Gamers' Voice and Pachter in war of words over Black Ops complaint

[mankind]

Gamers' Voice has hit back at analyst Michael Pachter over comments he made in response to the consumer group's plans to report Activision "to the relevant government agencies" over problems with the "unfinished" PC and PS3 versions of Call of Duty: Black Ops.


Earlier this week, Gamers' Voice accused Activision of treating PS3 and PC Black Ops players like game testers by releasing buggy products, and Pachter subsequently labelled the organisation a "crybaby".

Pachter told IncGamers: "All games are buggy, some more so than others. Have you tried Fallout: New Vegas? Buggiest game ever.

"I suppose this helps to explain why the game sold only 20 million copies instead of 25 million, and why it received only a 90 metacritic rating instead of 95 (sarcasm intended, in case you didn't pick up on it).

"If people don't like it, they can take it back to retail for a refund. Most bugs are patched within a reasonable time, and any serious gamer expects bugs."

Pachter added: "In my view, this is a blatant stunt by a politician to grab attention. He should probably pay more attention to keeping gaming jobs in the UK than to pissing off a large company that can create or eliminate UK jobs."

Gamers' Voice released the following statement this morning in response: "His comments are inaccurate and insulting to computer and video game consumers with his reaction describing Gamers' Voice as little more than 'cry babies'. This presents the gaming industry as both arrogant and uncaring to the audience it serves.

"He hasn't even bothered to do any research into who we are, or what we do. This is clearly evident in the final piece of the Inc Gamers piece in which Pachter refers to Tom Watson MP.

"Tom Watson did found Gamers' Voice but what Pachter is obviously unaware of is that he did so in response to another political stunt by another MP called Keith Vaz. Since founding Gamers' Voice Tom Watson has not been involved in the day to day running of our group since he is far too busy doing his actual job of being a politician and representing the people who elected him.

"We are an independent group of gamers from all walks of life who decide our own policy. We are not influenced by politicians; we represent gamers who have a variety of concerns. We are reacting to Activision because we've had many, many emails about the game crippling issues from British (and international) gamers who are unhappy with the buggy product and poor service Activision have provided to PC and PS3 gamers.

"He also talks about how people should take the game back to retailers if they are not happy with it. This is not acceptable as the game as the game should not have been released with such problems, hence our campaign.

"In the era of game patches, why can't Activision rectify the fatal bugs in the game now? On a related note, he talks about seasoned video game fans expect there to be errors in games and that they are patched out in a reasonable amount of time, failing to highlight that the 'bugs' in Call of Duty: Black Ops are actually show-stopping ones which have been present since launch last year.

"Fundamental elements of the game do not function at all and it is this reason we have reported Activision to the Office of Fair Trading.

"His comments that it is the specialist press' job to highlight errors in code to developers is also laughable, would it be the job of a book critic to look for typographical errors? It is the job of the developer's quality assurance (QA) department to discover bugs and remove them before the game is published at all, not the media that reports on it!

"All we can say is that this response from someone who is deeply ensconced in the corporate side of the video game industry only adds fuel to our fire, to the point where we will continue to pursue this issue until it is brought to a satisfactory conclusion."

Earlier today, Black Ops developer Treyarch launched the latest in an ongoing series of patches for the PS3 version of Black Ops. PS3 Patch 1.06 aims to address numerous issues with the shooter, add a few new features and tune the gameplay.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...VG-General-RSS

[dc89]

He also talks about how people should take the game back to retailers if they are not happy with it. This is not acceptable as the game as the game should not have been released with such problems, hence our campaign.

Where?

Where can I get a full refund on a game I have used.

Where does he suggest I go?

[rbrtchng]

Pachter can return opened games?

Just goes to show how out of touch he is with actual gamers

[*goo]

Where?

Where can I get a full refund on a game I have used.

Where does he suggest I go?

If you're in the UK, back to the company that sold you it.

If it's not 'fit for purpose' consumers are protected by the Sale of Goods act.

If the retailer refuses to take it back, make a complaint to trading standards.

[rbrtchng]

If you're in the UK, back to the company that sold you it.

If it's not 'fit for purpose' consumers are protected by the Sale of Goods act.

If the retailer refuses to take it back, make a complaint to trading standards.

Holy crap. So you can basically just keep buying/returning/rebuying games until you finish it? God, I love the UK.

[*goo]

No, it's not that simple. The act is there only to protect consumers from products that basically aren't of sufficient quality.

You can't just buy a game and take it back when you're done. To have any complaint, it essentially has to be poor quality / faulty - as appears to be the case with Black Ops.

[Fon]

Too bad you can't do that here in the, US with, Black Ops. Once opened you can never trade it back to the retail. Unless it's, GameStop but you'll only get around a third of what you paid for.

[rbrtchng]

No, it's not that simple. The act is there only to protect consumers from products that basically aren't of sufficient quality.

You can't just buy a game and take it back when you're done. To have any complaint, it essentially has to be poor quality / faulty - as appears to be the case with Black Ops.

Well, apparently, according to Pachter, every game has bugs, which means that every game are faulty in some way or another.

[oneJ]

in Australia, if you buy a game from EB Games, you can play it, finish it and return it for a full refund within 7 days

[fearofflying85]

No, it's not that simple. The act is there only to protect consumers from products that basically aren't of sufficient quality.

You can't just buy a game and take it back when you're done. To have any complaint, it essentially has to be poor quality / faulty - as appears to be the case with Black Ops.

Game wouldnt refund my money or exchange. It's not really their problem as they didnt make the game, so they are not at fault.

[Tyrien]

Too bad you can't do that here in the, US with, Black Ops. Once opened you can never trade it back to the retail. Unless it's, GameStop but you'll only get around a third of what you paid for.

If you return it within the 15 days and complain it's because the game is of inferior quality you can likely get a full refund. You'd have to speak to a manager though because base level cashiers can't approve a full refund, only an exchange for a copy of the same game.

Game wouldnt refund my money or exchange. It's not really their problem as they didnt make the game, so they are not at fault.

As far as I'm aware the law is based on if the product is fit for purpose, not whether or not if the retailer produced the product and is accepting responsibility.

The principle behind it is that a retail is attempting to sell a product that is not "fit for purpose" and must refund the customer for trying to do so.

[*goo]

Game wouldnt refund my money or exchange. It's not really their problem as they didnt make the game, so they are not at fault.

They sold you the video game. The contract you have is with them. This applies to any purchase, regardless of which company actually made it. In your case, the contract you have is with Game, not with Activision or Treyarch.

If Game have refused, I thoroughly recommend making a complaint to Trading Standards because it IS their problem. The last time I felt compelled to return an open game as faulty was Race Driver: Grid on PC. It wouldn't work out the box. Their forums were rife with complaints. I took it back and received a full refund.

Retailers generally don't like taking back stock so they'll try to put you off. Don't let them if it's a genuine issue.

*Edit*

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...t/your-rights/

When you buy goods you enter into a contract with the seller of those goods.

[unicron7]

How is a video game any different from another product?

"If you're not happy with a car you can just take it back for a refund." Uh, no...you can't... and a vehicle should not have crazy defects upon release...just like a video game. Pachter has proven yet again how much of an idiot he is. So out of touch with reality it is unbelievable. It is not right to show favoritism towards any one console or device when making a product due to financial gain from that one company. Hopefully more and more people sue....because Black Ops sucked hard.

[keefy]

PC gamers are screwed very few retailers will take any PC game back also if you buy from Steam there is even less chance to get a refund, which Blops is a Steamworks game so has to be tied to your steam account even if bought at retail, and if you force a chargeback against Valve/steam you risk your account being dissabled and loose all games tied to it.

[*goo]

I wouldn't force a chargeback with Steam for that reason. But. I would make a complaint to them and then Trading Standards if they sold me a faulty game and refused to refund (assuming I bought from them). Valve aren't above UK law.

Similarly, PC gamers still have a complaint if the game is not 'fit for purpose'. The platform of choice doesn't restrict their rights to a product that is of sufficient quality or acts as described. As mentioned earlier, I've returned PC games under the not fit for purpose complaint.

[Vulgotha]

Every game does have bugs- in fact all of software has bugs. I was at some conference where this ex hacker was speaking and he quoted some statistic about errors.

Something to the effect of "For ever 3 lines of code written, there is one bug" or etc.

The problem is when it becomes so gross that the software can no longer adequately perform its desired function. Especially in light of competing products or even the same product on a different service\hardware.

When you pay the same rate as the gentlemen who are experiencing no\less problems an individual gets understandably aggravated. His frustration increases proportionately to the amount of comparisons he is exposed to between the two copies.