Observation - tolerant people.

[Nash]

Hiya Spitboy,

Your quote:

 

The decision was made to push it out because the estimated $250,000 to $500,000 CRS would recoup in box sales would be enough to push them through three or four more months of development, to get the game to a playable state, and then start recouping costs from subscriptions. Makes sense to me.

To paraphrase (accurately, I hope):

"The decision was made to sell an unplayable product in order to fund the company to get said product to a playable state."

At least I can take no other meaning from what you said than that.

Given this, one can make thousands of comparable analogies (be it using cars, toasters, you name it)... and they would all constitute consumer fraud.

What exactly makes this any different?

[Spitboy]

Heya Nash  

Well, two things would prevent it from being fraud, I'd think.

1. You can play the game. "Playable" is a term that would have to be defined in a court, and my gut tells me if Playnet could pony up a minimum spec machine, crank the details all to absolute minimum and tweak the box, it would be "playable". That's not to say "enjoyable".

2. As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.

Fraud? I don't think so. Fraud is defined as A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Deception is iffy. The information WAS officially put out there if you looked - maybe not in gory details, but enough to know the game would be rough and a work in progress. And any court would look at CRS' efforts to get the game up, triple capacity, and fix the issues that plague them. Even with the claims on the box not being technically met at launch: they've always said, long before the box was delivered, that some things would be available as free downloads within 60 days.

To be honest, I really don't understand the fraud claims. Pissed off folks, well, I understand them and their feelings. Take the game back if you must - EB accepts it. It's your $40, and you have a right to do with it what you feel is proper. Or wait it out a few months while it improves. But deliberate fraud? Nah. The only way that case would float IMHO is: A., if their servers were NEVER up, B., demand was constantly unmet after a week, or C., if CRS demonstrably did not make good faith efforts to fulfill their commitments and improve the player experience.

Servers were up the first day - just not stable. They were stable by the end of the third day, and demand was met. They have been constantly updating their customers and working to improve performance. And thousands of people find the game playable enough to fill the servers 24/7.

Spitboy -SW-

[Nash]

Spit  

 

To be honest, I really don't understand the fraud claims.

Really?

Ok... what the hell, I'm gonna try to give this a solid at bat... Here goes.

 

"Playable" is a term that would have to be defined in a court, and my gut tells me if Playnet could pony up a minimum spec machine, crank the details all to absolute minimum and tweak the box, it would be "playable".

I would PAY to see the expression on the faces of CRS'/Playnet's team of lawyers if a demonstration like this ever occurred in front of a judge. "Please God PLEASE allow this game to connect to the server this ONE TIME...I won't ask you for anything else ever again".

What are the odds in that? Besides, you need your gut to tell you that it might work? That doesn't say much for this sim now does it, really?

However, that's all beside the point and anecdotal, as you say:

 

As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.

1) Are you *sure* the fine print says that?

2) "and the option to play online given a paid subscription fee". Exactly *who's* option? The players? Or do you mean it's CRS'/Playnet's option to *let* you play online?

Both these points are quibbling if in fact the consumer is lead to believe that the package *entitles* them the ability to pay the fee and play this game online. Does the box say "We *may* have reliable servers available to play on for a fee"? Or does it say in essence "With this box and an additional monthly fee, you will be able to play online".

If it's the latter, there is indeed a problem. And don't put so much credence into fine print. The courts surely don't. It doesn't take a whole lot to discern if there's a disparity between what the box is leading the customer to believe, and what the software inside can actually *do* - no matter what any fine print may indicate. Of course, to probably even be able to READ the fine print, you'll need to open the box, thereby voiding any opportunity at most retailers for a return.

To the gist of your argument now:

 

Fraud? I don't think so. Fraud is defined as A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Ok... We have 2 parts to what would constitute fraud here, in your opinion. Deception and securing gain.

Securing gain: This part I am sure we agree on. There's no question gain was secured.

Deception: You say that the deception part is "iffy" (i.e... maybe, maybe not, eh?). Your reasoning? Because "the information WAS officially put out there if you looked - maybe not in gory details, but enough to know the game would be rough and a work in progress."

So, by your words.... if one could demonstrate that this *official* information was put out there, then it wouldn't be fraud.

Likewise, if one could demonstrate that this "official" information was NOT put out there, then it *would* be fraud.

I totally agree. Having official information about the expectations of a product available to consumers would obviously let the companies involved off the hook.

So then...

Was this information available to consumers? And JUST as importantly - was it adequate? If not, you and I both seem to agree that it's fraud.

And by available and adequate lets be realistic and say that a website, any promotional material, and the very package that the average consumer sees. It would be ridiculous to put forth the argument that 2nd hand word from the beta testers, or a downplaying of expectations by one of the Rats in some thread in one of the forums constitutes official or adequate information. K?

Additionally, this official information regarding the product being in a "rough" state mustn't be overwhelmed by any conflicting information. If that weren't the case, I could advertise Beenie babies for sale on a website, yet put posters up in my neighborhood saying they aint really Beenie babies.

Thus...

For there NOT to have been fraud, accurate information about this game must have been adequately disseminated to the consumer.

Was it?

Look at the contents of the box.

Are the things promised actually included? I hazard a guess and say not even 20% of them.

So, despite the ease with which CRS/Playnet could have stuck stickers on the box conveying the TRUE state of the sim, we can't find any accurate information on the package itself.

On the website? Not there either. It was a complete reflection of the box (or visa versa).

In the promotional material? I didn't attend the big trade show, but I would be suprised if any pamphlets etc. they handed out gave any indication of the real status of this sim.

CRS interviews? Nope, nothing there either.

Ok. Right there. No adequate official information about the status of this sim.

By your own definition then, this is fraud.

I'd actually be interested in where you DID see any information about how this sim really works.

I know you were a beta tester, so maybe the edges of what information you knew, and what was available to the public, got blurred.

I was also a beta tester. When I found out that this sim went gold a couple weeks ago, I was utterly and completely dumbfounded. In my mind then and in my mind now, this release was so *entirely* fraudulent that I lost almost all respect for the people involved.

Still, Spitboy, I think you remain insulated from the reality of this release by frequenting datter's "OC". The reality there is the reality to .005% of the people that got duped by this game. I mean - you go as far as to say that the "servers were up the first day - just not stable. They were stable by the end of the third day, and demand was met."

Demand was/is being met?

Oh man...

I've said before that I think it's somewhat noble of people to believe in something and wanna back it up... but it kills me how much folks (as intelligent and reasonable as I know you are, Spitboy) would be willing to leave their senses at the door in doing so.

[Spitboy]

Wow, lotta reply there   I hate point-by-point debates, but you're a reasonable and intelligent guy, Nash, so it deserves a reply.

First off, let me say that I don't think I'm being insulated from the reality at all. If you'll note, my contributions over at datter's OC have been helping people deal with issues. I'm more than aware of the problems that game has. I've also been more than willing to point them out, here and elsewhere.

Don't confuse enthusiasm for the concept with enthusiasm for the game in its current state. The only things I've advocated are A., the game has potential, B., there IS fun to be had, and C., folks oughta give it a shot themselves when they feel comfortable buying the game. I stand behind all three statements, and I think you'll find there's quite a few people, even here, who echo those statements.

You made a suggestion that outright fraud was practiced by Playnet on the players. I disagree, and attempted to explain why, in a court, I highly doubt any legal case of fraud could be demonstrated. I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of the release; just my feelings on the fraud point.

 

I would PAY to see the expression on the faces of CRS'/Playnet's team of lawyers if a demonstration like this ever occurred in front of a judge. "Please God PLEASE allow this game to connect to the server this ONE TIME...I won't ask you for anything else ever again".

What are the odds in that? Besides, you need your gut to tell you that it might work? That doesn't say much for this sim now does it, really?

I don't think I was clear. My "gut" was not telling me it "might" work. I know it works. I and thousands of others can play fine, 24/7. Not a cheerlead, a fact. I was suggesting that all Playnet had to do to legally prove the game is "playable" is demonstrate it works on a minimum spec box. Period. This they could easily do. The term "playable" itself is completely vague. A 3-minutes load time might not be playable to you, but it is to me. I think "playable" would be defined in the broadest legal sense possible.

 

As long as they don't charge the subscription fee, they're pretty much covered legally, until the game meets expectations. I'm sure the fine print somewhere says your $40 gets you the manual, the game and any future updates Playnet puts out, and the OPTION to play on line, given a paid subscription fee. And the subscription fee is the kicker.

1) Are you *sure* the fine print says that?

2) "and the option to play online given a paid subscription fee". Exactly *who's* option? The players? Or do you mean it's CRS'/Playnet's option to *let* you play online?

If it's the latter, there is indeed a problem. And don't put so much credence into fine print. The courts surely don't. It doesn't take a whole lot to discern if there's a disparity between what the box is leading the customer to believe, and what the software inside can actually *do* - no matter what any fine print may indicate. Of course, to probably even be able to READ the fine print, you'll need to open the box, thereby voiding any opportunity at most retailers for a return.

First, the box is returnable after opening. This would fall under buyer beware, which is a valid legal precedence - ask before you buy. I've heard many reports of EB taking the game back. Hey, I'm not cheerleading, just being logical here.

Second, the EULA, I'm sure, is very much like any other company's. Paying $40 gives you the non-exclusive rights to use the software, as is, with very few warranties or guarantees. Read the DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES block on any EULA. Basically, it covers the developer six ways from Sunday - putting the baseline at "best efforts".

 

Was this information available to consumers? And JUST as importantly - was it adequate? If not, you and I both seem to agree that it's fraud.

And by available and adequate lets be realistic and say that a website, any promotional material, and the very package that the average consumer sees. It would be ridiculous to put forth the argument that 2nd hand word from the beta testers, or a downplaying of expectations by one of the Rats in some thread in one of the forums constitutes official or adequate information. K?

...

So, despite the ease with which CRS/Playnet could have stuck stickers on the box conveying the TRUE state of the sim, we can't find any accurate information on the package itself.

On the website? Not there either. It was a complete reflection of the box (or visa versa).

In the OFFICIAL pre-release intelligence report on the playnet.com and wwiionline.com web site, the following info was put out by Mo, the producer, 5 full days before release:

The size and magnitude of this design has become more of a challenge than we ever anticipated. Having to delay the naval portion was a choice that literally saved the title from sure failure. A bitter pill to swallow, but was clearly the right call to make. There are other features that we did not have time to get in for first release like paratroopers, artillery, some RPG features, and visible convoys. These will all be available hot on the heels of the release, but WWIIOL won't be "finished" any time soon. The benefit of a MMOLG paradigm is that development can continue, and the product improves as time goes on- new theaters opening, new vehicles and additional gameplay features. Our plan is a steady flow of updates and additions to keep the game fresh, and give it the feel that the war progresses in more ways than just the front lines.

In the same update, Snail said:

This release represents the very best efforts of our development team under the timelines we faced. It is the first step on journey towards delivering all the function and features we'd like to see- and we think you would too. I'd rather it was perfect before we stuck it out there but we can't sit on it forever. We can't sit on it at all. The upside is, as MO mentioned earlier…we're in a business where the game's never finished, and updates are part and parcel of the way we do things. The game WILL improve as time goes on…more features will be added, more theaters…more vehicles…and more polish.

Further, detailed information about exactly what vehicles and weapons were available in game were provided. It was clearly stated other things promised would be delivered as free updates. I believe that meets the criteria you establish as being visible enough and official enough, and forewarning that the game is rough, and a work in progress.

 

Demand was/is being met?

Oh man...

Yes, it was. I know you've been around these games for a long time   You'll recall I'm sure cases where paying customers of MacAW, of Warbirds, or of Aces High were either unable to connect because the servers were unavailable or the quality of play was so bad it wasn't worth playing. Of course those times were typically VERY brief - maybe it was due to large demand for a new release being downloaded, or a server problem, etc. Nowhere did I see you or other fans screaming fraud. It's accepted that MMOG networks are not an exact science, and that things occasional go wrong. That's no different than Playnet's initial three days of server problems. So, I and thousands of others, are willing to write off the rocky first few days as a teething period.

Yes, demand IS being met, and fun IS being delivered, for thousands of people. Information WAS provided officially in advance of release detailing the rough status of the game. And that's the bottom line from a legal/fraud standpoint, really. You may not be one of the people having fun, and that's fine, too. You have the option of taking the game back if you practiced caveat emptor and inquired before purchase.

That leaves the state of the game. And we're back to the EULA and the legal definition of "playability". I've gone over that, and my feeling is it would literally be laughed out of court.

Now, that's the fraud debate. If you want to debate the ethics, the rightness/wrongness of releasing the game in this state, that's another matter entirely, and I think the real point you're trying to get at. I've posted here and elsewhere that I thought it was a big mistake to release it as is. Go see the thread in datter's OC where I say it was just bad business.

But fraud? Heck no. Three thousand people I played with last night on a stable server who were all having fun would disagree with that. And don't say "only 3,000? They're not serving their players!" That's 10% of their users, a good number for peak useage. I'd bet HTC has 2,500 accounts, yet there's only 250 or so online at any one time - 10%.

Spitboy -SW-

[Spitboy]

And to be precise, here's the part of the EULA for WW2OL that's applicable to the above:

The Company does not warrant that the Software or its operations or functions will meet your requirements, nor that the use thereof will be without interruption or error.
EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING AND WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IN TERMS OF ITS CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, CURRENTNESS OR OTHERWISE.

That's standard legalese. Compare it to the same section in the HTC EULA, or any game. The only real difference between it and HTC's is that Playnet guarantees the physical CD-ROM will work like a CD-ROM for 90 days, since you paid for it.

Again - please separate anger and disappointment from fraud. There's a distinction. You have every right to be mad at Playnet, to feel they screwed you, and to say you'll never buy another product from them. More power to you, and I can understand where you are coming from, even though I do not feel the same way. However, that does not mean they are guilty of fraud.

Spitboy -SW-

[MrRiplEy]

You can't compare warbirds or Aces High to ww2ol. Ww2ol is a boxed game, a $40 purchase where warbirds and especially aces high software is free. Who would care less if a free software wouldnt be working?

If people would be smart, they'd return the game based on the EULA which denies all promises made previously in marketing and the box.

The whole concept of buying a boxed game means that the customer expects to have a working product in exchange of his money.
If the customer pays money for a product that was falsely advertised to be functional, he can sue the company for false advertising. Not fraud maybe, but false advertising for sure.

Also make no mistake.. the online part of WW2OL must work reliably in order to fulfill the promises made in the boxed purchase. WW2OL has no playable offline section like many other games have, therefore if the online section fails to work the whole product can be seen as failure.

[MrRiplEy]

And btw I just read on the CRS BB that the first hacks were seen yesterday in the fps part.. That must be somekind of a record.

First hacks introduced before all players had the chance to log on LOL.

Quake kiddies writing hacks will be the final doom of the game.

[Nifty]

I bought the game on Saturday.  Servers had problems that day, but still managed to get on for a bit.  Since then the only time I wasn't able to get on was Sunday when the servers were full.  Every day since then I've been able to get online in the game.  The game -is- playable in MOST aspects, flight is an exception(edit, I can't spell!), lots and lots of people get dropped to the desktop while in the air.  even 384mb isn't enough RAM for flying where the action is.

The problem here was that CRS told their publishers they'd be ready in a general time frame.  As with almost EVERY single software project, they were hideously behind schedule, due to the inevitable mistake of not planning enough time.  Very, very few software projects are made on time, and under budget with the FULL set of features planned.  For some reason, software developers always underestimate how long it'll take.  Hell, I even do it with my assignments for school.  "that'll take me 6 hours to do."  12 hours later...  "finally got it working!"  This problem isn't related only to games, it's everywhere in software development.  They pound that into us in my Software Engineering curriculum, especially in Specification and Design classes.

Now this isn't to say if it's right or wrong (morally or legally), this is just to point out where the problems probably originated from.  If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever.  These publishers and developers don't have the deep pockets that Sony, EA and Microsoft have.  If Star Wars gets a bit behind schedule, Sony can handle it.  SF, Playnet and CRS just don't have that financial leeway.  

It would have been better if they coulda held off just a month more and done some significant load testing.  Perhaps they literally couldn't afford to wait anymore.

And if you call this cheerleading...  SHEESH!  This is stating the facts as I see them.  I can log on to the game server.  I can play for extended periods of time, OTHER than in a plane over a battle.  The vast majority of software projects do not have enough dev time scheduled.

Anyways, take the game back if you're not happy, assuming your retailer will let you.  You'll get your $40 back, and that's all you're owed IMO.

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Nifty ]

[Westy MOL]

"If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever."

 However true that may be it is not an excuse for the all the hype and sales pitches the crowd all got from the CRS folks right up to the day before it was released. I think that is the reason for many peoples anger aimed at the 'Rats.' They've rightfully earned any skepticism and mistrust by the online player population.  

 Westy

[Nifty]

Originally posted by Westy MOL:
"If the game wasn't pushed out the door, it might never have made it out ever."

 However true that may be it is not an excuse for the all the hype and sales pitches the crowd all got from the CRS folks right up to the day before it was released. I think that is the reason for many peoples anger aimed at the 'Rats.' They've rightfully earned any skepticism and mistrust by the online player population.  

 Westy

don't forget the sentence right before what you quoted in your post.    I wasn't defending them or passing judgement per se.  I was merely trying to point out WHY the product is on the market already, not the WAY in which it hit the market.  In other words, I neither officially agree nor disagree with your statement.