Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53
  1. #26
    Veteran
    Cyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    24
    Posts
    4,276
    Rep Power
    73
    Points
    11,593 (0 Banked)
    Items Battlefield 3ArsenalDark Souls
    Good, I thought EA had gotten away with it. Hope they get taken to the cleaners for this, false advertising is not on. I bought my copy of BF3 expecting it to include 1943 on disc

  2. #27
    Veteran
    .RAID3N.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Age
    29
    Posts
    4,476
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    951 (6,474 Banked)
    Items Dark Souls CoverMuseSteam
    Quote Originally Posted by timberflake View Post
    Its not about supporting EA, its the cost/time involved vs what you would win. Best case, court finds in their favour, congrats, heres your code to download 1943, wow, that was worth it!

    Put it this way, how many hours of an individuals time would it take to take this to court, if its more than 1 its not worth it because you can earn the cost of the game on PSN doing an hour extra at work.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This.

    Yeah, they shouldn't have done it. But I really don't think suing is the best way to take care of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Birbiglia
    Why would you go talk about computers when you could stay here and go skiing and your skis will be french toast sticks!

  3. #28
    Mr. Ten-A-Key!
    PsychoMantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Age
    31
    Posts
    9,343
    Rep Power
    86
    Points
    1,415 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I could care less as I was disappointed by BF3 but I do agree with this they should be sued for something they advertised and then never went through with it.

  4. #29
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,852
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    40,987 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by timberflake View Post
    Its not about supporting EA, its the cost/time involved vs what you would win. Best case, court finds in their favour, congrats, heres your code to download 1943, wow, that was worth it!

    Put it this way, how many hours of an individuals time would it take to take this to court, if its more than 1 its not worth it because you can earn the cost of the game on PSN doing an hour extra at work.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It doesn't matter if the game costs 1 or if it costs 1000. It's the principle of them backing out of what they originally intended. What they did was false advertisement and weather or not you like it, it's wrong.

    You don't say something as an incentive for people to buy your game and then pull out at the last minute.


    Tapatalking

  5. #30
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,749
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    81,641 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Some people just choose to not stand up for themselves.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  6. Likes $Greatness$ , *goo likes this post
  7. #31
    Superior Member
    timberflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Age
    31
    Posts
    728
    Rep Power
    53
    Points
    1,598 (0 Banked)
    So presumably everyone in this thread that thinks this is right & owns BF3 is filing a suit? I thought not. Why, because its not worth the time and effort.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #32
    ERC1980
    Guest
    I hope the same thing doesn't happen with BioShock Infinite. I wouldn't mind a free copy of the first Bioshock.

    Thank god i have no interest in Battlefield.

    publishers these days

  9. #33
    Newbie

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    22
    Points
    2,016 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by timberflake View Post
    Its not about supporting EA, its the cost/time involved vs what you would win. Best case, court finds in their favour, congrats, heres your code to download 1943, wow, that was worth it!

    Put it this way, how many hours of an individuals time would it take to take this to court, if its more than 1 its not worth it because you can earn the cost of the game on PSN doing an hour extra at work.
    But there's no individual taking EA to court, so that analogy doesn't work. If we were reading a story that Joe Smith filed a suit against EA because he didn't get his free game, you could say it's a waste of his time (even if the cause is just).

    But it's a class action. The individuals who bought the game don't have to do anything. The law firm just gets enough people signed on that they can go to court by themselves and say that x number of customers were screwed out of their game - and if the court rules against EA, all the customers should get their download code...and I'm sure EA will pay out some punitive damages that the lawyers will keep (which is fine with me).

    There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits in this country, but I don't think this is one of them. EA spent money advertising the fact that you'd get this game if you bought BF3, so that more people would buy BF3 - then after the game came out and people bought it, they said "lol jk". That's a bait and switch. And they should be held accountable for it, so that not only do they not do it again, but that other companies don't get the same idea.

    It may be an old $15 title to all of us individually, but to EA it'll be a substantial loss. I didn't buy BF3, so I don't even have a dog in this fight, but I definitely think it's a justified suit, and I wish them luck.

  10. #34
    Newbie

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    22
    Points
    2,016 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by .RAID3N. View Post
    This.

    Yeah, they shouldn't have done it. But I really don't think suing is the best way to take care of it.
    What's the alternative? Make a Facebook group and express their frustrations? Plan to boycott upcoming EA titles? That sounds good, until everyone runs out next August and buys Madden 13 anyway because they couldn't resist, or forgot all about the BF3 fiasco.

    Sorry, going after EA's wallet is the best way to handle this. Claims court is specifically designed for this kind of thing. And it's the only thing I can think of that would get EA's attention, and dissuade them from doing anything like this again.

  11. #35
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,792
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    86,093 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Yep. Just like the Saints Row ordeal they deserve what they have coming at them. At least they had the right idea to make up for it by offering something for consolation. I don't think EA ever did this with BF3. Not a smart move on their part. Had to know this was coming sooner or later.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  12. #36
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    That's not the whole case. I mean, they will get a good fine because in the United States it's consider illegal to use false advertise such is the case with EA. Because it's illegal to do that in the united states, EA's policy on lawsuits do not hold at all. The main reason why they put that lawsuit policy in was for this very reason, but in the court of law, depending on what it is, such as false advertising, that policy wont hold up in the court of law.

    action does have to be taken in this case because if they get away with this then many more will get away with this. If EA loses this, they will be put as in example. Not only will the lawyers or whatever be completely rich off this, but in turn by law they will be fined and I think the fine is equal to a certain percentage of each one sold if the judge is really strict, otherwise it's based I believe on a percentage of what they made up to that point.

  13. #37
    Dedicated Member
    bigCman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Age
    22
    Posts
    1,389
    Rep Power
    46
    Points
    13,256 (0 Banked)
    EA had it coming with this one. Although I don't really care (haven't bought BF3...), I already own 1943.

  14. #38
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,792
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    86,093 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    A lot of this imo boils down to major corporations such as this think that they can get away with anything because they have big expensive lawyers that will just get them a slap on the wrist. This sort of stuff happens all the time and hopefully this case will have a different result and companies will realize that they can't strong arm their customers and get away with it like they always do.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  15. Likes *goo likes this post
  16. #39
    Dedicated Member
    krazey2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,341
    Rep Power
    52
    Points
    26,635 (0 Banked)
    I don't see the problem.
    They didn't bring you 1943 but instead they gave you One Week Exclusivity on all Downloadable Content!
    Furthermore I think this has more to do with Sony than EA, Sony saw what Microsoft & Activiision were doing with Call Of Duty and since Battlefield 3 was Direct Completion, they ceased the chance to make PS3 Platform of choice for BF3, especially since Call Of Duty always performs better in sales on 360...

    Maybe its because I'm not fussed about 1943, since I purchased it at release.
    And at least they gave you something instead of totally not offering anything in replace!
    And If were going by this logic the amount of Game Companies we could sue after they've promised X/Y/Z features to be in there game but never made it into release.
    Last edited by krazey2k; 11-19-2011 at 23:21.


  17. #40
    PSU Trophy Manager
    Fenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    PSN ID
    Faenix1
    Age
    25
    Posts
    11,605
    Rep Power
    90
    Points
    19,930 (1,000 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy X-2Final Fantasy XIIFangNoctisLightningFinal Fantasy Versus XIIIFinal Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIINaughty DogFinal Fantasy XFinal Fantasy VIIPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by krazey2k View Post
    I don't see the problem.
    They didn't bring you 1943 but instead they gave you One Week Exclusivity on all Downloadable Content!
    Furthermore I think this has more to do with Sony than EA, Sony saw what Microsoft & Activiision were doing with Call Of Duty and since Battlefield 3 was Direct Completion, they ceased the chance to make PS3 Platform of choice for BF3, especially since Call Of Duty always performs better in sales on 360...

    Maybe its because I'm not fussed about 1943, since I purchased it at release.
    And at least they gave you something instead of totally not offering anything in replace!
    And If were going by this logic the amount of Game Companies we could sue after they've promised X/Y/Z features to be in there game but never made it into release.
    In my case they haven't, They went from "Free game" to "DLC I wont buy, since I dont enjoy buying DLC"

    Sig&Av by Kuro

    Preorders:
    FarCry4DragonAge3DyingLightOrder1886Witcher3Batman:AKUncharted4

    PSN
    , XBL, Steam: Faenix1 - 3DS Friend Code: 3883-6299-4363
    Phat PS3: February 2008 - June 1st, 2011, Slim PS3: June 3rd 2011 - Present
    PS4, 3DSxl: November 2013 - Present
    PSVita December 2013 - Present

  18. #41
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by krazey2k View Post
    I don't see the problem.
    They didn't bring you 1943 but instead they gave you One Week Exclusivity on all Downloadable Content!
    Furthermore I think this has more to do with Sony than EA, Sony saw what Microsoft & Activiision were doing with Call Of Duty and since Battlefield 3 was Direct Completion, they ceased the chance to make PS3 Platform of choice for BF3, especially since Call Of Duty always performs better in sales on 360...

    Maybe its because I'm not fussed about 1943, since I purchased it at release.
    And at least they gave you something instead of totally not offering anything in replace!
    And If were going by this logic the amount of Game Companies we could sue after they've promised X/Y/Z features to be in there game but never made it into release.
    when you say you get this or that game for free when people pre-order/purchase BF3 for the PS3 and then fail to announce they changed it until after the game was released is false advertising, man. If going by what you say and how no one should be upset, then think about if all companies did this, every business out there would be doing False advertising, it's a product being promised if you buy this product or in other words if you buy product X you will get product Y for free, then they don't give it to you and wait till they get a bunch of sales then decide to tell the truth.

    Within your saying you are actually saying to businesses that it's okay to do false advertising and I completely disagree with that, it's not okay and business that do that should be dealt with. EA was talking about how they are going to do better, but that isn't the case, they have been getting worse and what this shows is that if EA starts making a bunch of money, they would be one of the developers out there that will advertise something and then change it after they buy it just for the sake of sales. EA/DICE and their business practices have been atrocious and on top of that their business ethics blow.

    while the game does have it's problems, the game is still good but there are way to many faults and horrible practices as well as bad ethics for this company. Unless EA and maybe DICE change their ways, they will always be a 3rd to 4th rated company, always. They have been trying to get out of that situation but their execution of it is making it worse. They deserve every bit of this lawsuit, you really shouldn't say otherwise because the evidence is there with written and told in their own words. so......

    really though, while I agree with this lawsuit, I have no stake in the outcome. I will sit back and eat popcorn while EA/DICE makes a complete ass of themselves.
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 11-19-2011 at 23:45.

  19. #42
    Master Guru
    Wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    27
    Posts
    6,460
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    33,606 (0 Banked)
    Items Dark SoulsDemons Souls CoverDark Souls Cover
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    when you say you get this or that game for free when people pre-order/purchase BF3 for the PS3 and then fail to announce they changed it until after the game was released is false advertising, man. If going by what you say and how no one should be upset, then think about if all companies did this, every business out there would be doing False advertising, it's a product being promised if you buy this product or in other words if you buy product X you will get product Y for free, then they don't give it to you and wait till they get a bunch of sales then decide to tell the truth.

    Within your saying you are actually saying to businesses that it's okay to do false advertising and I completely disagree with that, it's not okay and business that do that should be dealt with. EA was talking about how they are going to do better, but that isn't the case, they have been getting worse and what this shows is that if EA starts making a bunch of money, they would be one of the developers out there that will advertise something and then change it after they buy it just for the sake of sales. EA/DICE and their business practices have been atrocious and on top of that their business ethics blow.

    while the game does have it's problems, the game is still good but there are way to many faults and horrible practices as well as bad ethics for this company. Unless EA and maybe DICE change their ways, they will always be a 3rd to 4th rated company, always. They have been trying to get out of that situation but their execution of it is making it worse. They deserve every bit of this lawsuit, you really shouldn't say otherwise because the evidence is there with written and told in their own words. so......

    really though, while I agree with this lawsuit, I have no stake in the outcome. I will sit back and eat popcorn while EA/DICE makes a complete ass of themselves.
    Why do you keep on bashing DICE? It's seriously getting old now. What have they done exactly that can be considered as unethical?



  20. #43
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    good, I hate false advertising. But at least EA didn't trick ppl into a $50/yr subscription just so they can give out MW2 & COD4 map pack as free/early DLC for the so call Elite. Oh it will happen!

    Stupid EA this is how yo do it:

    "Yes there will be dedicated server"

    right before game release:

    "yes there is dedicated server...for unranked match"

    u need to learn from the Creative Strategist EA! Learn from the MasterRRRRSSS!

  21. #44
    Forum Elder
    Nakatomi Uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Uk
    PSN ID
    Nakatomi_Uk
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,932
    Rep Power
    57
    Points
    2,756 (0 Banked)
    Items Intel Core i7PS3 SlimFinal Fantasy VIIIFinal Fantasy VII
    EA will probably do a thing where if you have a BF3 network pass you will then get the option to download the so called free game off the store for free just to get out of this mess as per usual, which in turn has wasted lots of money I assume TAX money is used to fund this sort of thing going after biggy corps or part of it in the USA????

    If it did happen how many of you would play it constantly from the past I've just seen people get the trophies and then it just dies sure it would give a boost to people who have it now but it would be dead within 6 months again or not so busy. Yes they should be told off but the above will happen or a way to get it to BF3 owners thats all I am saying


    Win 7 Ult 64bit, Gigabyte Z68AP-D3 Rev.1/Bios F8 , INTEL i7 2600k 3.40ghz, Crucial Ballistix Elite 8GB DDR3 1866mhz (1600mhz@1.60v), Crucial 128GB M4 SSD, Seagate 500GB 7,200rpm, Hitachi 1TB 7,200rpm (Back-Up HDD), HIS 7850 2GB GDDR5 PCI-E Card, OCZ Fatality 750 Mod PSU, LG DVD-RAM RW

  22. #45
    Aloke
    Guest
    sounds like fun, I hope all the BF3 owners get their 1943!

  23. #46
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,382
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    5,212 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
    Why do you keep on bashing DICE? It's seriously getting old now. What have they done exactly that can be considered as unethical?
    I am not bashing DICE. Tell me right now that their business ethics are just fine. I want to hear it from you and you directly that you think their business ethics & practices are good or great. This is not the case of bashing, this is a case of the truth towards them.

    Do you think both their business practices are good? To you it's getting old but the fact that you are obviously going to stick up for bad ethics and practices on their part gets old as well.

    -Unethical: as in when people were saying to DICE that the controls are off on the PS3 version, there is a slight delay and they weren't insulting anyone at DICE. Then DICE turns around and calls those people with analog control issues crackheads on Twitter. Alan kurts did that to someone. Daniel tells people to grow up (while I kind of agree with it, it still isn't a proper thing to do as a community manager) because they said in the beta O.M. wasn't going to be used in the beta, but it was. On top of that, they are telling old Battlefield veterans that BF3 is a true sequel to BF2 which it is not, they do that to rake in more sales. Also, people concerned about the flag placement in Karkand for BF3, they said it will have more then 3 flags, but the video shows that it has only 3 flags on the consoles. Alan new they were talking about the console version at that time. Then you have "you will get 1943 when you buy BF3 on the PS3". that didn't happen now did it?

    I will add to this the fact that everytime Alan Kurtz mentioned something on the game, Daniel M. would contradict Alan, Then Karl T. would say something that would contradict both Alan and Daniel, then Bach would say something that contradicted Alan, Daniel, and Troedsson.


    EA: then you have EA which was the company that promised 1943 but didn't deliver. Instead, while they had a better idea, the point being is using a free game to get sales will work, now they didn't announce the change until about a day before or It could have been right when BF3 released. regardless of their intentions it's considered false advertise because a lot of the sales could have been because of that free game which makes people want to pre-order it so they don't miss it.


    As in unethical that is exactly what it is. It's not bashing them, it's calling them out which is what I did. They don't have good standards so because of that, their practices are unethical be it Twitter from the lead designer to using Twitter from the executive manager, to even the community manager. point being is that whenever they announce something or they say something using twitter, E3, etc etc you can't take it seriously, it's been like that for quite a few years when you pit both these companies together.

    The difference here is that I am not bashing them for BF3, I like BF3. I am showing them out from what they do to other people within their fanbase including newer people they are trying to attract to their game.
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 11-20-2011 at 21:41.

  24. #47
    Dedicated Member
    krazey2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,341
    Rep Power
    52
    Points
    26,635 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    I am not bashing DICE. Tell me right now that their business ethics are just fine. I want to hear it from you and you directly that you think their business ethics & practices are good or great. This is not the case of bashing, this is a case of the truth towards them.

    Do you think both their business practices are good? To you it's getting old but the fact that you are obviously going to stick up for bad ethics and practices on their part gets old as well.

    -Unethical: as in when people were saying to DICE that the controls are off on the PS3 version, there is a slight delay and they weren't insulting anyone at DICE. Then DICE turns around and calls those people with analog control issues crackheads on Twitter. Alan kurts did that to someone. Daniel tells people to grow up (while I kind of agree with it, it still isn't a proper thing to do as a community manager) because they said in the beta O.M. wasn't going to be used in the beta, but it was. On top of that, they are telling old Battlefield veterans that BF3 is a true sequel to BF2 which it is not, they do that to rake in more sales. Also, people concerned about the flag placement in Karkand for BF3, they said it will have more then 3 flags, but the video shows that it has only 3 flags on the consoles. Alan new they were talking about the console version at that time. Then you have "you will get 1943 when you buy BF3 on the PS3". that didn't happen now did it?

    I will add to this the fact that everytime Alan Kurtz mentioned something on the game, Daniel M. would contradict Alan, Then Karl T. would say something that would contradict both Alan and Daniel, then Bach would say something that contradicted Alan, Daniel, and Troedsson.


    EA: then you have EA which was the company that promised 1943 but didn't deliver. Instead, while they had a better idea, the point being is using a free game to get sales will work, now they didn't announce the change until about a day before or It could have been right when BF3 released. regardless of their intentions it's considered false advertise because a lot of the sales could have been because of that free game which makes people want to pre-order it so they don't miss it.


    As in unethical that is exactly what it is. It's not bashing them, it's calling them out which is what I did. They don't have good standards so because of that, their practices are unethical be it Twitter from the lead designer to using Twitter from the executive manager, to even the community manager. point being is that whenever they announce something or they say something using twitter, E3, etc etc you can't take it seriously, it's been like that for quite a few years when you pit both these companies together.
    I dont recall them saying it wasn't going to be used? AFAIK they never really commented on what the Beta map will be.
    Also B2K is now known to have 2 Conquest Variants 5 and 3 Flags, hence why they said Karkland has 5 Flags...So I don't see the problem with that.
    And either way If it wasn't 2 Variants, that gameplay could have been older build.


  25. #48
    Master Guru
    Wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    27
    Posts
    6,460
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    33,606 (0 Banked)
    Items Dark SoulsDemons Souls CoverDark Souls Cover
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdoggy View Post
    I am not bashing DICE. Tell me right now that their business ethics are just fine. I want to hear it from you and you directly that you think their business ethics & practices are good or great. This is not the case of bashing, this is a case of the truth towards them.

    Do you think both their business practices are good? To you it's getting old but the fact that you are obviously going to stick up for bad ethics and practices on their part gets old as well.

    -Unethical: as in when people were saying to DICE that the controls are off on the PS3 version, there is a slight delay and they weren't insulting anyone at DICE. Then DICE turns around and calls those people with analog control issues crackheads on Twitter. Alan kurts did that to someone. Daniel tells people to grow up (while I kind of agree with it, it still isn't a proper thing to do as a community manager) because they said in the beta O.M. wasn't going to be used in the beta, but it was. On top of that, they are telling old Battlefield veterans that BF3 is a true sequel to BF2 which it is not, they do that to rake in more sales. Also, people concerned about the flag placement in Karkand for BF3, they said it will have more then 3 flags, but the video shows that it has only 3 flags on the consoles. Alan new they were talking about the console version at that time. Then you have "you will get 1943 when you buy BF3 on the PS3". that didn't happen now did it?

    I will add to this the fact that everytime Alan Kurtz mentioned something on the game, Daniel M. would contradict Alan, Then Karl T. would say something that would contradict both Alan and Daniel, then Bach would say something that contradicted Alan, Daniel, and Troedsson.


    EA: then you have EA which was the company that promised 1943 but didn't deliver. Instead, while they had a better idea, the point being is using a free game to get sales will work, now they didn't announce the change until about a day before or It could have been right when BF3 released. regardless of their intentions it's considered false advertise because a lot of the sales could have been because of that free game which makes people want to pre-order it so they don't miss it.


    As in unethical that is exactly what it is. It's not bashing them, it's calling them out which is what I did. They don't have good standards so because of that, their practices are unethical be it Twitter from the lead designer to using Twitter from the executive manager, to even the community manager. point being is that whenever they announce something or they say something using twitter, E3, etc etc you can't take it seriously, it's been like that for quite a few years when you pit both these companies together.

    The difference here is that I am not bashing them for BF3, I like BF3. I am showing them out from what they do to other people within their fanbase including newer people they are trying to attract to their game.
    Yes, I will say it out loud. DICE's business ethics are fine. There.

    Regarding the input delay: What he said was obviously not meant to be a direct insult. Much like 90% of the people on the internet call other people names without actually wanting to start a fight DICE expressed their opinion in a similar way. You may argue that it was too much but that expression alone does NOT make anyone unethical. Also, his response was aimed to those people complaining that they had changed the controls since the beta, which they actually didn't. As clarified in a later statement, the input delay is caused by a bug in the game code that is likely to be fixed with the next update. So he was right in basically telling people to shut up because in no way did they intentionally change the controls to piss gamers off...

    And I FULLY support the community manager's drastic response regarding the amount of whiners that stalk their forums. It is seriously unbearable over there and every chance of having a genuine discussion about the game leads to disaster. You, out of everyone on here, should know that. I would be just as pissed if people kept on whining about my product that I kept on putting effort in for years. And I applaud the guy for actually voicing his opinion and how he feels about the whiners rather than typing up a quick generic response that you'd expect from every other company with a certain reputation.

    Also, Battlefield 3, for me, feels like Battlefield 3. I know there's a fair amount of people that don't agree with that but it's called having an opinion. This is DICE's imagination of how BF 3 should look like and since they invented the franchise to begin with it is their right to design the game how they think it's best. Also read what krazey2k posted above. That should clear up some of your issues.

    And yes, I agree with you in pointing out that EA did not really do the right thing here but I wasn't even talking about them. DICE was my point of reference. And in the end, it's EA holding back 1943, not DICE.

    Lastly, let me just say that true unethical behavior is far worse than that. Just look at how Activision literally destroyed Infinity Ward in a matter of weeks. THIS is unethical behavior that keeps me from buying their products. EA/DICE may have their mistakes and flaws but that's nothing compared to true unethical behavior. In fact, EA has become much better since the change of leadership was announced a few years ago. Also, do you remember that video from a few months ago, trying to create more acceptance towards gay people in our society? This was an EA campaign that garnered much praise.

    So you are actually wrong in assuming that I tolerate unethical business practices because, as I stated above, I refuse to buy another Activision game due to their more than lackluster behavior. And I don't want to start an argument but it seems you are more tolerable towards such practices since you bought BF 3 even though you are of the opinion that the game's developers act unethically. If I thought the same I'd drop the game in a second.
    Last edited by Wrath; 11-21-2011 at 04:11.



  26. #49
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
    Lastly, let me just say that true unethical behavior is far worse than that. Just look at how Activision literally destroyed Infinity Ward in a matter of weeks. THIS is unethical behavior that keeps me from buying their products. EA/DICE may have their mistakes and flaws but that's nothing compared to true unethical behavior.
    Let see:

    - Get IW to make a Billion dollar franchises, and refuse to paid them what they deserve.
    - They in turn look for other ways (I mean who like to get screwed in the ass? Like seriously)
    - Claim IW heads deflect and fire them. Keep all the money. Genius! Corporate master plan baby!

    ^^ Imo that's BEYOND unethical, more like some scheming ass $#@!, that some Bernard Madoff $#@! right there.

  27. #50
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,776
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,799 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I guess it isn't in the game.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.