The Diablo 4 pre-order bundles, and their supposed cost

[Breader]

“If a game is released today with a game-breaking bug and that bug is never fixed, nobody who bought the game has any grounds for a legal complaint against the developer”

I feel sorry for you living in a country where laws don’t protect you as a customer. Defect in a product that you paid for is DEFINITELY a reason valid enough to claim it to get fixed immediately, or receive a compensation, or get a 100% refund, at your, the customer’s, discretion.
This is how it works, this is how it should work for you as well.

- - - Updated - - -

But that's not what people are talking about.

They're talking about CONTENT updates. Not support and bug-fixing. Those are very, very different things.

If there’s an update that makes incomplete story of initially releases game complete - is that a content update or a bug fix? Or that makes a missing feature present?

Mount and blade 2 has been “early access” released what, 3 years ago? It still remains mostly empty with dialogues being filled with stubs; for example, there is an option to talk about other noble and know about their last known location that isn’t working (nothing happens, it’s a stub). When they finally replace the stub with actual feature - would you call it a content update? Because I would surely call it bug fixing, as they are just delivering something that was supposed to work from day 0.

[Endus]

“You think you could prove to a court that you weren't satisfied with a product after using it for 2 years?”

I don’t know. What if for two years I had to wait for a promised content update that should have been concluding the story - but it was never released as company always delayed the update date, for two years?

You'd better be able to point to that "promise" in writing, and vague allusions to story direction won't qualify.

Then again why sue? Idk how it works in your country, in mine you just contact the service provider directly with a complaint and they must respond (facing extra consequences, such as an additional 50% fine on top of everything, if they don’t and case moves to court). It works just that simple.

Guarantee you're not actually doing that with these kinds of complaints.

As I said grow up. Games have always been released under a business model where initial sales fund ongoing support and bugfixing. It’s not a crime to not know that though

This remains obviously false, and won't become true through repetition. It was literally impossible for game updates to be issued on consoles until the 2000s. Gaming had a solid 30+ year history before that. Maybe you're just super young and didn't live through all that.

"Support" wasn't a thing, for the most part, and "bugfixing" had to happen prior to release. A very few PC games would have patches that you could send away for, but they weren't well-known, and you were still hanging out waiting for them to ship you the patch disks. If you buy a game today and a bug never gets patched because the dev decided not to provide ongoing support, you got what you paid for and aren't owed any kind of fixes. Game support is provided largely as a public relations tool to keep customers happy with the publishers, not because it's a service you're entitled to have done based on your purchasing of the game.

- - - Updated - - -

“If a game is released today with a game-breaking bug and that bug is never fixed, nobody who bought the game has any grounds for a legal complaint against the developer”

I feel sorry for you living in a country where laws don’t protect you as a customer. Defect in a product that you paid for is DEFINITELY a reason valid enough to claim it to get fixed immediately, or receive a compensation, or get a 100% refund, at your, the customer’s, discretion.
This is how it works, this is how it should work for you as well.

Guarantee you don't live in such a country, because such a country doesn't exist. It might provide reason to ask for a refund within normal refund timelines, but that's as far as your legal protections go.

[Biomega]

If there’s an update that makes incomplete story of initially releases game complete - is that a content update or a bug fix? Or that makes a missing feature present?

You're joking right.

How is any addition of story after release a "bug fix"? The only way that would EVER be the case is if that story was intended to be part of the release but couldn't be accessed because of a bug. Which is NOT what people mean by "content update" in any way, shape or form.

You have no idea what people are talking about here.

Mount and blade 2 has been “early access” released what, 3 years ago? It still remains mostly empty with dialogues being filled with stubs

The hint there is EARLY ACCESS. Do you even know what that means? It means the game ISN'T FINISHED but they're letting people who want to play it anyway. If you don't want to play an unfinished game, don't buy early access titles. They very clearly label these for a reason.

I'm still not convinced you aren't just trolling. No one could be this ignorant about the absolute fundamentals.

[Fencers]

How is this “no funding” when you have to buy it first? This is funding. And it is supposed to last enough to cover any ongoing improvements and bug fixes over the next 2-3 years.

No. Not at all.

A lot of amateur/layman stuff is thrown around forums. But the notion of selling a game once and having that "fund" a developer until the next game(s) are released is silly. This has never been the case in actual game development.

You might have only bought Mechwarrior once "back in the day" but that didn't mean it paid for the staff to buy groceries and pay their mortgage till the next one. Get real.

[Breader]

“The hint there is EARLY ACCESS. Do you even know what that means?”

Yes I do. Then they might as well receive “early access” version of my payment - that is, zero - until the game is complete. When, and if it’s complete, if I like it - they will get my payment; until then, it’s “early access” aka free download.

Whoever invented this “early access” fraud should be castrated really.

- - - Updated - - -

“ut the notion of selling a game once and having that "fund" a developer until the next game(s) are released is silly”

This is how game and generally software market worked for 20+ years. Nothing but greed stops it from keep working that way.

- - - Updated - - -

“but they're letting people who want to play it anyway”

They are not “letting”. They are selling 5-10% complete game for a 100% price.

[Endus]

“The hint there is EARLY ACCESS. Do you even know what that means?”

Yes I do. Then they might as well receive “early access” version of my payment - that is, zero - until the game is complete. When, and if it’s complete, if I like it - they will get my payment; until then, it’s “early access” aka free download.

This is just so obviously false it doesn't really bear responding to. Early access does not mean "free".

Whoever invented this “early access” fraud should be castrated really.

It's not a "fraud".

And if you don't like it, exert a basic modicum of self control and don't buy it in Early Access, and your discontent is completely solved.

“ut the notion of selling a game once and having that "fund" a developer until the next game(s) are released is silly”

This is how game and generally software market worked for 20+ years. Nothing but greed stops it from keep working that way.

Literally not ever and still not ever. You're making this shit up and it has no bearing on reality. Paying for a game has never guaranteed ongoing support for that game, not unless it explicitly promised such on the box.

[Breader]

“And if you don't like it, exert a basic modicum of self control and don't buy it in Early Access, and your discontent is completely solved”

That is exactly what I do. No payment for ea-type frauds. Bannerlord was just an example how the fraud works.

“Paying for a game has never guaranteed ongoing support for that game, not unless it explicitly promised such on the box.”

Orly? Accept my condolences then for living somewhere where customers have no rights at all. Here there’s a mandatory 10 year period, be it software or actual goods, where support and replacement parts (in case of real goods) MUST be provided by the seller - or it’s a fraud.

[kenn9530]

“You think you could prove to a court that you weren't satisfied with a product after using it for 2 years?”

I don’t know. What if for two years I had to wait for a promised content update that should have been concluding the story - but it was never released as company always delayed the update date, for two years?

Then again why sue? Idk how it works in your country, in mine you just contact the service provider directly with a complaint and they must respond (facing extra consequences, such as an additional 50% fine on top of everything, if they don’t and case moves to court). It works just that simple.

- - - Updated - - -



As I said grow up. Games have always been released under a business model where initial sales fund ongoing support and bugfixing. It’s not a crime to not know that though

The company has the right to terminate your service permanently and they are ones who choose whats suitable for them to do so, so no you could never take a company to court after using a service for 2 years just because it may be missing something. A live service game you are not paying for content you are paying for access to content.

[Endus]

“And if you don't like it, exert a basic modicum of self control and don't buy it in Early Access, and your discontent is completely solved”

That is exactly what I do. No payment for ea-type frauds. Bannerlord was just an example how the fraud works.

“Paying for a game has never guaranteed ongoing support for that game, not unless it explicitly promised such on the box.”

Orly? Accept my condolences then for living somewhere where customers have no rights at all. Here there’s a mandatory 10 year period, be it software or actual goods, where support and replacement parts (in case of real goods) MUST be provided by the seller - or it’s a fraud.

Given that you insist on lying about what "fraud" is, I have no reason to believe in this "10 year period" working as you suggest. Especially when you won't come clean about your location, so I could check for myself.

[Breader]

The company has the right to terminate your service permanently and they are ones who choose whats suitable for them to do so, so no you could never take a company to court after using a service for 2 years just because it may be missing something. A live service game you are not paying for content you are paying for access to content.

Because this is written in their TOS? So what, local legislation still applies, and it may invalidate certain TOS terms if they contradict applicable law - because, for instance, it explicitly states that no part of any customer agreement or contract may diminish customer rights guaranteed by the law, and if it (TOS) does so in writing, that part of the TOS is null and void and not applicable - without voiding it entirely.

So yes, if they advertised a service as having a certain feature/capacity, and it was missing and never existed, and there were promises of “fixing” it in some future - it’s a fraud because they did not held their pair of the bargain

- - - Updated - - -

“ Given that you insist on lying about what "fraud" is”

That’s a funny way to say “I don’t understand a single thing but disagree anyways”.

“ so I could check for myself.”

[Endus]

“ Given that you insist on lying about what "fraud" is”

That’s a funny way to say “I don’t understand a single thing but disagree anyways”.

I really don't understand why you don't use the quote system.

You claimed, among other things, that early access pricing was a "fraud". That's a lie. It's not. Your dislike of that model doesn't change the facts.

[Breader]

I really don't understand why you don't use the quote system.

You claimed, among other things, that early access pricing was a "fraud". That's a lie. It's not. Your dislike of that model doesn't change the facts.

It IS a fraud.

It is a fraud because, as I mentioned earlier, they want 100% price for a product which is only 5-10% complete, while not providing any guarantees, timelines or roadmaps. Let me use the Bannerlord example again: game has been in EA state for what, 3+ years? Yet it is still lacking 80% of the core game functionality that was present in #1. Heck, even obvious bugs such as capturing yet another city from your enemy actually lowering your war score, remain unfixed for years.

So it’s a fraud because they basically took the money while not promising or guaranteeing anything - and not doing much either.

As for the quote system, from the mobile device it’s easier to select and copy rather than to hit a quote and then delete unnecessary text. By the way, the engine of this forum has a version where you can highlight and quote only highlighted text - sadly it’s missing here.

[Biomega]

It IS a fraud.

You don't know what fraud is.

If someone goes "would you like to pay 100% for a game that's only 5-10% complete, with no guarantees, timelines, or roadmaps?" and you go "okay sure, here you go", what part of that is fraudulent? The answer is: NO PART.

You may not LIKE it, but that doesn't mean it's fraud. That's not what that word means in the vernacular, and it's not what it means legally. In fact, you CLAIMING it's fraud is more illegal than selling early access games, because it could be considered libel (not that anyone would seriously pursue it, of course).

There's also a very easy, very accessible remedy to all of it: don't fucking buy early access games.

All of your querulant whining is just a you-problem, not an actual problem.

[Breader]

You don't know what fraud is.

If someone goes "would you like to pay 100% for a game that's only 5-10% complete, with no guarantees, timelines, or roadmaps?" and you go "okay sure, here you go", what part of that is fraudulent? The answer is: NO PART.

You may not LIKE it, but that doesn't mean it's fraud. That's not what that word means in the vernacular, and it's not what it means legally. In fact, you CLAIMING it's fraud is more illegal than selling early access games, because it could be considered libel (not that anyone would seriously pursue it, of course).

There's also a very easy, very accessible remedy to all of it: don't fucking buy early access games.

All of your querulant whining is just a you-problem, not an actual problem.

I’ve stated it already that I don’t pay for early access games.

Also it seems that my quality bar for the products worth paying for it a lot higher than yours. Which is definitely neither a me-problem nor a you-problem.

Keep paying for fraudulent (in my opinion) early access games and stay happy. I will keep using them for free and stay happy too. Everyone is happy!

[munkeyinorbit]

So spewing out a bunch of nonsense that in nothing addresses what I said counts as "counter-argument" now? So in your mind the deterioration of gaming caused by increased monetization?


... Your argument against my complaint regarding D4 and battle passes is that... Blizzard is forcing me to make that complaint?

There are already games out there that have a revenue model that you support. Go play those games. You act like blizzard is holding you hostage and forcing your CC details into the purchase page. Are they? If they are we can get the fbi involved because I'm sure that might be construed as kidnapping.

Stop acting like a child. The internet isn't impressed about your fake rage about revenue models. Buy it or not. Blizzard doesn't care and neither do I.

[liyroot]

That completely, and totally misses the core complaint of the issue: Game prices increasing based on inflation is fine, as long as it's what I pay: The base game, or any expansion content: I'm paying twice your inflation calculations to then be asked to keep paying more: Before it was to gamble, gamble gamble! (and to a degree, still is depending on your game/s of choice). Base price increasing due to inflation and costs is one thing, increasing base price under that assumption WHILE ALSO shovelling in extra shit on top of it to pay for. 110 bucks and everything release is in there? no worries, I can jibe with that. 110 bucks and "who the fuck knows how much extra stuff behind paywalls!" This isn't just a Diablo or Blizzard issue, it's endemic. That is my issue: This shit IS there at release, but locked behind EVEN FURTHER cash gates, and as a single parent who 110 bucks is a month of careful spending to buy getting "hey welcome you got more cash?" is fucking cringe.

My guy, who are you debating with on here? These people you're arguing with are the same people who want to buy a $1500 decoration for their room. The same decoration that will garuntee no woman ever feels safe in their home again. They desperately want this object. Think about that.

[Ielenia]

You act like blizzard is holding you hostage and forcing your CC details into the purchase page.

The fact this is the takeaway from all that I wrote speaks volumes more about about you than it does about me.

Stop acting like a child.

You're acting so overly defensive, and I'm the one "acting like a child"?

The internet isn't impressed about your fake rage about revenue models.

Considering I'm not here to impress anyone, mission successful, then?

Blizzard doesn't care and neither do I.

Apparently you do care a whole lot, considering you still replied to me, almost ten days after I made my post.

[anon5123]

Those games didn't offer bonus cosmetics at all, so you really don't.

Yes they literally did holy shit lmao
Not sure if zoomer or historical revisionism or both

[Chaotic1962]

Might as well slap this here. Anyone have any idea when the option to pre order ends? A day before release? Week? Month?

[Coldkil]

Probably until release. There's no date specified so i assume it's that.