OT: Master of Magic 2 - now looking quite likely

Arryn · #1 July 16th, 2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I ask myself, why should I pay for the game so I can have to resort to this? I have since returned the game(which in itself required a loud argument and several shots to be fired). This game is entirely not worth the hassle, and I dread the idea of going through this BS with the proposed MOM2. I think this time, I'm definitely going to exercise "try before you buy".

Well, always buy games (or most anything else) with a credit card. If you are unable to get proper satisfaction (typically a refund) from whomever you bought it from, the threat of disputing & refusing to pay the charges on your credit card will almost always work, and have the seller cave in to your rights as a consumer. This works even at places that have posted policies in-store of "no refunds on opened merchandise ... yadda yadda" (CompUSA is one such place that comes to mind).

Norfleet · #2 July 16th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:
Well, always buy games (or most anything else) with a credit card. If you are unable to get proper satisfaction (typically a refund) from whomever you bought it from, the threat of disputing & refusing to pay the charges on your credit card will almost always work, and have the seller cave in to your rights as a consumer. This works even at places that have posted policies in-store of "no refunds on opened merchandise ... yadda yadda" (CompUSA is one such place that comes to mind).

I greatly prefer to avoid credit cards, for the precise reason that every single one of your purchasing habits is logged for posterity. There's something inherently fishy about this, and I don't like it. Combine this with the increasingly obnoxious spyware tracking habits employed by software developers today, and you can see why I greatly prefer to minimize any element of traceabilty. Such behaviors greatly strain whatever faith I had in the company, and I never really had any to begin with. Clearly, these companies are abusing their freedom from being shot by irate customers. In my day, if somebody tried to peddle bad merchandise, he could reasonably be expect to be killed gruesomely by his surviving customers.

Anglachel · #3 July 16th, 2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

In my day, if somebody tried to peddle bad merchandise, he could reasonably be expect to be killed gruesomely by his surviving customers.

Oh come on! That is a little extreme don't you think? You lightly maim them at first and see if their merchandise improves a bit THEN you kill them if it doesn't. I mean if we were to kill them first then we would have nothing to spend that yankee dollar on and that would be UNAMERICAN! Only a bunch of pinko, commie slack-jawed hippies kills em first!

[ July 16, 2004, 09:48: Message edited by: Anglachel ]

Norfleet · #4 July 16th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anglachel:
Oh come on! That is a little extreme don't you think? You lightly maim them at first and see if their merchandise improves a bit THEN you kill them if it doesn't. I mean if we were to kill them first then we would have nothing to spend that yankee dollar on and that would be UNAMERICAN! Only a bunch of pinko, commie slack-jawed hippies kills em first!

Heh, I know you're just kidding here, but I don't think you realize the seriousness of bad merchandise: When somebody sells you a defective weapons or armor, this can get you killed. You will be understandably very angry if you survive the discovery. Perhaps some of your teammates didn't. This will make you even more unhappy. In such cases, blood is required. Otherwise your teammates think you don't care, and others are encouraged to peddle their bad merchandise. Thus it is not as common to see people dishonestly peddling shoddy goods, as these sorts do not Last very long. One should never trust a dealer who hasn't been there for a month or so.

Anglachel · #5 July 16th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglachel:
Oh come on! That is a little extreme don't you think? You lightly maim them at first and see if their merchandise improves a bit THEN you kill them if it doesn't. I mean if we were to kill them first then we would have nothing to spend that yankee dollar on and that would be UNAMERICAN! Only a bunch of pinko, commie slack-jawed hippies kills em first!

Heh, I know you're just kidding here, but I don't think you realize the seriousness of bad merchandise: When somebody sells you a defective weapons or armor, this can get you killed. You will be understandably very angry if you survive the discovery. Perhaps some of your teammates didn't. This will make you even more unhappy. In such cases, blood is required. Otherwise your teammates think you don't care, and others are encouraged to peddle their bad merchandise. Thus it is not as common to see people dishonestly peddling shoddy goods, as these sorts do not Last very long. One should never trust a dealer who hasn't been there for a month or so.

Yeah I can see how way back in the day if you were a young freelance merc and wanted to go off and fight in some war and you purchased a new sword from a merchant only to have it snap in two with the first swing you do and a splinter of it flies into your left eye blinding it for good and how you would want to go back to said merchant, cut off his manhood, and feed it to him. Reminds me of that movie "Remo Williams" where they are field testing some contractor's shoddy machine gun and it blows up in some soldier's face killing him. The soldier's buddy, close to tears, brandishes the mangled gun saying "I like to tell you what I think of this new gun, sir! It's worthless, sir!"

PrinzMegaherz · #6 July 16th, 2004, 02:25 PM

Same story, different thing:

Derek Smart wants to buy the Freespace license.
OH MY GOD DEREK SMART.
Freespace Cruiser 3000 ahoi!

Lets see, Freespace is not that old... so reviving it might produce a soulless. Still bad, but it could be worse

Edit: spelling

[ July 16, 2004, 13:28: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

Gandalf Parker · #7 July 16th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blitz:
The saddest thing is that I get 90% of my (purchaced) game patches from a site like ........... In fact, much of the crap I've bought requires a CD in the drive or some kind of asinine registration to get patches. Why game companies insist on making owning a legal copy of a piece of software more tedious than simply stealing it is beyond me.

Apparently you dont understand, that is the purpose of copy protection. Not worded quite that way but there are plenty of studies in the software publishing world that says copying/running legally owned software is the main problem. Piracy is a minor side-target.

Copy protection is to avoid "casual copying" of friends giving software to friends. Its an effort to keep up with software that is provided with CDs or available on shelves which "allow copying those problem CD's" without making it clear that the user might be violating an agreement.

Of course if it throws a stumble in the path of pirates for abit, thats good too but they know thats a shortlived win. Its usually worded as trying to turn a 1-day sales-to-crack time into a 3-6 week sales gap.

[ July 16, 2004, 17:26: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]