|
On December 21 2020 22:14 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2020 21:55 deacon.frost wrote:On December 21 2020 21:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2020 18:32 Harris1st wrote:
Apparently some lawyers are checking it they can do a class action against CDPR. Uffff This would be the biggest disaster to happen to gaming since FIFA started. Why? Also not saying it will fail, but some other companies screwed gamers over and nothing really happen. Alien Colonial Marines? Nah, it will be fine. No Man's Sky? Nah, it will be fine. CyberPunk on base consoles? Nah, it will be fine. Gamers need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions, stop preordering games (and in doing so, accepting the risk that the game sucks) and stop being so entitled. BTW No Man's Sky is a fantastic game. If you want the game industry to consist of only indie games that might innovate and AAA games like Call of Duty 37 and FIFA 2025 thent he best way is to sue companies that fail when they try something new. edit: If CDPR employees want to sue their company, that would probably be a good thing, but customers complaining that a game doesn't live up to their expectations are forgetting that the biggest problem there is their expectations, not the game. Gamers mostly complain the game was being lied about by the CDPR execs and was sold to them in a barely playable state. That's not entitlement and the same shitty practice happened to NMS and ACM(both apply mostly about the lies while being playable). And they may have patched NMS out of the shit, but as you can see most people remember that it has been lied about and that it was a disasterous launch. Lying about a product is a big nono, but somehow people defend this practice when it comes to games. And I agree, people should stop preordering stuff, but it's not just about that. COmpanies have to take their responsibility for false advertisement. And if your PR says on multiple ocasions the game runs fine and it doesn't... maybe stop doing that? Imagine you being sold a car that has "1000 hp, trust us" but then you would measure it and realize it has just 100 hp in reality. Would you feel entitled enough to try to get the money back because the car company lied to you or would you accept the loss? 
If the car cost me 50 quid and I gave the company that money before anyone had even had a chance to review the car, and I had zero independent confirmation that the car had 1000HP, then I would probably learn my lesson and stop trusting companies who's only responsibility is to their shareholders.
I certainly wouldn't kick up a huge internet storm before the car was ready because I had taken time off work to use it, and then cry when it was sold in an incomplete state because of the fuss i created.
This whole situation was created by
1: Shareholders wanting their money (nothing the law can do about that)
and
2: Gamers being insanely entitled and impatient and wanting the game NOW regardless of its state, and then complaining about its state.
3: CDPR doing PR.
I get what you're saying, it sucks that companies lie about their products. Its almost as if all the company cares about is making money (a principle that is at the very heart of the world economy). If people refuse to learn their lesson after repeatedly falling for the same shit over and over and over again then maybe those people should grow up and stop falling for it, instead of crying to the law about it.
If people had waited for reviews to happen before buying the game, there would be no problem here, CDPR would have lost money, and that's the end of it.
The law isn't there to cover for people's terrible decision making (or at least, it shouldn't be).
Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime...
Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening.
Ambitions powered by lies should fail the most. BTW what's new in the CP, can you elaborate on that?
|
On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:
Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime...
What does 'runs fine' mean legally?
Anyway as far as i know you can get a refund if the game doesn't work. So what are people suing for?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 21 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:
Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime... What does 'runs fine' mean legally?
Well, that may be the thing court is about to define
|
false advertising isn't a crime in most places, it's a basis for civil liability.
|
The issue is that its shareholders suing, not players.
For players you can offer a refund and then there is no damage and no case.
For shareholders its a whole other game, because when management lies and knowingly releases a bad game results in a stock price crash that is direct damage to shareholders that you can't just fix with a refund.
|
On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime... Show nested quote +Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening. Ambitions powered by lies should fail the most. BTW what's new in the CP, can you elaborate on that?
Its a new IP for one.
We'll see the end of that from AAA companies soon enough. Its too much risk when you can bank on Assassin's Creed, Fallout and Call of Duty.
|
Yeah the shareholder derivative lawsuits will be very interesting given that shareholder pressure will surely be trotted out as a reason the game was released when it was.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 21 2020 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime... Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening. Ambitions powered by lies should fail the most. BTW what's new in the CP, can you elaborate on that? Its a new IP for one. We'll see the end of that from AAA companies soon enough. Its too much risk when you can bank on Assassin's Creed, Fallout and Call of Duty.
Jedi Fallen Order is a new IP. Ghost of Tsukushim is a new IP. Deathstranding is a new IP. And somehow they were able to make it through, I wonder why. Worth noting one of the IPs was made by EA 
(cyberpunk as a genre isn't exactly new so don't start on but it's star wars )
|
On December 21 2020 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:
The issue is that its shareholders suing, not players.
For players you can offer a refund and then there is no damage and no case.
For shareholders its a whole other game, because when management lies and knowingly releases a bad game results in a stock price crash that is direct damage to shareholders that you can't just fix with a refund.
Oh, I didn't read about it lol, I assumed because of the phrase 'class action' it was consumers suing (shows what i know).
|
On December 21 2020 22:48 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime... Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening. Ambitions powered by lies should fail the most. BTW what's new in the CP, can you elaborate on that? Its a new IP for one. We'll see the end of that from AAA companies soon enough. Its too much risk when you can bank on Assassin's Creed, Fallout and Call of Duty. Jedi Fallen Order is a new IP. Ghost of Tsukushim is a new IP. Deathstranding is a new IP. And somehow they were able to make it through, I wonder why. Worth noting one of the IPs was made by EA (cyberpunk as a genre isn't exactly new so don't start on but it's star wars )
Yes, and companies currently aren't getting sued very often as far as i know.
When that starts, if they are found to have more legal liability than they previously thought, then making these new IPs with longer, more difficult development becomes more and more risky.
AAA gaming is already becoming less and less innovative as games companies fall into predictable patterns. They should be allowed to fail at making games. It happens.
|
On December 21 2020 22:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:
The issue is that its shareholders suing, not players.
For players you can offer a refund and then there is no damage and no case.
For shareholders its a whole other game, because when management lies and knowingly releases a bad game results in a stock price crash that is direct damage to shareholders that you can't just fix with a refund. Oh, I didn't read about it lol, I assumed because of the phrase 'class action' it was consumers suing (shows what i know).
Is that the wrong word/ phrasing? Sorry, all my English legal terms come from watching Suits ^^
|
Nope you're good, shareholder suits are usually class actions as well
|
On December 21 2020 23:04 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2020 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:
The issue is that its shareholders suing, not players.
For players you can offer a refund and then there is no damage and no case.
For shareholders its a whole other game, because when management lies and knowingly releases a bad game results in a stock price crash that is direct damage to shareholders that you can't just fix with a refund. Oh, I didn't read about it lol, I assumed because of the phrase 'class action' it was consumers suing (shows what i know). Is that the wrong word/ phrasing? Sorry, all my English legal terms come from watching Suits ^^
Nope, I just wrongly assumed 
|
Stakeholders pushing CDPR to launch quicker and then suing CDPR for a bad launch would be some top irony.
It's a shame. For PC users like myself this game is great. Not the revolutionary perfect game some ppl might have been expecting, but still a great game.
Launching it in a terrible state for previous gen consoles and lying about this is obviously a dick move. Imo offering refunds for those users and pulling it from the stores is enough, hopefully this doesn't escalate too far and essentially ruin CDPR as a company.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 21 2020 23:09 Laurens wrote:
Stakeholders pushing CDPR to launch quicker and then suing CDPR for a bad launch would be some top irony.
It's a shame. For PC users like myself this game is great. Not the revolutionary perfect game some ppl might have been expecting, but still a great game.
Launching it in a terrible state for previous gen consoles and lying about this is obviously a dick move. Imo offering refunds for those users and pulling it from the stores is enough, hopefully this doesn't escalate too far and essentially ruin CDPR as a company.
From my view the thing was something like this:
SH - you, how's that CP game?
CDPR - everything's fine.
SH - so it runs well even on the consoles?
CDPR - aw yeah, it runs fine.
SH - so why it's not out yet then?
They may have not pushed had they known in how bad shape it was.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 21 2020 22:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2020 22:48 deacon.frost wrote:On December 21 2020 22:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2020 22:32 deacon.frost wrote:Dude, false advertising is a crime, you do realize that? So push your entitlement somewhere else. Gamers were told during their PR that the game runs fine. There's a reason why false advertising is a crime... Besides all this, the most important and relevant point is that if we want companies to be ambitious and try new, interesting things, suing companies that fail is the most effective way to stop that from happening. Ambitions powered by lies should fail the most. BTW what's new in the CP, can you elaborate on that? Its a new IP for one. We'll see the end of that from AAA companies soon enough. Its too much risk when you can bank on Assassin's Creed, Fallout and Call of Duty. Jedi Fallen Order is a new IP. Ghost of Tsukushim is a new IP. Deathstranding is a new IP. And somehow they were able to make it through, I wonder why. Worth noting one of the IPs was made by EA (cyberpunk as a genre isn't exactly new so don't start on but it's star wars ) Yes, and companies currently aren't getting sued very often as far as i know. When that starts, if they are found to have more legal liability than they previously thought, then making these new IPs with longer, more difficult development becomes more and more risky. AAA gaming is already becoming less and less innovative as games companies fall into predictable patterns. They should be allowed to fail at making games. It happens.
Fail all you want. But. Stop. Lying. About. The. Game. Both to the customers and to your shareholders. (customers are more forgiving if they(edit - meaning CDPR) didn't notice) That's what's the shitstorm mostly about. You can fail all you want as long as you avoid doing some creative business decision. It's the same way with taxes, if you're too much creative when interpretting the tax laws you may find yourself in a pretty big troubles.
|
On December 21 2020 23:09 Laurens wrote:
Stakeholders pushing CDPR to launch quicker and then suing CDPR for a bad launch would be some top irony.
It's a shame. For PC users like myself this game is great. Not the revolutionary perfect game some ppl might have been expecting, but still a great game.
Launching it in a terrible state for previous gen consoles and lying about this is obviously a dick move. Imo offering refunds for those users and pulling it from the stores is enough, hopefully this doesn't escalate too far and essentially ruin CDPR as a company.
Stakeholders not the same thing as shareholders. Stakeholders include shareholders, but is more of a vague notion of a community around the company. For instance, I highly doubt that any marketing companies hired by CDPR will have cause to sue CDPR.
|
How would a court go about determining that a game is too defective to be sold? Almost all AAA titles have bugs and performance issues, so how and where would a court draw the line? Especially if the devs own distribution system already has a refund system in place?
|
I have to wonder if CDPR's management's original plan was to delay the game bit by bit, but was taken aback by amount of backlash its first round of delays generated and adjusted plan to this, leading to the current mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
