<!--quoteo(post=2051135:date=Dec 25 2012, 06:10 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Dec 25 2012, 06:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we want to whittle it down instead to the game's own merits, I'd argue regardless of those features being in or not or whether DayZ existed as a comparison, it's still a heaping pile. I had put in a few hours over the course of a 48 hour free trial from an IGN handout and I could hardly find any redeeming qualities that weren't immediately overshadowed by how much of a cash grab it was.
At least when I still played DayZ, I'd be the first to point out how much of a buggy mess it was held up by glue and string, but the giant environment alone was enough of a saving grace to look past things like zombies running through doors. Outside of WarZ having an actual catered art style and UI that doesn't look like someone puked out a spreadsheet on the screen, the singular draw is something that was accomplished better many times over. I'd happily call out any developer for how ridiculous they've come out in handling every bit of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you completely. It's an absolute steaming pile of garbage only a few notches short of big rig racers... It's just not a scam. It's simply an extremely awful game.
In a way all games are "money grabs" in that they try to get someone to pay for effectively what is artwork. Being bad doesn't make the game a scam and more than being a crappy painting makes the art a scam. It just makes it bad. And WarZ is very VERY bad.
They somehow managed to make all the same mistakes DayZ made, add only things that no one actually wanted, and introduce a bunch of other bugs and issues that even DayZ didn't have (and DayZ is REALLY rough)
The AlgerianJoin Date: 2012-12-22Member: 175962Members
A rip-off of a successful mod that made the game's sales it's based on skyrocket turns out to be a scam? Shocking news. The devs seemed so honest, especially when they pretended they didn't rip off anything and their game was in developpement before dayZ came out.
As Dean Rocket said in his tweet "the slow man with integrity will ultimately catch the swift one who has none".
<!--quoteo(post=2051288:date=Dec 26 2012, 07:27 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 26 2012, 07:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051288"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it is a scam. I can't understand why you're defending the developers :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not defending the developers. There are talented people at Hammer Point, but whoever is responsible for the decisions there is an absolute monkey. I'm not saying nothing wrong was done. Releasing a completely unfinished game and expecting people to doublepay for ingame items are both AWFUL AWFUL moves. The game still isn't a scam. No one who bought the game signed a contract with the devs that the game would be good, and likewise Hammerpoint never signed a contract promising a good game to anyone. It's the worst game to be released in the last 10 years, but that's the furthest it goes.
But you are defending them by saying it's not a scam when it blatantly is. Quality of the game has nothing to do with what we're saying. I get that you think they haven't lied, and that's the bases of a scam.
<!--quoteo(post=2051412:date=Dec 26 2012, 12:59 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 26 2012, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you are defending them by saying it's not a scam when it blatantly is. Quality of the game has nothing to do with what we're saying. I get that you think they haven't lied, and that's the bases of a scam.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They lied. I think the quality of the dishonesty they're accused of is much much greater than the dishonesty they actually portrayed. Their lying is by far their smallest sin. If you bought their game based on what they advertised in their steam description, the game you got fell just slightly short of what they said you got (which is pretty common for steam descriptions).
<!--quoteo(post=2051412:date=Dec 26 2012, 12:59 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 26 2012, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you are defending them by saying it's not a scam when it blatantly is. Quality of the game has nothing to do with what we're saying. I get that you think they haven't lied, and that's the bases of a scam.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're using the term 'scam' too freely. As Swift said, if you bought this game and then downloaded a .gif labeled "WarZ," that would be a scam.
No one was scamed. People purchased a working game that was basically what was advertised.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
The footage I've seen look to be more of a engine tech demo though. Not even a proof of concept or showcase, with loads of promised things missing...
This is from an outsider perspective though as I've not played it... But that is the vibe I got from it, they led on that the game was far more complete then it actually was... Which would fall into the category of false advertising to some extent, even if it is just a "Steam description".
<!--quoteo(post=2051454:date=Dec 26 2012, 12:23 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 26 2012, 12:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're using the term 'scam' too freely. As Swift said, if you bought this game and then downloaded a .gif labeled "WarZ," that would be a scam.
No one was scamed. People purchased a working game that was basically what was advertised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we want to just argue semantics, it'd help if we just outlined our actual definition of it. Obviously people are equating 'scam' with being sold something that wasn't as listed. My takeaway from the other perspective is that because the user ultimately got more of what they were promised than less of what they were and didn't get, it's good enough.
As far as I'm concerned with the gray area in between the two extremes, they lost any benefit of the doubt in their intentions when they conducted themselves as asses by either abusing their community moderation privileges on steam or shifting the blame on their consumers.
<!--quoteo(post=2051515:date=Dec 26 2012, 04:40 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Dec 26 2012, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we want to just argue semantics<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not just 'arguing semantics.' A scam is a like con. Almost always they're illegal. It implies you're cheating, defrauding, stealing. This minor misrepresentation, which is fairly common in the video game industry, is a far cry from a scam.
WarZ is a better game on measurable things (less bugs, better graphics, better interface, more playable) than DayZ. For the most part, it's a fully functioning and smooth playing video game that used overhyped advertising.
There's no possible way that is a scam.
The devs may suck, the game's pay model may suck, the game itself may not be fun, but this entire thing is blown <i>significantly</i> out of portion.
<!--quoteo(post=2051549:date=Dec 26 2012, 04:08 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 26 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not just 'arguing semantics.' A scam is a like con. Almost always they're illegal. It implies you're cheating, defrauding, stealing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like semantics to me. It's fine if you think there's some higher connotation involved here, but 'scam' itself is pretty black and white terminology to me. Hardly seems out of context as opposed to something like considering a waiter forgetting to refill your glass a scam. I'd just refer to webster at this point
scam noun \ˈskam\ : a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
No one's even arguing they flat out lied anymore, 'overhyped advertising' implies there's some kind of subjective basis for what they're going on about but there's not really much to read in between the lines of their feature list. Things were either in or they weren't.
Would NS2, in it's current state, be a scam if they advertised "Gorge Tunnels" as a feature?
Is any game, which lists either exaggerated or future features in the current build, a scam?
If you think so, which you've basically said you do, then I don't think you understand [edit]the legal terminology[/edit] behind the definition you posted.
There was no fraudulent or deceptive act taking place here. Let's pretend UWE did list 'gorge tunnels' as a feature. If someone read NS2's feature list, then found out gorge tunnels weren't in yet, came to the forums, and called this game a scam the fanboys would rip him apart. NS2's core gameplay is in and they bought a fully functional and working product. There was no deception.
Take this same logic; apply it to WarZ. The game works. Does someone really want to play in a private server? Maybe. Does someone really want to level skills? Maybe. But their lack of implementation doesn't make WarZ a scam. People who bought WarZ were not deceived. They were advertised a large open world zombie survival game and that's what they got.
Hammerpoint (or whatever) didn't <i>deceive</i> anyone. <i>Refunds</i> are being offered. By definition, it's impossible for this game to be scam. No deception. No fraud. No scam.
Like I said, this 'controversy' is just being exaggerated by people who hate the idea of WarZ. The game is a copy cat money grab. It's easy to hate. It's not a scam.
<!--quoteo(post=2051579:date=Dec 26 2012, 05:20 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 26 2012, 05:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would NS2, in it's current state, be a scam if they advertised "Gorge Tunnels" as a feature?
Is any game, which lists either exaggerated or future features in the current build, a scam?
If you think so, which you've basically said you do, then I don't think you understand [edit]the legal terminology[/edit] behind the definition you posted.
There was no fraudulent or deceptive act taking place here. Let's pretend UWE did list 'gorge tunnels' as a feature. If someone read NS2's feature list, then found out gorge tunnels weren't in yet, came to the forums, and called this game a scam the fanboys would rip him apart. NS2's core gameplay is in and they bought a fully functional and working product. There was no deception.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to enjoy extrapolating a lot of my ideals out there that I'm pretty sure at this point if I didn't explicitly say I've played the game you'd be under the impression I still haven't. Of course I love the idea of War Z, because it's the idea of DayZ. I love the idea of Chivalry because it's Mount and Blade done better. If a AAA video game studio wanted to develop an asymmetrical team based RTS/FPS hybrid, sign me up. All things being equal, I couldn't care less about how original it was if at the very least it was a quality product.
If we can't even agree that something objectively listed and not delivered isn't a deceptive act, I can't help it.
SentrySteve, if I bought a game based on the listed features implying that they are in the current build by not listed them as up and coming, and those features are not in the game, then yes I would feel lied to and ripped off.
It shows they didn't intend to deceive anyone. It shows they have good will. If someone has felt scammed they were given a refund.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.
<!--quoteo(post=2051609:date=Dec 27 2012, 01:39 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 27 2012, 01:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It shows they didn't intend to deceive anyone. It shows they have good will. If someone has felt scammed they were given a refund.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it doesn't show that at all. All it shows is that they have their balls in a vice and they have to give refunds. It doesn't not show anything beyond bowing to their legal obligations.
And yeah, two minor features? Try 4 or 5 listed features that aren't in the game. There's no huge area, there's no private rentable servers, there's no levelable skills, no friends list and certainly not hundreds of players.
<!--quoteo(post=2051515:date=Dec 26 2012, 04:40 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Dec 26 2012, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we want to just argue semantics, it'd help if we just outlined our actual definition of it. Obviously people are equating 'scam' with being sold something that wasn't as listed. My takeaway from the other perspective is that because the user ultimately got more of what they were promised than less of what they were and didn't get, it's good enough.
As far as I'm concerned with the gray area in between the two extremes, they lost any benefit of the doubt in their intentions when they conducted themselves as asses by either abusing their community moderation privileges on steam or shifting the blame on their consumers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People have an assumption of quality when buying games. However, game developers do not have a legal obligation of quality. We're freely allowed to vote with our dollars, to criticize, to campaign against Hammerpoint as a bad game developer. But once again, "scam" implies they did something illegal. That they advertised one thing and sold something different. They DID defy our assumption of quality, they did not however defy their obligation of a shipped product. They provided a minimal version of the what they are obligated to put in place in order to be allowed to sell game software. Valve has stricter policies than either national or international legal systems. Therefore they removed the game from steam.
They were moderately deceptive of the bullet point milestones they claimed the game hit for reasonably unimportant things. However, ultimately, they advertized that they were selling a game, and what they were selling was indeed a game. An extremely unforgivably awful game that no one in their right mind should buy, but a real actual non-fake game none the less.
Buyers were not scammed. Betrayed, sure, but not scammed.
<!--quoteo(post=2051609:date=Dec 27 2012, 02:39 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 27 2012, 02:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It shows they didn't intend to deceive anyone. It shows they have good will. If someone has felt scammed they were given a refund.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter nonsense. If you advertise a game and sell it saying it has features, and it doesn't, you're violating purchasing laws at the very least in the EU and UK markets. The Sale of Goods act in the UK protects consumers from things like this.
IE: You get told by the salesman (in this case, WarZ/Steam's page) saying it will have Feature #1 and do Feature #2 and it doesn't, you're breaking the law. As a Game developer, they KNOW what is in their game right now and they KNOW what is going in, in the future. There is no excuse other than wanting to misrepresent their game. I doubt they would have changed their steam page description if people did not shout about how much they were getting ripped-off. Oh and the definition of rip-off is: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Usually it refers to an incident in which a person is
overcharged for something, or receives goods or services not of the standard expected for the price<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> WarZ counts. Especially if you watch TotalBiscuit's video.
If you buy it and it doesn't do what it says it would, they're breaking the law. They are not good people to offer refunds either. They have to by law.
Game development is a process yes, but you do not advertise a game that has features, and it does not. You CAN SAY "Coming soon" - which WarZ did not. They lied, got caught and now they're paying the consequences. NS2 did not advertise 'Gorge tunnels' on it's steam page. Everything listed was in the game at launch.
<!--quoteo(post=2051601:date=Dec 26 2012, 06:11 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 26 2012, 06:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Show me a scam artist who offers refunds.
In terms of legality (aka the definition of the word 'scam'), WarZ is not a scam.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve is the company offering refunds. Hammerpoint/OP Productions have been fighting tooth and nail to keep people from getting refunds if they bought outside of Steam.
If you're arguing that offering refunds proves WarZ isn't a scam then well, I'll just leave this quote from Sergey Titov here.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->According TOS and EULA you're agreeing every time we're posting new patch and you're logging to play game, you're agreed to waive any rights for refund at this stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if you get far enough to actually realize that WarZ has falsely advertised itself you've "waived your right" to a refund in their eyes. Sounds like a scam to me.
"rip-off" and "scam" are different things. You can be legally ripped off, being scammed is generally something different. Scam implies the majority of the fault for the unwise purchase is on the shoulders of the seller, and thus they are legally liable. For a Rip-off the fault is more centered. Seller and buyer are both at fault for participating in the transaction.
With WarZ I would say very little blame is on the shoulders of HammerPoint. Arguably they attempted to suppress negative press, but clearly they were powerless to actually do so (and honestly, it's very possible that the accusations of suppression of dissension were overblown, in gaming these days EVERY gets accused of suppressing dissension. We had a TON of it in NS2), and there's very little solid evidence either way.
Their "lies" were more half truths, and were mostly inconsequential (how much does it matter that 50 players can play on a server vs 100? How much does it matter that the map was 100 km^2 rather than 400 km^2? By a HUGELY WILD margin the most serious problems with the game had nothing to do with the "lies")
If HammerPoint was scamming people, the implication is that me, as a non-buyer, should be enraged on behalf of buyers because they were tricked into giving money to another party unfairly. That wasn't the case. Any given person had many ways of protecting themselves in the case of WarZ not being a good game. By enlarge I blame the buyers for being irresponsible with researching the product before they bought it. It's not like information of any type was unavailable. If not having any professional reviews for a new release game is not a red flag I don't know what is.
I think HammerPoint is DEFINITELY run by some very unethical and ignorant people, but they did what they did within the realm of legal business practices. It was just very stupid and shortsighted to assume gamers wouldn't catch on before it was too late.
<!--quoteo(post=2051730:date=Dec 27 2012, 03:00 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Dec 27 2012, 03:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their "lies" were more half truths, and were mostly inconsequential (how much does it matter that 50 players can play on a server vs 100? How much does it matter that the map was 100 km^2 rather than 400 km^2? By a HUGELY WILD margin the most serious problems with the game had nothing to do with the "lies").<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All we have to go on for it being 100km^2 is Hammerpoints word. So far the only independent investigations into the map size have placed it closer to 10km^2 than 100km^2. Admittedly if that calculation is accurate then it could still <i>theoretically</i> be 100km^2 if Hammerpoint decides that the game takes place in a land of giants and all the characters are 20 meters tall.
They were lies. "Half-Truths" is apologist bull######. Where exactly does a "Half-truth" become a lie anyways? If they said the servers could handle "up to" 200 players would that still be a half truth? How about "Up to" 500 players or maps "up to" 1000km^2? 50 players still falls in the range of "up to" 500 players. The fact is that when any other game promises servers "up to" a certain point they generally deliver that maximum number on launch day, or state specifically that it'll be coming in a patch. I'm sure if Dice or Infinity Ward wanted to they could theoretically push their servers up to 100 players as well, but they don't advertise that because that is not the product they are offering.
Here in the UK there's an internet company called virgin Media. They were forced by trading standards to take 5 different adverts down this year. One of which said this. Customers can get speeds of 70mb.
1% of their customers could get that if they lived very close to the exchange. Even though its possible and didn't say they would only can the adverts were deemed as mis representation of good / services and were removed from TV as it wasn't clear enough that 70 MB wasn't a speed most people would get.
Another incident I got in touch with trading standards about was a florist near me selling Valentines flower arrangements at £15. On January 20th. Now I went and asked there about getting one delivered on Valentines day, it would cost £45 and £5 for delivery. when I asked about the £15 price I was told it was only for this week, and when I asked how long they lasted I was told they'd probably only last a week. They were forced to change the sign and word it because technically the arrangements wouldn't last till Valentines day and as such it was misleading to sell them as that for £15 when for Valentines day the cost was far greater.
In terms of War Z their steam page was misleading and as such illegal even just on the fact it wasn't clear enough. EULA do not hold legal precedent in the EU. If someone puts out an EULA saying you accept no refunds, if the product was mis-sold to you or unfit for purpose as it didn't have the mentioned features then the law overrides EULA. Also for EULA to hold any weight legally they'd have to require two witnesses to verify you signed it. Also you're signing the EULA for League of Legends when you buy War Z its not actually an EULA for War Z as the company copied the entire League of Legends EULA so much so they forgot to edit out the URL directing to League of Legends.
As far as it being a scam, No its just very close to it. The fact they NDA ed early footage of the game despite a paid to enter beta is shady dealings to say the least. add to this the highly Free to play styled model of pay for stuff and adding in detrimental mechanics / hurdles in the game which can be removed (temporarily) by paying as in introducing a mechanic to make the game actively worse but offering players the ability to pay to avoid it. That's pretty low hell I've even argued against this practice in free to play games before so for a retail game to use a mechanic like this is quite disgusting.
War Z is at best a shoddy game that's being used as a cash grab with minimal effort / work put in to try and maximise profit. A scam no but unethical yes. People should be angry as its a very unethical thing for a developer to do and if people don't get angry at it some developers will see it as acceptable behaviour and do it more often.
Agreed with Dwarven. I'm angry they thought they could get away with this in todays gaming market. I'm angry a company like that still exists. I'm CERTAINLY not going to buy WarZ now, regardless of whether they "fix" it. It's unacceptable for a company to release a game in that state. I'm just not angry the "poor" customer ran and bought 10,000 copies before they bothered to see a single review, although I'm glad that valve and other powers that be have forced refunds to take place.
<!--quoteo(post=2051800:date=Dec 27 2012, 01:40 PM:name=Dwavenhobble)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dwavenhobble @ Dec 27 2012, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051800"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People should be angry as its a very unethical thing for a developer to do and if people don't get angry at it some developers will see it as acceptable behaviour and do it more often.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2052352:date=Dec 28 2012, 05:09 PM:name=Tykjen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tykjen @ Dec 28 2012, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->DLC's..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends how its done. I see no issue with DLC if it doesn't split the community into groups who can and can't play it multiplayer wise and as long as its actual DLC not bits cut from the game to sell on or stuff developed while the game was being made
I don't have an issue with DLCs, as long as the game itself is worth the money (which is generally a bit subjective, but most games at least have the 'here is £35 worth of content, you can obviously see that it could be sold for this much, and it is what we advertised when we sold you it, whether you like it is up to you' approach to things. Then DLC is just extra content on top of that, also generally a 'this is what it is, this is what we charge for it, buy it if you like it' kind of thing.
I don't really take issue with that, want a thing, buy a thing, have a thing. As long as you stick to that formula I don't really mind selling things. Of course if you start doing things like 'advertise a thing, sell a thing, thing is not what you advertised' or 'sell a thing, thing turns out to be chemically addictive and you weren't warned in advance, force you to buy more of the thing' and stuff like that, then it starts getting unethical, but DLC is just like little mini bits of games you can stick onto your old game. Like an expansion pack, only cheaper, and smaller.
Comments
At least when I still played DayZ, I'd be the first to point out how much of a buggy mess it was held up by glue and string, but the giant environment alone was enough of a saving grace to look past things like zombies running through doors. Outside of WarZ having an actual catered art style and UI that doesn't look like someone puked out a spreadsheet on the screen, the singular draw is something that was accomplished better many times over. I'd happily call out any developer for how ridiculous they've come out in handling every bit of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you completely. It's an absolute steaming pile of garbage only a few notches short of big rig racers... It's just not a scam. It's simply an extremely awful game.
In a way all games are "money grabs" in that they try to get someone to pay for effectively what is artwork. Being bad doesn't make the game a scam and more than being a crappy painting makes the art a scam. It just makes it bad. And WarZ is very VERY bad.
They somehow managed to make all the same mistakes DayZ made, add only things that no one actually wanted, and introduce a bunch of other bugs and issues that even DayZ didn't have (and DayZ is REALLY rough)
Shocking news. The devs seemed so honest, especially when they pretended they didn't rip off anything and their game was in developpement before dayZ came out.
As Dean Rocket said in his tweet "the slow man with integrity will ultimately catch the swift one who has none".
I'm not defending the developers. There are talented people at Hammer Point, but whoever is responsible for the decisions there is an absolute monkey. I'm not saying nothing wrong was done. Releasing a completely unfinished game and expecting people to doublepay for ingame items are both AWFUL AWFUL moves. The game still isn't a scam. No one who bought the game signed a contract with the devs that the game would be good, and likewise Hammerpoint never signed a contract promising a good game to anyone. It's the worst game to be released in the last 10 years, but that's the furthest it goes.
They lied. I think the quality of the dishonesty they're accused of is much much greater than the dishonesty they actually portrayed. Their lying is by far their smallest sin. If you bought their game based on what they advertised in their steam description, the game you got fell just slightly short of what they said you got (which is pretty common for steam descriptions).
You're using the term 'scam' too freely. As Swift said, if you bought this game and then downloaded a .gif labeled "WarZ," that would be a scam.
No one was scamed. People purchased a working game that was basically what was advertised.
This is from an outsider perspective though as I've not played it... But that is the vibe I got from it, they led on that the game was far more complete then it actually was... Which would fall into the category of false advertising to some extent, even if it is just a "Steam description".
No one was scamed. People purchased a working game that was basically what was advertised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we want to just argue semantics, it'd help if we just outlined our actual definition of it. Obviously people are equating 'scam' with being sold something that wasn't as listed. My takeaway from the other perspective is that because the user ultimately got more of what they were promised than less of what they were and didn't get, it's good enough.
As far as I'm concerned with the gray area in between the two extremes, they lost any benefit of the doubt in their intentions when they conducted themselves as asses by either abusing their community moderation privileges on steam or shifting the blame on their consumers.
It's not just 'arguing semantics.' A scam is a like con. Almost always they're illegal. It implies you're cheating, defrauding, stealing. This minor misrepresentation, which is fairly common in the video game industry, is a far cry from a scam.
WarZ is a better game on measurable things (less bugs, better graphics, better interface, more playable) than DayZ. For the most part, it's a fully functioning and smooth playing video game that used overhyped advertising.
There's no possible way that is a scam.
The devs may suck, the game's pay model may suck, the game itself may not be fun, but this entire thing is blown <i>significantly</i> out of portion.
Sounds like semantics to me. It's fine if you think there's some higher connotation involved here, but 'scam' itself is pretty black and white terminology to me. Hardly seems out of context as opposed to something like considering a waiter forgetting to refill your glass a scam. I'd just refer to webster at this point
scam
noun \ˈskam\
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
No one's even arguing they flat out lied anymore, 'overhyped advertising' implies there's some kind of subjective basis for what they're going on about but there's not really much to read in between the lines of their feature list. Things were either in or they weren't.
Is any game, which lists either exaggerated or future features in the current build, a scam?
If you think so, which you've basically said you do, then I don't think you understand [edit]the legal terminology[/edit] behind the definition you posted.
There was no fraudulent or deceptive act taking place here. Let's pretend UWE did list 'gorge tunnels' as a feature. If someone read NS2's feature list, then found out gorge tunnels weren't in yet, came to the forums, and called this game a scam the fanboys would rip him apart. NS2's core gameplay is in and they bought a fully functional and working product. There was no deception.
Take this same logic; apply it to WarZ. The game works. Does someone really want to play in a private server? Maybe. Does someone really want to level skills? Maybe. But their lack of implementation doesn't make WarZ a scam. People who bought WarZ were not deceived. They were advertised a large open world zombie survival game and that's what they got.
Hammerpoint (or whatever) didn't <i>deceive</i> anyone. <i>Refunds</i> are being offered. By definition, it's impossible for this game to be scam. No deception. No fraud. No scam.
Like I said, this 'controversy' is just being exaggerated by people who hate the idea of WarZ. The game is a copy cat money grab. It's easy to hate. It's not a scam.
Is any game, which lists either exaggerated or future features in the current build, a scam?
If you think so, which you've basically said you do, then I don't think you understand [edit]the legal terminology[/edit] behind the definition you posted.
There was no fraudulent or deceptive act taking place here. Let's pretend UWE did list 'gorge tunnels' as a feature. If someone read NS2's feature list, then found out gorge tunnels weren't in yet, came to the forums, and called this game a scam the fanboys would rip him apart. NS2's core gameplay is in and they bought a fully functional and working product. There was no deception.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to enjoy extrapolating a lot of my ideals out there that I'm pretty sure at this point if I didn't explicitly say I've played the game you'd be under the impression I still haven't. Of course I love the idea of War Z, because it's the idea of DayZ. I love the idea of Chivalry because it's Mount and Blade done better. If a AAA video game studio wanted to develop an asymmetrical team based RTS/FPS hybrid, sign me up. All things being equal, I couldn't care less about how original it was if at the very least it was a quality product.
If we can't even agree that something objectively listed and not delivered isn't a deceptive act, I can't help it.
In terms of legality (aka the definition of the word 'scam'), WarZ is not a scam.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it doesn't show that at all. All it shows is that they have their balls in a vice and they have to give refunds. It doesn't not show anything beyond bowing to their legal obligations.
And yeah, two minor features? Try 4 or 5 listed features that aren't in the game. There's no huge area, there's no private rentable servers, there's no levelable skills, no friends list and certainly not hundreds of players.
As far as I'm concerned with the gray area in between the two extremes, they lost any benefit of the doubt in their intentions when they conducted themselves as asses by either abusing their community moderation privileges on steam or shifting the blame on their consumers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People have an assumption of quality when buying games. However, game developers do not have a legal obligation of quality. We're freely allowed to vote with our dollars, to criticize, to campaign against Hammerpoint as a bad game developer. But once again, "scam" implies they did something illegal. That they advertised one thing and sold something different. They DID defy our assumption of quality, they did not however defy their obligation of a shipped product. They provided a minimal version of the what they are obligated to put in place in order to be allowed to sell game software. Valve has stricter policies than either national or international legal systems. Therefore they removed the game from steam.
They were moderately deceptive of the bullet point milestones they claimed the game hit for reasonably unimportant things. However, ultimately, they advertized that they were selling a game, and what they were selling was indeed a game. An extremely unforgivably awful game that no one in their right mind should buy, but a real actual non-fake game none the less.
Buyers were not scammed. Betrayed, sure, but not scammed.
Video game development is a process. A mistake was made by the WarZ devs by incorrectly advertising two (minor) features that aren't yet in the game. This mistake was fixed. The developer is likely cocky and hates admitting mistakes. Controversy ensues.
If you truly think no skill levels and no private servers somehow changes the game from what was advertised, turning the entire process into <i>fraudulent deception</i>, then an incredible amount of video games have been scams throughout the medium's history.
Words matter. Semantics are not 'just semantics.' This game isn't even remotely close to be classified as a scam.
I'll have to bow out of the discussion at this point, not much else to say.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utter nonsense. If you advertise a game and sell it saying it has features, and it doesn't, you're violating purchasing laws at the very least in the EU and UK markets. The Sale of Goods act in the UK protects consumers from things like this.
IE: You get told by the salesman (in this case, WarZ/Steam's page) saying it will have Feature #1 and do Feature #2 and it doesn't, you're breaking the law. As a Game developer, they KNOW what is in their game right now and they KNOW what is going in, in the future. There is no excuse other than wanting to misrepresent their game. I doubt they would have changed their steam page description if people did not shout about how much they were getting ripped-off. Oh and the definition of rip-off is: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Usually it refers to an incident in which a person is
overcharged for something, or receives goods or services not of the standard expected for the price<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> WarZ counts. Especially if you watch TotalBiscuit's video.
If you buy it and it doesn't do what it says it would, they're breaking the law. They are not good people to offer refunds either. They have to by law.
Game development is a process yes, but you do not advertise a game that has features, and it does not. You CAN SAY "Coming soon" - which WarZ did not. They lied, got caught and now they're paying the consequences. NS2 did not advertise 'Gorge tunnels' on it's steam page. Everything listed was in the game at launch.
Your argument is invalid.
In terms of legality (aka the definition of the word 'scam'), WarZ is not a scam.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve is the company offering refunds. Hammerpoint/OP Productions have been fighting tooth and nail to keep people from getting refunds if they bought outside of Steam.
If you're arguing that offering refunds proves WarZ isn't a scam then well, I'll just leave this quote from Sergey Titov here.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->According TOS and EULA you're agreeing every time we're posting new patch and you're logging to play game, you're agreed to waive any rights for refund at this stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if you get far enough to actually realize that WarZ has falsely advertised itself you've "waived your right" to a refund in their eyes. Sounds like a scam to me.
With WarZ I would say very little blame is on the shoulders of HammerPoint. Arguably they attempted to suppress negative press, but clearly they were powerless to actually do so (and honestly, it's very possible that the accusations of suppression of dissension were overblown, in gaming these days EVERY gets accused of suppressing dissension. We had a TON of it in NS2), and there's very little solid evidence either way.
Their "lies" were more half truths, and were mostly inconsequential (how much does it matter that 50 players can play on a server vs 100? How much does it matter that the map was 100 km^2 rather than 400 km^2? By a HUGELY WILD margin the most serious problems with the game had nothing to do with the "lies")
If HammerPoint was scamming people, the implication is that me, as a non-buyer, should be enraged on behalf of buyers because they were tricked into giving money to another party unfairly. That wasn't the case. Any given person had many ways of protecting themselves in the case of WarZ not being a good game. By enlarge I blame the buyers for being irresponsible with researching the product before they bought it. It's not like information of any type was unavailable. If not having any professional reviews for a new release game is not a red flag I don't know what is.
I think HammerPoint is DEFINITELY run by some very unethical and ignorant people, but they did what they did within the realm of legal business practices. It was just very stupid and shortsighted to assume gamers wouldn't catch on before it was too late.
All we have to go on for it being 100km^2 is Hammerpoints word. So far the only independent investigations into the map size have placed it closer to 10km^2 than 100km^2. Admittedly if that calculation is accurate then it could still <i>theoretically</i> be 100km^2 if Hammerpoint decides that the game takes place in a land of giants and all the characters are 20 meters tall.
They were lies. "Half-Truths" is apologist bull######. Where exactly does a "Half-truth" become a lie anyways? If they said the servers could handle "up to" 200 players would that still be a half truth? How about "Up to" 500 players or maps "up to" 1000km^2? 50 players still falls in the range of "up to" 500 players. The fact is that when any other game promises servers "up to" a certain point they generally deliver that maximum number on launch day, or state specifically that it'll be coming in a patch. I'm sure if Dice or Infinity Ward wanted to they could theoretically push their servers up to 100 players as well, but they don't advertise that because that is not the product they are offering.
Here in the UK there's an internet company called virgin Media. They were forced by trading standards to take 5 different adverts down this year.
One of which said this.
Customers can get speeds of 70mb.
1% of their customers could get that if they lived very close to the exchange. Even though its possible and didn't say they would only can the adverts were deemed as mis representation of good / services and were removed from TV as it wasn't clear enough that 70 MB wasn't a speed most people would get.
Another incident I got in touch with trading standards about was a florist near me selling Valentines flower arrangements at £15. On January 20th. Now I went and asked there about getting one delivered on Valentines day, it would cost £45 and £5 for delivery. when I asked about the £15 price I was told it was only for this week, and when I asked how long they lasted I was told they'd probably only last a week.
They were forced to change the sign and word it because technically the arrangements wouldn't last till Valentines day and as such it was misleading to sell them as that for £15 when for Valentines day the cost was far greater.
In terms of War Z their steam page was misleading and as such illegal even just on the fact it wasn't clear enough.
EULA do not hold legal precedent in the EU. If someone puts out an EULA saying you accept no refunds, if the product was mis-sold to you or unfit for purpose as it didn't have the mentioned features then the law overrides EULA. Also for EULA to hold any weight legally they'd have to require two witnesses to verify you signed it.
Also you're signing the EULA for League of Legends when you buy War Z its not actually an EULA for War Z as the company copied the entire League of Legends EULA so much so they forgot to edit out the URL directing to League of Legends.
As far as it being a scam,
No its just very close to it. The fact they NDA ed early footage of the game despite a paid to enter beta is shady dealings to say the least. add to this the highly Free to play styled model of pay for stuff and adding in detrimental mechanics / hurdles in the game which can be removed (temporarily) by paying as in introducing a mechanic to make the game actively worse but offering players the ability to pay to avoid it. That's pretty low hell I've even argued against this practice in free to play games before so for a retail game to use a mechanic like this is quite disgusting.
War Z is at best a shoddy game that's being used as a cash grab with minimal effort / work put in to try and maximise profit.
A scam no but unethical yes.
People should be angry as its a very unethical thing for a developer to do and if people don't get angry at it some developers will see it as acceptable behaviour and do it more often.
DLC's..
Depends how its done. I see no issue with DLC if it doesn't split the community into groups who can and can't play it multiplayer wise and as long as its actual DLC not bits cut from the game to sell on or stuff developed while the game was being made
I don't really take issue with that, want a thing, buy a thing, have a thing. As long as you stick to that formula I don't really mind selling things. Of course if you start doing things like 'advertise a thing, sell a thing, thing is not what you advertised' or 'sell a thing, thing turns out to be chemically addictive and you weren't warned in advance, force you to buy more of the thing' and stuff like that, then it starts getting unethical, but DLC is just like little mini bits of games you can stick onto your old game. Like an expansion pack, only cheaper, and smaller.