Jun 1998 14:49:57 GMT -- Author: "VANCE HOLMES"
> <sho...@gcnet.com>
>
> >Second of all, it is a good idea to rent games before you buy them, if
> >people didn't rent games I don't think you would have any trouble
getting a
> >refund, but they do rent games and thats why its as much your fault as
it's
>
> Oh bull. The reason they don't give refunds on games is because they
> can get away with it. Most stores started this policy a while back
> with computer software and eventually video games got lumped in with
> computer software. Of course, we all know that there is a big
> difference between the two - computer software is a heck of a lot
> easier to copy than videogames.
>
> If anything, the availability of rentals should mean that returning a
> video game SHOULD be allowed. If I had a cartridge copier I could
> just go rent everything that I needed to copy and would not have to
> mess with buying and then returning.
>
>
Greg A. Colton !
There are two points I think should be taken into consideration here.
#1: Video game companies have quality assurance testers. Good test teams
are made of games who notice the tiniest little problems. Either Acclaim
A) Doesn't have a good test team, or B) The suits said "We have a
deadline, release it now"
#2: The Nintendo Seal of Quality is supposed to be a stamp of approval
indicating that a game is bug free. Nintendo is supposed to test the
games vigorously as well, and if it fails a standards test, it doesn't get
approved by the big "N".
If this game is bug-filled, that means either Acclaim and Nintendo aren't
doing their jobs, or they're hard up to get more games out.
==============================================================================
THE FLAPPER!!!!!!!
==============================================================================
"...it's offensive to short deformed || "Cram it with walnuts, ugly!"
people who look like testicles." || -Homer Simpson
-Tom Stern discussing E.T. ||
==============================================================================
Joshua Kaufman
VERY well said. I can;t think of anything much else to say, except, is
something is as defective as ASBB99 seems to be, then something should
be done. A recall, an exchange, SOEMETHING.
And Mr. Shinton, you mention that one should read usenet for
reviews...well SOMEONE has to get the game ot review it, now don;t they?
Think about that.
-Joshua
--
AGFF Resident Composer and Defender of Terra, Epon, and the Sailor
Senshi... User of the name Aerith... Master bad punner... Composer of 8
opi.... Player of FF series... Worshiper of Nobuo Uematsu... Watcher of
Sailor Moon... Member of the Ellipsis Faction... Part of the SM Dub
Immune Members of AGFF.. Holder of 121 Cutey Points... Proprietor of the
ellipsis...
ICQ#: 5404138 AOL-IM: TerraEpon
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:03:29 -0700 -- Author: "Scott
Marriott" <scot...@email.msn.com>
>You are absolutely right! Was this always the case? I can't remember if
>stores would take back opened Atari cartridges way back when.....
I really can't remember either but I think that at least a few of them
did take them back. I know that way back then you could return almost
anything that was open (computer software included).
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 18:21:01 -0700 -- Author: apa...@primenet.com
(The Dude)
>I was always under the impression that the policy had something to do
>with beating a game in a couple of days and then returning it... maybe
>not. :)
I guess that could have something to do with it but if this were the
driving reason one would not be able to rent games either (don't
believe for a minute that the video game companies never fought this -
computer software manufacturers fought this and won in the pre cd-rom
days).
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 13 Jun 1998 01:35:02 GMT -- Author: "VANCE HOLMES"
<sho...@gcnet.com>
>It might be easier to copy computer games but tens of thousands (and
>probably more) of people do copy Nintendo games, are you saying that that
>is not enough for a company to worry about?
Yes. The ammount of people with cartridge copiers is insignificant
compared to the number of computer users that can copy floppy discs
(and soon cd-roms).
>The point is they do rent games. So if you don't rent the game and make a
>mistake why come in here and whine about it?
The point is - you pay a lot of money for something and for every
other product on this earth you have the right to expect a reasonable
performance of said item. Why should it be different for a video
game?
Steve
It advertises a baseball game. It's a baseball game. It advertises MLBPA license. It's got the license. It advertises all the ML ball parks. It's got all the ball parks. It advertises two-player play. It has two player play. It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect baserunning. It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect subsitutions. So if you expected better baserunning AI than you got, then you have no "consumer rights" to protect you. Only Caveat Emptor.
So does it also advertise "May Freeze on You Showing Codes Ruining The Game You're Playing." If you bought a stereo that played the music, had all the "bells and whistles," etc., but sometimes "turned itself off," I doubt that you'd want to keep it.
I understand where you're coming from in terms of complaints re: AI, but "bugs" are inexcusable and there should be a solution (ex. mandatory refund or store credit).
Steve
Joe Ottoson
In article <6lsspf$9...@james.hwcn.org>, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff
Shirton) wrote:
> > 2. Read all relevant threads? C'mon, some people have a life outside
> > the NG. I'm not saying you don't, but I am saying that I don't read
> > every post online before I buy a game.
>
> It takes 10 seconds to go into DejaNews and search on "+N64 +Griffey".
>
Heh, and here you go and tell people that reviews are worthless anyway
thanks to their subjective nature ;)
Mr Hyopcrite strikes again!
Real faith is objective
Jeff Shirton
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:39:30 -0400, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
> And Mr. Shinton, you mention that one should read usenet for
I assume you mean me? Proper courtesy and respect dictates that you
spell others' names properly.
> reviews...well SOMEONE has to get the game ot review it, now don;t they?
> Think about that.
You have an *incredible* grasp of the obvious, Joshua.
What's your point?
(And please recall that reading Usenet reviews was only one of *many*
ways of gathering information about a game.)
> -Joshua
Jeff Shirton
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:07:10 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> >It might be easier to copy computer games but tens of thousands (and
> >probably more) of people do copy Nintendo games, are you saying that that
> >is not enough for a company to worry about?
> Yes. The ammount of people with cartridge copiers is insignificant
> compared to the number of computer users that can copy floppy discs
> (and soon cd-roms).
Well, I'm sure Acclaim is quite grateful that you have given them
*permission* to lose money through illegal copying. (<Sheesh>)
Keith Barbour
On 12 Jun 1998 23:48:01 -0400, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff Shirton)
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:40:28 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
>
>> Right. We have a certain 'right' to expect reasonable performance out
>> of anything that we buy. Something about 'consumer's rights' I guess.
>> It is not as if these rights suddenly do not exist when one starts
>> talking about computer or video game software.
>
>Yes, but "consumer rights" are only limited to what the company actually
>advertises about the product.
>
>It advertises a baseball game. It's a baseball game.
>It advertises MLBPA license. It's got the license.
>It advertises all the ML ball parks. It's got all the ball parks.
>It advertises two-player play. It has two player play.
>
>It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect baserunning.
>It *DOESN'T* advertise perfect subsitutions.
>
>So if you expected better baserunning AI than you got, then you have no
>"consumer rights" to protect you. Only Caveat Emptor.
>
>Jeff Shirton shi...@hwfn.org
I think I'm gonna go run ASBB 99's credits and see if this guy is
listed anywhere. 8-)
Joshua Kaufman
Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
>
> Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 18:21:01 -0700 -- Author: apa...@primenet.com
> (The Dude)
>
> >I was always under the impression that the policy had something to do
> >with beating a game in a couple of days and then returning it... maybe
> >not. :)
>
> I guess that could have something to do with it but if this were the
> driving reason one would not be able to rent games either (don't
> believe for a minute that the video game companies never fought this -
> computer software manufacturers fought this and won in the pre cd-rom
> days).
>
Actually, funny thing is that Nintendo DID try to sue blockbuster for
renting out games, saying that it "took away from sales".
Now of course they are buddy buddy.
Joe Ottoson
In article <6luesc$8...@james.hwcn.org>, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff
Shirton) wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:39:30 -0400, Joshua Kaufman wrote:
>
> > And Mr. Shinton, you mention that one should read usenet for
>
> I assume you mean me? Proper courtesy and respect dictates that you
> spell others' names properly.
>
Courtesy and respect also demand that you don't berate people for their
perceived idiotic buying tendancies, but that doesn't stop you either...
> > reviews...well SOMEONE has to get the game ot review it, now don;t they?
> > Think about that.
>
> You have an *incredible* grasp of the obvious, Joshua.
As good as the last 50 people you said that to?
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 23:47:59 -0400 -- Author: aa...@james.hwcn.org
(Jeff Shirton)
>You know, the bottom line is that society today tends to try to *SHIRK*
>their *RESPONSIBILITY*. Individuals are responsible for what they do.
>Individuals are responsble for how they spend their money. And if they
>don't like the outcome of it, they have nobody to blame but *themselves*.
So what you are saying is that a manufacturer has abosolutely no
repsonsibility to put out a defect free product? Does this mean that
if you buy a defective car you will not take a free upgrade because it
was your responsibility to make sure that it was not defective when
you bought it? And I can also assume that you will not return any
defective product if they have a recall for that product because it
was your responsibility to make sure that your can of beans did not
have botchilism? Get real.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 23:48:00 -0400 -- Author: aa...@james.hwcn.org
(Jeff Shirton)
>Hey, Einstein...
>
>Video games *ARE* "computer software".
There is quite a big difference. EVERY computer has the ability to
copy 'software' (disregarding the cdrom argument for now) with no
extra equipment.
>But not only is the no-refund policy there because video games *can*
>be copied, but also because many games can be "beaten" within a few
>days, and there was (and still is) a lot of abuse with people "buying"
>a game, "beating" it, and then returning it for either a refund or a
>new game, thereby getting to play the complete game for *free*.
If this was true there would be no rentals.
>Videogame copying is a lot more widespread than you probably realize.
Not nearly as widespread as computer game copying was back in the
floppy disk days, which is when this policy first started.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 12 Jun 1998 23:48:01 -0400 -- Author: aa...@james.hwcn.org
(Jeff Shirton)
>Yes, but "consumer rights" are only limited to what the company actually
>advertises about the product.
Please provide your credentials. In which states are you licensed to
practice law? (because that is what we are now getting into)
What you say is completely untrue. When a person buys something they
have a right to expect reasonable peformance of that item. Last time
I checked there weren't any boxes at Wal-Mart that claimed 'this
product works' so by your logic nothing even has to work out of the
box because they did not claim that it would work.
Obviously this has strayed beyond the scope of ASB 99, which works but
has some major flaws.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 13 Jun 1998 14:02:53 -0400 -- Author: aa...@james.hwcn.org
(Jeff Shirton)
>On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:07:10 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
>
>> >It might be easier to copy computer games but tens of thousands (and
>> >probably more) of people do copy Nintendo games, are you saying that that
>> >is not enough for a company to worry about?
>
>> Yes. The ammount of people with cartridge copiers is insignificant
>> compared to the number of computer users that can copy floppy discs
>> (and soon cd-roms).
>
>Well, I'm sure Acclaim is quite grateful that you have given them
>*permission* to lose money through illegal copying. (<Sheesh>)
Umm, yeah, this is EXACTLY what I said but I did not know how to say
it.
Get real. <Sheesh to yourself>
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 17:39:38 -0700 -- Author: mjh
<m...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
>Nobody should ever have to even consider the possibility that the reason
>they will not like a game is because it has defects. Any product, game
>or otherwise, should never be expected to have defects when it is
Well said. It is amazing that people these days are willing to accept
a buggy product. It is even more amazing that there are a few people
that say it is someone's fault for purchasing such a product.
I am not saying that I was ripped off by ASB 99 or even that I think I
deserve a free upgrade but this game borders on pathetic as far as
quality control/beta testing. If we just let it go and say 'it is the
consumer's fault for buying it' then a new standard gets set and even
more games/software will come out in this state.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 23:09:55 -0400 -- Author: Joshua Kaufman
<kauf...@email.uc.edu>
>Actually, funny thing is that Nintendo DID try to sue blockbuster for
>renting out games, saying that it "took away from sales".
>Now of course they are buddy buddy.
I know. And so did the SDA (Software dealers of America) - they sued
a few companies over renting software and that was the end of software
rentals (CDROM's need not apply I guess, Hasting's used to rent them).
Jeff Shirton
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:22:33 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> >You know, the bottom line is that society today tends to try to *SHIRK*
> >their *RESPONSIBILITY*. Individuals are responsible for what they do.
> >Individuals are responsble for how they spend their money. And if they
> >don't like the outcome of it, they have nobody to blame but *themselves*.
> So what you are saying is that a manufacturer has abosolutely no
> repsonsibility to put out a defect free product? Does this mean that
> if you buy a defective car you will not take a free upgrade because it
> was your responsibility to make sure that it was not defective when
> you bought it? And I can also assume that you will not return any
> defective product if they have a recall for that product because it
> was your responsibility to make sure that your can of beans did not
> have botchilism? Get real.
Okay, Adam... Calm down, take a few breaths, walk around the block and
get a hold of yourself, okay?
Now that you've done that, you can try to see the point that you missed
*completely*. It's not an "all or nothing" situation. Both parties have
responsibilities. The manufacturer has the responsibility of making a
product that does all that he claims it does. The manufacturer does *NOT*
have the responsibility of putting out a "perfect" product.
This whole thread came about because somebody made a blind buying decision.
He bought ASB99 without knowing *anything* about it. He didn't try renting
it first, he didn't try it in a demo unit, he didn't try a friend's copy,
etc. etc. etc. And now he's whining about not liking the product.
Well, too bad. If he wants to throw money away on blind gambles that are
completely avoidable, then that's his fault, and I for one don't care to
hear him whining about it. He made his bed, now he has to lie in it.
Jeff Shirton
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:25:10 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> >Video games *ARE* "computer software".
> There is quite a big difference. EVERY computer has the ability to
> copy 'software' (disregarding the cdrom argument for now) with no
> extra equipment.
Sorry, but computer software is *not* defined by its ability to be copied.
> >But not only is the no-refund policy there because video games *can*
> >be copied, but also because many games can be "beaten" within a few
> >days, and there was (and still is) a lot of abuse with people "buying"
> >a game, "beating" it, and then returning it for either a refund or a
> >new game, thereby getting to play the complete game for *free*.
> If this was true there would be no rentals.
That doesn't even remotely follow.
> >Videogame copying is a lot more widespread than you probably realize.
> Not nearly as widespread as computer game copying was back in the
> floppy disk days, which is when this policy first started.
So what? Where is it written that only the *most* widespread copying
problems are to be fought against? It's widespread *enough*.
Jeff Shirton
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:27:56 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> >Yes, but "consumer rights" are only limited to what the company actually
> >advertises about the product.
> Please provide your credentials. In which states are you licensed to
> practice law? (because that is what we are now getting into)
Sorry, pal, but that's not my responsibility. I wasn't the one who brought
up the concept of "consumer rights". It's not my burden to disprove absurd
claims. It's the burden of the person who originally claimed that we have
some innate "consumer right" for a product to stand up to arbitrary
subjective standards.
> What you say is completely untrue.
Hollow gainsaying is hardly compelling.
> When a person buys something they
> have a right to expect reasonable peformance of that item. Last time
Correct.
And ASB99 performs "reasonably". Anyone who looks at it will recognize
that it's a baseball game. The computer controls the other team in
one-player, there are nine innings, three outs per inning, three strikes
per out, etc. etc.
> I checked there weren't any boxes at Wal-Mart that claimed 'this
> product works' so by your logic nothing even has to work out of the
> box because they did not claim that it would work.
I'm not talking about the retailer, I'm talking about the manufacturers
ads and box descriptions. If you buy a N64 baseball game, it better be
a baseball game and work on the N64. If you buy a puzzle, it better be
a puzzle and be able to be assembled as such. If you buy a talking doll,
then it better say stuff when you pull the string.
Now, complaining about dissatisfaction of the computer AI in ASB99 is like
complaining about the picture on the jigsaw puzzle, or complaining that the
sentences the talking doll makes are "lame". The product does all it said
it would do, and therefore held up to its responsibility.
> Obviously this has strayed beyond the scope of ASB 99, which works but
> has some major flaws.
That's an opinion that *many* here disagree with, no matter how many times
you reassert it.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: 14 Jun 1998 20:37:06 -0400 -- Author: aa...@james.hwcn.org
(Jeff Shirton)
>Okay, Adam... Calm down, take a few breaths, walk around the block and
>get a hold of yourself, okay?
I think you are jumping to the false conclusion that I am in need of
the remedies that you suggest.
>*completely*. It's not an "all or nothing" situation. Both parties have
>responsibilities. The manufacturer has the responsibility of making a
>product that does all that he claims it does. The manufacturer does *NOT*
>have the responsibility of putting out a "perfect" product.
I can agree with you on this but you, or someone else, has said that
it is the video game consumer's fault for buying a buggy program
because there are rentals available. I disagree with this statement.
>This whole thread came about because somebody made a blind buying decision.
>He bought ASB99 without knowing *anything* about it. He didn't try renting
>it first, he didn't try it in a demo unit, he didn't try a friend's copy,
>etc. etc. etc. And now he's whining about not liking the product.
No, it was not a complete blind buying decision. ALL of the magazines
raved about this game. NONE of the magazine's hinted at some of the
glaring problems. And to top this off there is another baseball game
that comes out a month after the first two. Would it have been just a
tiny bit better for at least one of the magazines to say that one
might be better to hold off and see what STRIKE ZONE has to offer?
>Well, too bad. If he wants to throw money away on blind gambles that are
>completely avoidable, then that's his fault, and I for one don't care to
>hear him whining about it. He made his bed, now he has to lie in it.
Then you should quit reading these threads. One should not have to
rent a game just to make sure that it won't crash on them (in fact, I
have only had ASB crash on me once so it is doubtful that everyone
would experience this when renting).
Why should I have had to rent a game first when it had a few glaring
problems that a bunch of magazines glossed over? It was THEIR
responsibility to alert the gamer of these problems and for this most
of the magazines have lost a lot of face with at least a few gamers.
Obviously you don't understand what any of us are saying and it
appears that you are not even willing to listen so why do you even
bother responding?
For the record, again, overall I am happy with ASB. I would have
liked it better with a few of the bugs fixed but I am happy with it.
If you ever buy an appliance and it breaks on you please do tell us so
we can laugh at you. Most cities have rent to own places so it is
your responsibility to rent before buying. The manufacturers have no
responsibility to make sure that what they sell you will work.
hi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <358416c6...@news.srv.net>,
g...@srv.net (Adam Gott/usenet) wrote:
>
> Dateline: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 17:39:38 -0700 -- Author: mjh
> <m...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
>
> >Nobody should ever have to even consider the possibility that the reason
> >they will not like a game is because it has defects. Any product, game
> >or otherwise, should never be expected to have defects when it is
>
> Well said. It is amazing that people these days are willing to accept
> a buggy product. It is even more amazing that there are a few people
> that say it is someone's fault for purchasing such a product.
>
> I am not saying that I was ripped off by ASB 99 or even that I think I
> deserve a free upgrade but this game borders on pathetic as far as
> quality control/beta testing. If we just let it go and say 'it is the
> consumer's fault for buying it' then a new standard gets set and even
> more games/software will come out in this state.
The standard is set by what you buy. Period. If you paid $60 you set a
standard. If they still have your money, the standard is still set. Until
you get your money back (whether by force or not...) the standard has been
set. Because the people making the decisions don't know a good from a bad
game if it slapped them upside the head one way and back down the other.
This has moved far beyond ASB 99 into politics.
So we all want clean, fun, bug-free games to come out.
That's my goal. You've stated that is your goal. Seems to be the common
thread. It is our expectation.
Let's say company A releases product B that does NOT meet our expectations.
I really am talking theoretically since expectations is a highly personal
thing. ASB meets some people's expectations. Others appear disappointed.
Let's say this phantom game crashes 2 minutes into play 99% of the time. Or
the framerate is 3 fps consistently. Or the enemies don't move or fire. I
think we can all agree that the product is inferior. BUT THE HYPE! MAN! The
sites have been talking about how beautiful this game is! After all, they
are using the latest hi-rez-o-scope-a-mation technology, not to mention the
triple-pixel real-time mip-bump-buffering. You've got a pretty demo shipped
in a shiny box that is fun for all of about thirty seconds We've all seen
'em.
Let us also say that there is cheap/free (rent/newsgroups) evidence available
that this is probably the case. I would say that renting is the most accurate
and definitely preferred method, though other, truly informed opinions coming
from those _with the same criteria_ can be quite useful. Always check your
sources.
There are two alternatives. We can choose to plonk down our money and buy
an inferior product, whether we check the evidence or not. Or we can choose
not to pay our money and leave the product on the shelf.
Let's take the case where we buy the product:
The product does not meet our expectations. We are unhappy.
We can lobby for, or enforce, a law requiring the "consumer's rights". More
simply put, we can hire men with guns (that's what law is) to go to the
company and get our $60 back. We could even pass a law requiring them to
get us a product which does meet our expectations. I don't know many
programmers that work well at gunpoint though.
Or we can play by the current rules (no returns/exchanges) and let them keep
the $60. Methinks this is the more likely scenario.
Now the next time they are completing a game the guys in marketing are going
to start hollering that they need to get that game out! "It's getting too
far into the season! We can't delay it anymore!" they say. "But there are
still bugs!" say the programmers and testers. "We need more time!"
And a guy in a suit who's never played in game in his life looks at the
progress reports from last time (full of bugs) and the sales figures from
last time (sold pretty damn good) picks up a phone and calls the VP of
Production and says, "Ship it." He then gets in his Mercedes and heads to
lunch at the nearest steakhouse, having earned his $1000 for the morning.
(That's 50 games sold, by the way...)
Now let's say we didn't buy it.
Perhaps we rented it or read the newsgroups. We'll ignore the economics
of those two options which encourage their use in the future. We just didn't
buy it.
The retail store where you didn't buy your game doesn't order another copy
from the publisher. Let's say a lot of people follow this same course of
action. The retailer ends up with unsold stock (marked down and down and
down). The publisher ends up with a warehouse full of unsold merchandise
that it has to mark down and down and down. Maybe it even ends up buried
in the desert. The publisher loses a few million dollars.
Fast forward to next time.
The office is a little smaller. The guy drives a Lexus. He eats lunch at
Taco Bell sometimes. He still doesn't play games. Yet he's very aware of
the decision his _former_ boss made last time. He looks at the progress
reports (full of bugs) and looks at the sales figures from last time
(pathetic). He phones the VP of Production and says "Fix 'em. Do it as fast
as you can, but fix 'em."
And next time the game doesn't have nearly the problems.
Like I said, this goes for any game or product. We can solve the problem by
buying the game, complaining, then paying more money to hire lawyers to make
laws and men with guns to enforce them.
Or we can use this wonderful new tool called the internet. Or even our local
rental store. Or even how about trying that little store down the street that
allows returns!
Remember, our goal of a good game is the same.
Remember also I'm not commenting on what's right or wrong. I am commenting on
how to get what we want!
It's your choice of course. I choose the method that doesn't involve lawyers
and guns.
Chris
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jeff Shirton
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:33:30 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> I am not saying that I was ripped off by ASB 99 or even that I think I
> deserve a free upgrade but this game borders on pathetic as far as
> quality control/beta testing. If we just let it go and say 'it is the
> consumer's fault for buying it' then a new standard gets set and even
> more games/software will come out in this state.
Well, you've got that *completely* backwards!
I know the limitations of the game, and as of yet I haven't bought it.
Not buying it makes a statement to the manufacturer, that it better be
made in a better quality or nobody's going to buy it.
But *YOU* folks, who throw your money away buying whatever without even
knowing what you're buying, *YOU'RE* the ones telling the manufacturers
that they can continue to product crap and that people like you with more
money than brains will line up to buy it.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:17:11 GMT -- Author:
hi...@my-dejanews.com
>There are two alternatives. We can choose to plonk down our money and buy
>an inferior product, whether we check the evidence or not. Or we can choose
>not to pay our money and leave the product on the shelf.
I would not say that reading five or six different magazines is
neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
to refute this?
>We can lobby for, or enforce, a law requiring the "consumer's rights". More
>simply put, we can hire men with guns (that's what law is) to go to the
There are already such laws in place in most states. One problem with
this is that I am not going to sue intra state just to get $60 (or
even $600) back.
>last time (sold pretty damn good) picks up a phone and calls the VP of
>Production and says, "Ship it." He then gets in his Mercedes and heads to
>lunch at the nearest steakhouse, having earned his $1000 for the morning.
>(That's 50 games sold, by the way...)
Now I start to see why it is that your logic may be flawed - if you
honestly believe that ANYONE at a company gets $20 per game sold you
are seriously wrong.
>Remember also I'm not commenting on what's right or wrong. I am commenting on
>how to get what we want!
It would help if people would bitch out the magazines that gave this
game such a glowing review without mentioning ANY of the problems. I
know that this is not the first time that this has happened and it
surely won't be the last but they are just as much at fault for shoddy
'journalism' as the game companies are for putting out substandard
product.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:17:43 -0500 -- Author:
tu...@pluto.njcc.com (Jeremy Tully)
>So if I buy a product without knowing of certain flaws, I'm all of the
>sudden complicit in the company's manufacture of substandard games?
Yep, and the same goes for any new car you buy (because, after all you
can rent one or even lease one these days) - if there are any major
defects the manufacturers are no longer responsible.
The same holds true for electronics and furniture because you can also
rent them...
This is really getting moronic - blaming a CONSUMER for buying
something that is a SUBSTANDARD product. I am not trying to say that
the consumer need not shoulder some of the blame but to throw it back
in the consumer's lap is complete bull.
'Fool me once, your fault, fool me again, my fault' - a good one to
remember here I guess.
Keith Barbour
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 03:57:17 GMT, g...@srv.net (Adam Gott/usenet)
wrote:
>Dateline: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:17:11 GMT -- Author:
>hi...@my-dejanews.com
>
>>There are two alternatives. We can choose to plonk down our money and buy
>>an inferior product, whether we check the evidence or not. Or we can choose
>>not to pay our money and leave the product on the shelf.
>
>I would not say that reading five or six different magazines is
>neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
>have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
>to refute this?
No, your assertion is dead-on. I've read about 12 reviews on the net
and there are only 2 or 3 that even mention the flaws, let alone take
Acclaim to task for them.
>>We can lobby for, or enforce, a law requiring the "consumer's rights". More
>>simply put, we can hire men with guns (that's what law is) to go to the
>
>There are already such laws in place in most states. One problem with
>this is that I am not going to sue intra state just to get $60 (or
>even $600) back.
I've decided that I'm going through Acclaim to get my money back. I'm
going to start out with their support people and try and get someone
in QA on the phone. I'm going to explain to them the problems with
the game and tell them that I would like a replacement or my money
back.
>>last time (sold pretty damn good) picks up a phone and calls the VP of
>>Production and says, "Ship it." He then gets in his Mercedes and heads to
>>lunch at the nearest steakhouse, having earned his $1000 for the morning.
>>(That's 50 games sold, by the way...)
>
>Now I start to see why it is that your logic may be flawed - if you
>honestly believe that ANYONE at a company gets $20 per game sold you
>are seriously wrong.
>
>>Remember also I'm not commenting on what's right or wrong. I am commenting on
>>how to get what we want!
>
>It would help if people would bitch out the magazines that gave this
>game such a glowing review without mentioning ANY of the problems. I
>know that this is not the first time that this has happened and it
>surely won't be the last but they are just as much at fault for shoddy
>'journalism' as the game companies are for putting out substandard
>product.
Absolutely...I have written to practically every site that has posted
a top notch review with no mention of flaws, but all I get is blown
off as if there was nothing wrong with this game. There's an
interesting thread over on "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports" right now
dealing with this very thing...poor reviews. Bill Abner of Gamepen,
Steve Bauman of Computer Games Online, and Brett Todd of The
Gamesdomain Review have been posting. The thread is called
BILL'S REVIEW STUFF or something like that. Go check it out
and get involved. 8-)
Keith
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 06:29:32 GMT -- Author: b...@gamewood.net
(Keith Barbour)
>>I would not say that reading five or six different magazines is
>>neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
>>have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
>>to refute this?
>
>No, your assertion is dead-on. I've read about 12 reviews on the net
>and there are only 2 or 3 that even mention the flaws, let alone take
>Acclaim to task for them.
>off as if there was nothing wrong with this game. There's an
>interesting thread over on "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports" right now
>dealing with this very thing...poor reviews. Bill Abner of Gamepen,
Well maybe it is time to let these idiots (game magazines) know what
we think of them. I subscribe to five or six gaming magazines, mostly
because I get them for less than a buck each. I guess I will have to
write them and tell them that in the future they had better start
writing more objective game reviews, or include the word ADVERTISEMENT
at the top and bottom of every page, or I will cancel my subscription.
If these people would have been more HONEST with their reviews I
definitely would have rented ASB before buying - I may have still
bought it but I would have at least been a more informed consumer. I
usually don't go out and buy games on the first day (Zelda and Mario
games are normally the exceptions although I will hold off on Zelda
64).
hi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35873d76...@news.srv.net>,
g...@srv.net (Adam Gott/usenet) wrote:
>
> Dateline: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:17:11 GMT -- Author:
> hi...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >an inferior product, whether we check the evidence or not. Or we can choose
> >not to pay our money and leave the product on the shelf.
>
> neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
> have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
> to refute this?
>
I suggested renting as another alternative. I also pointed out that the
people who's word you take should hopefully have the same criteria as you.
Since the magazines take money from the same companies whose products they
review their word is suspect at best. Consumer Reports accepts no
advertisements and therefore has the most respected word. But someone else's
opinion, especially someone who reviews multiple games for a living, should
always be taken with a large grain of salt.
To quote myself: "Check your sources."
Yourself as a source is most reliable.
> >We can lobby for, or enforce, a law requiring the "consumer's rights". More
> >simply put, we can hire men with guns (that's what law is) to go to the
>
> There are already such laws in place in most states. One problem with
> this is that I am not going to sue intra state just to get $60 (or
> even $600) back.
Thus the standard is set that one Adam Gott will buy and keep a game he finds
marginally satisfactory. They have your money dude.
> >last time (sold pretty damn good) picks up a phone and calls the VP of
> >Production and says, "Ship it." He then gets in his Mercedes and heads to
> >lunch at the nearest steakhouse, having earned his $1000 for the morning.
> >(That's 50 games sold, by the way...)
>
> Now I start to see why it is that your logic may be flawed - if you
> honestly believe that ANYONE at a company gets $20 per game sold you
> are seriously wrong.
I was suggesting that he made $250/hour, or about $500,000 a year. Kind of
high for an executive actually, but not unreasonable. The company itself gets
about $20 per game, and the 50 games is what had to be sold to pay him that
morning.
> >Remember also I'm not commenting on what's right or wrong. I am commenting
on
> >how to get what we want!
>
> It would help if people would bitch out the magazines that gave this
> game such a glowing review without mentioning ANY of the problems. I
> know that this is not the first time that this has happened and it
> surely won't be the last but they are just as much at fault for shoddy
> 'journalism' as the game companies are for putting out substandard
> product.
>
Complaining has never been particularly helpful. Taking action is. It would
help far more if companies that made crap games didn't sell them. It would
also help far more if magazines that gave crap reviews didn't sell either.
If they don't sell product they will either change their practices or go
away.
The only person to blame for the $60 being transferred from Adam Gott to
Akklaim is Adam Gott. Look, I'm sorry you're disappointed. I want everyone
to enjoy every game they buy to the utmost. This is the best way I see to
make that happen.
Jeff Shirton
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 03:57:17 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> I would not say that reading five or six different magazines is
> neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
> have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
> to refute this?
Yes, actually.
You keep implying that the mags have some sort of "responsibility" to
give "full disclosure", so much so that they are (ethically? legally?)
at fault if they don't do so.
I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
Joe Ottoson
In article <6m9uqn$l...@james.hwcn.org>, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff
Shirton) wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 03:57:17 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
>
> > I would not say that reading five or six different magazines is
> > neglecting to check any 'evidence.' At least one of these mags should
> > have at least touched on a few of the problems of ASB 99. Anyone care
> > to refute this?
>
> Yes, actually.
>
> You keep implying that the mags have some sort of "responsibility" to
> give "full disclosure", so much so that they are (ethically? legally?)
> at fault if they don't do so.
>
It's mainly the question of the mag's integrity. If a mag or site seems
unable to provide any type of relevant or sensible coverage, you have to
ask why they're going though the paces in the first place.
> I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
> to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
I guess it depends on what you expect from a review. Personally, I'm
inclined to beleive that reviews are intended to indicate whether a game's
worth buying by that mag's particular ratings criteria.
If this is the case, the mags should use full disclosure since they're
making the claim that they're providing in depth coverage of the games
they review. Glossing over glaring flaws defeats the point of reviewing a
game in the first place if you're encouraging people to buy a substandard
or a defective product.
If you view mag reviews as arbitrary fluffery that's really only there to
sell games in the first place, I don't see why you're telling people to do
research in the first place. By that definition, you don't have a prayer
of gaining a realistic picture of the game.
Keith Barbour
On 16 Jun 1998 18:18:09 -0400, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff Shirton)
wrote:
[mucho snippage]
>I could say the same of you, especially when it looks like this entire
>thread could have been avoided if you had bothered to notice that I
>wasn't the one who said it wasn't the manufacturer's responsibility
>if they released defective carts.
I'm not sure if poor programming and pitiful AI actually qualify as
"defective". Most places usually look at me like I"m an idiot when
I return a game because runners don't tag up etc. I'm not sure if
piss poor programming would actually fly as "defective" in this case.
[snipped again]
>I just stated in my last post that the manufacturer had the responsibility
>to make a working product that fulfilled all advertised claims. I also
>pointed out that it did *not* have the responsibility to make a 'perfect'
>product.
So when I see "best baseball game ever" or "incredible AI" on the box
or on the company's website or ads, does that give me the right to sue
them for false advertising?
Let's keep this thread going...I like having Jeff around...he's a lot
of fun. 8-)
Keith
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:59:26 -0500 -- Author:
tu...@pluto.njcc.com (Jeremy Tully)
>I don't buy it at all. First, you don't explain what would happen if I
>had no access to other reviews of the game. What if I were just buying a
>game on the basis of the box? Would I be complicit then?
You are barking up the wrong tree. I agree with you, nearly
completely. There are a couple of other yay-hoos on here, most of
them probably kids, who are trying to claim that the manufacturers
have no responsibility as to quality.
>> This is really getting moronic - blaming a CONSUMER for buying
>> something that is a SUBSTANDARD product. I am not trying to say that
>> the consumer need not shoulder some of the blame but to throw it back
>> in the consumer's lap is complete bull.
>
>That was very convoluted. Could you clarify?
There are a couple of people that keep responding to this thread who
claim that a manufacturer has absolutely no responsibility to put out
a good product and that it is the consumer's responsibility to make
sure that what they buy will work. I disagree and say that, while the
consumer obviously has some responsibility, the manufacturers have
just as much or more. Sixty bucks is not really much to me but you
can bet that I will be more cautious with future purchases, especially
from Acclaim. THIS is consumerism in action.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:51:50 GMT -- Author: aj...@dim.com (Joe
Ottoson)
>> You keep implying that the mags have some sort of "responsibility" to
>> give "full disclosure", so much so that they are (ethically? legally?)
>> at fault if they don't do so.
>>
>It's mainly the question of the mag's integrity. If a mag or site seems
>unable to provide any type of relevant or sensible coverage, you have to
>ask why they're going though the paces in the first place.
(I can't read Jeff Shirton's posts anymore so am responding through a
second party)
No, I don't claim that the mags are legally responsible but ethically
they are definitely responsible (of which, integrity IS a subset of
ethics - look it up).
>> I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
>> to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
Well Jeff - they have that responsibility because I as a consumer
demand it. Otherwise I will not continue to buy their magazine. If
many others start demanding the same thing they will definitely go out
of business. Is that not a responsibility?
>I guess it depends on what you expect from a review. Personally, I'm
>inclined to beleive that reviews are intended to indicate whether a game's
>worth buying by that mag's particular ratings criteria.
Right, and as a minimum they should point out any glaring bugs or huge
defects in playability. Why is it that all of the major mags were in
cahoots over this title when some of them are apparently unafraid to
bash any other games?
I can tell you at least part of the reason - most of the time they get
REVIEW copies of games that have a few bugs. Most of them, but not
all, overlook these bugs figuring that they will be fixed before the
game is released. Occasionally one will see a review that lists a few
bugs and then goes on to say that they will probably be fixed before
the game is released.
>If this is the case, the mags should use full disclosure since they're
>making the claim that they're providing in depth coverage of the games
That is why I say that if they need to start writing ADVERTISEMENT at
the top and bottom of every page when they put out another review like
they did for ASB 99.
(standard disclaimer applies - I am not saying that would not have
bought ASB 99, but it would have been nice to see at least ONE
objective review of the game before it was released. It might be kind
of fun now to see how some of these mags try to save face.)
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:09:12 GMT -- Author:
hi...@my-dejanews.com
>I suggested renting as another alternative. I also pointed out that the
I do rent usually but for ASB 99 it had such glowing reviews I just
had to have it...
>people who's word you take should hopefully have the same criteria as you.
>Since the magazines take money from the same companies whose products they
>review their word is suspect at best. Consumer Reports accepts no
>advertisements and therefore has the most respected word. But someone else's
>opinion, especially someone who reviews multiple games for a living, should
>always be taken with a large grain of salt.
There are plenty of other magazines that seem to able to maintain a
balance between objectivity and advertising. There is no reason that
any game magazine cannot do the same, maybe it has something to do
with it being still a relatively new genre? It took quite a while for
most magazines to be objective (which is why Consumer Reports used to
hype the fact that they did not accept any advertising and thus were
more honest).
>Thus the standard is set that one Adam Gott will buy and keep a game he finds
>marginally satisfactory. They have your money dude.
Well do me my guest and try and sue someone. It does not even have to
be INTRA state, go ahead and do it locally. You will find that the
costs can be quite staggering, nothing close to the $60 that a game
costs.
>I was suggesting that he made $250/hour, or about $500,000 a year. Kind of
>high for an executive actually, but not unreasonable. The company itself gets
>about $20 per game, and the 50 games is what had to be sold to pay him that
>morning.
Yeah, reasonable my behind! Lots of video game executives make a half
million a year, especially the ones that are so involved with game
creation (I have a friend that got a job offer from Iguana last year
for about $50-60,000 a year, they must get quite a big raise when they
move up to mid management!).
>The only person to blame for the $60 being transferred from Adam Gott to
>Akklaim is Adam Gott. Look, I'm sorry you're disappointed. I want everyone
Yeah sure. When you grow up and see what it is like in the real world
you will probably find that you are singing a different tune.
Joe Ottoson
In article <3589d4ab...@news.srv.net>, g...@srv.net (Adam Gott/usenet)
wrote:
> Dateline: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:51:50 GMT -- Author: aj...@dim.com (Joe
> Ottoson)
>
> >> You keep implying that the mags have some sort of "responsibility" to
> >> give "full disclosure", so much so that they are (ethically? legally?)
> >> at fault if they don't do so.
> >>
> >It's mainly the question of the mag's integrity. If a mag or site seems
> >unable to provide any type of relevant or sensible coverage, you have to
> >ask why they're going though the paces in the first place.
>
> (I can't read Jeff Shirton's posts anymore so am responding through a
> second party)
>
Heh, he probably can't read mine, so it all evens out eventually ;)
> No, I don't claim that the mags are legally responsible but ethically
> they are definitely responsible (of which, integrity IS a subset of
> ethics - look it up).
>
> >> I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
> >> to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
>
> Well Jeff - they have that responsibility because I as a consumer
> demand it. Otherwise I will not continue to buy their magazine. If
> many others start demanding the same thing they will definitely go out
> of business. Is that not a responsibility?
>
> >I guess it depends on what you expect from a review. Personally, I'm
> >inclined to beleive that reviews are intended to indicate whether a game's
> >worth buying by that mag's particular ratings criteria.
>
> Right, and as a minimum they should point out any glaring bugs or huge
> defects in playability. Why is it that all of the major mags were in
> cahoots over this title when some of them are apparently unafraid to
> bash any other games?
>
Superficiality most likely. Good sports game reviewers operate on a whole
other plane of gaming coverage ;)
> I can tell you at least part of the reason - most of the time they get
> REVIEW copies of games that have a few bugs. Most of them, but not
> all, overlook these bugs figuring that they will be fixed before the
> game is released. Occasionally one will see a review that lists a few
> bugs and then goes on to say that they will probably be fixed before
> the game is released.
>
The main time that that's not true is for online sites which usually end
up reviewing the full copies of the games anyway becasue they don't have
to worry about any real kind of leadtime and the reviews really only
matter when the games are in stores. ;)
> >If this is the case, the mags should use full disclosure since they're
> >making the claim that they're providing in depth coverage of the games
>
> That is why I say that if they need to start writing ADVERTISEMENT at
> the top and bottom of every page when they put out another review like
> they did for ASB 99.
>
It'd be just as good to put "This review sponsored by" right after the byline ;)
Jeff Shirton
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 01:28:45 GMT, Keith Barbour wrote:
> >pointed out that it did *not* have the responsibility to make a 'perfect'
> >product.
> So when I see "best baseball game ever" or "incredible AI" on the box
> or on the company's website or ads, does that give me the right to sue
> them for false advertising?
Well, if you think you can present a case in a very *subjective* area,
then you're certainly free to try, I suppose, but I hope you won't mind
if I bet against you on that one.
Especially since despite the AI shortcomings, many gamers feel that it
in fact *IS* "the best baseball game ever".
> Keith
Jeff Shirton
> In article <3589d3cb...@news.srv.net>, g...@srv.net (Adam Gott/usenet)
> wrote:
> > You are barking up the wrong tree. I agree with you, nearly
> > completely. There are a couple of other yay-hoos on here, most of
> > them probably kids, who are trying to claim that the manufacturers
> > have no responsibility as to quality.
I have no idea who Adam thinks these "yay-hoos" (it's a pity he has to
resort to name-calling <sigh>) are, but I know that he has accused *me*
of (falsely) claiming that the manufacturers have "no responsibility",
when I have posted multiple times that they manufactures do not avoid
responsibility at all, but they do *share* responsibility with the
consumer, who is responsible for how they spend their own money.
Too bad Adam can't be bothered to read more carefully, then we wouldn't
have such false accusations flying around.
Jeff Shirton
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:39:04 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> (I can't read Jeff Shirton's posts anymore so am responding through a
> second party)
Why is that, if I may ask?
> No, I don't claim that the mags are legally responsible but ethically
> they are definitely responsible (of which, integrity IS a subset of
> ethics - look it up).
So prove it.
> >> I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
> >> to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
> Well Jeff - they have that responsibility because I as a consumer
> demand it.
Non sequitur.
If I "demand" that you give me all your money, does that mean that you
have the "responsibility" to give it to me?
I'm sorry, but your "demand" argument is ludicrous, to say the least.
> Otherwise I will not continue to buy their magazine. If many others
> start demanding the same thing they will definitely go out
> of business. Is that not a responsibility?
You indicate that they have a "responsibility" to sell magazines, to be
sure. But you don't demonstrate any "responsibility" to give an exhaustive
review.
Maybe when you become that magazine's editor, you can dictate the
"responsibility" that you seem to want to demand of the mag. But
until then, the issues still seem to be selling well even with the
reviews that you disapprove of.
> Right, and as a minimum they should point out any glaring bugs or huge
> defects in playability. Why is it that all of the major mags were in
> cahoots over this title when some of them are apparently unafraid to
> bash any other games?
It's really amazing how easily some people are prone to yell, "conspiracy!"
"Cahoots" indeed!
> bought ASB 99, but it would have been nice to see at least ONE
> objective review of the game before it was released. It might be kind
"Objective review"? There is no such thing.
Reviews are subjective by design. Deal with it.
Jeff Shirton
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:01:50 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
> There are a couple of people that keep responding to this thread who
> claim that a manufacturer has absolutely no responsibility to put out
> a good product and that it is the consumer's responsibility to make
> sure that what they buy will work. I disagree and say that, while the
You know, Adam, I'm getting sick and tired of this false accusation of yours.
I've been reading every post in this thread, and I haven't found *ONE*
person who has claimed that "a manufacturer has absolutely no responsibility"
You've accused me of making that claim, even though I've posted numerous
times to the contrary, and I've seen no one else make that claim either.
I'd really like to know who you're arguing with.
Please identify who has made this claim, and quote them exactly, okay?
> just as much or more. Sixty bucks is not really much to me but you
> can bet that I will be more cautious with future purchases, especially
Well, duh! You've finally started to learn to become an intelligent
consumer. Congratulations.
> from Acclaim. THIS is consumerism in action.
You sound like you're at the beginning of the learning curve.
Adam Gott/usenet
Dateline: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:09:17 GMT -- Author: aj...@dim.com (Joe
Ottoson)
>Superficiality most likely. Good sports game reviewers operate on a whole
>other plane of gaming coverage ;)
You definitely have this one right. It seems like they are always
willing to let a lot more slide when it comes to reviewing sports
titles. Probably a combination of someone reviewing a game who does
not know the sport and the fact that most sports games always seem to
get something wrong these days.
Joe Ottoson
In article <6mf9om$i...@james.hwcn.org>, aa...@james.hwcn.org (Jeff
Shirton) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:39:04 GMT, Adam Gott/usenet wrote:
>
> > (I can't read Jeff Shirton's posts anymore so am responding through a
> > second party)
>
> Why is that, if I may ask?
>
Since he won't be reading it... It's simple. He's killfiled you Jeff!
> > >> I challenge this implication, and ask that give a compelling argument
> > >> to convince me that they actually *do* have any such "responsibility".
>
> > Well Jeff - they have that responsibility because I as a consumer
> > demand it.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> If I "demand" that you give me all your money, does that mean that you
> have the "responsibility" to give it to me?
>
Just what service is he offering you? As he's not selling you a product, I
fail to see how it applies.
> > Otherwise I will not continue to buy their magazine. If many others
> > start demanding the same thing they will definitely go out
> > of business. Is that not a responsibility?
>
> You indicate that they have a "responsibility" to sell magazines, to be
> sure. But you don't demonstrate any "responsibility" to give an exhaustive
> review.
>
That's what the phrase "in depth coverage" implies and almost every mag
carries a similar tagline under their reviews.
> Maybe when you become that magazine's editor, you can dictate the
> "responsibility" that you seem to want to demand of the mag. But
> until then, the issues still seem to be selling well even with the
> reviews that you disapprove of.
>
It doesn't mean the reviews are useful or of especially good quality.
> > Right, and as a minimum they should point out any glaring bugs or huge
> > defects in playability. Why is it that all of the major mags were in
> > cahoots over this title when some of them are apparently unafraid to
> > bash any other games?
>
> It's really amazing how easily some people are prone to yell, "conspiracy!"
> "Cahoots" indeed!
>
Yes, especially when there always seems to be one following you...
> > bought ASB 99, but it would have been nice to see at least ONE
> > objective review of the game before it was released. It might be kind
>
> "Objective review"? There is no such thing.
> Reviews are subjective by design. Deal with it.
>
"Objective review" means they cover the positive and negative aspects
equally without letting certain features (like high res graphics) outweigh
negative factors like poor AI, bugs etc.