Watch Dogs finally gets patch from Ubisoft

[MetalSoup]

How would I go about doing that?

You're a big boy, I'm sure you can figure it out like the rest of us did

 

[Graal]

I wish we could get a poll on the MyGaming forum: If you buy something and you aren't entirely happy with your purchase, does some of the blame lie with you? Dit sal vir ons boekdele vertel.

Again, there's a massive difference between not being entirely happy with a purchase and being sold a broken piece of shit.

Not that you really care. As long as we don't say mean things about Watchdogs, you're happy.

 

[James]

So Wyzak, if I understand your argument, the bottom line is that consumers are at fault when they buy a product that turns out the have been defective in some way. They should have known better and live with the consequences of their not knowing better. The company has no accountability because the consumer should have known better, after all there were plenty of "warning signs".

Note that I have nothing wrong with your hypothetical "well-informed" consumer in that this individual will save themselves hassle by making well-researched purchase decisions. Whether or not the hypothetical consumer is well informed does not excuse that they were sold a faulty product.

It sucks that Watch Dogs has issues affecting many users, really it does. But some of those issues aren't entirely Ubisoft's fault as it is also at least somewhat the fault of those who saw the warning lights, and decided to ignore them.

Not entirely Ubisoft's fault? They made the game didn't they? Where was the warning to consumers that the game was going to be a bug-ridden mess? (This is where you once again try and use your baseless hypothetical "well-informed" average consumer argument, which by the way, still does nothing to justify or excuse the bad product).

Why are you conflating those who are unhappy with the gameplay and those who are unhappy with the faulty product?

If the average consumer lives in the real world he should know that there are bugs in almost every piece of software that exists. Assuming that this isn't his very first game purchase ever he has probably encountered bugs in games before. Windows has bugs, Office has bugs, Skype has bugs, Chrome has bugs, Internet explorer (LOL) has bugs...

Once again, you merely assert that the hypothetical well-informed consumer should have known better with the implication that software with bugs and a shitty user-experience should just be accepted because you assert this is the status quo. And once again I disagree. The consumer is entitled to believe a product they purchase will be in good working order. This is why consumer protection laws are in place - this concept has been through various levels of legislation and tested in courts of law around the world; this isn't merely my opinion (the efficacy of the law enforcement notwithstanding).

The average consumer who has bought something in the past would have experienced bugs as per above. There are at least four things he could do then, he could be happy and live with it, or he could be unhappy. If he is unhappy he can investigate, then he can decide to not do the same again in the future and never buy games again, or he can decide to wait until the game has been patched to his satisfaction, or he could decide that it must have been a fluke and do it again. And again, and again, and again...

Aside from the false quadchotomy you presented, once again none of what you say excuses the delivery of a bad product. You are offering a very limited set of hypothetical solutions on the assumption that your hypothetical consumer accepts it's their fault for buying the faulty product.

Yes actually I think that almost all software should contain almost those exact words. Have you demanded a refund from MS because of bugs in Windows? How successful do you think you'd be if you demanded a refund on the very first bug you encountered in any game at a court or an organisation like the NCC or the German version thereof? Their reply would be that it is not uncommon for software titles to have issues, and unless those issues are extremely severe you wont' be able to get a refund.

Well I'm glad we agree on one thing. Note that this warning was not in place so has no bearing on your hypothetical well-informed consumer argument. The inefficacy or otherwise of consumer protection structures, and your assumption on how they operate or what ruling they would make has no bearing on the fact that the consumer is entitled to request a refund on a product they find to be faulty.

I've actually spent a lot of time over the last week or two diagnosing a heat issue on my PC. I bought two chassis fans and they ended up being completely useless. Did I take them back and demand a refund? No, I didn't. I bought those fans knowing that they might not work as I require as I didn't bother to try and check whether they would perform sufficiently. I bought those fans not knowing whether they would do exactly what I expected of them, without them guaranteeing specs (except for saying big air flow (lie)) and without me doing proper research on the fans. It ended up being a waste of money and I was finally able to find proper fans with specs and reviews from a trusted party which I then put in my PC and they have resolved my heat issue. I got what I paid for with both sets of fans. I acknowledge that I am also to blame for the first fans and the money that I wasted on them.

Either you misunderstood or sidestepped my point, because I didn't say "you bought a working product that didn't suit specific needs because you didn't research and bought the wrong thing." I said if you bought a "defective" product.

I find it very funny that you haven't once replied on any of my posts where I queried whether MyGaming encourages active debate, or would rather be a site where only the majority opinion gets any attention and anybody who disagrees should rather keep quiet. But reading a paragraph like this, I can't help but wonder if that is because you are actively leading that assault on the minority opinion.

Why should I reply to asinine red herring insinuations? Quite clearly we encourage discussions. Just because you're not finding much support for your view hasn't excluded you from having it and defending it (vociferously). And just because you have your own differing opinion doesn't mean I should tailor mine to pander to it. I'm also entitled to believe I'm correct and strongly present my view.

I will agree with you: if you limit it to software, and that there were warning lights which I didn't bother to look for or ignored, and also add that the software will never be fixed.

Once again this is your hypothetical best-case informed consumer scenario, and once again this is only beneficial as a preventative measure for the individual hypothetical consumer.

So your acceptance of my proposition that a faulty product is not acceptable has the pre-requisite of "warning lights" and some sort of warning that the bug-ridden software will never be fixed. I presume by your loose definition that software getting fixed 20 years later will be fine then.

A software product can be patched and fixed on the consumer side, with hardware it's not that simple. A software product can theoretically be copied and returned to the store for a refund, again not really possible with hardware.

This depends on if you buy software as a service contract or over the counter as a once-off product, and we are talking about once-off purchases. Arguably no company is obliged to support their software so in that case you're just stuck with the broken product - but you should have known better, right? Hypothetical piracy arguments have no bearing on whether or not a faulty product is acceptable or should be refunded.

Also you can't buy a car, and take it back a week after and say, hey I don't like how it drives, give me my money back. They offer test drives for that. Even if there is something majorly wrong with your car they will first attempt to repair it. If you really want to get your money back you will probably have to take them to court which will end up costing you a lot of money anyway.

Your analogies continually redirect the point, and you keep offering baseless presumptive hypothetical outcomes. We aren't talking about "not liking" the way a car drives or a game plays. We are talking about obviously defective products. Engine knocking, faulty steering column, spongy brakes, and a slow leak in the petrol tank. I'd be taking my car back and demanding a new one, or even cancelling the contract due to non-delivery of a working vehicle. And really? Fighting for our rights as a consumer will wind up being an expensive exercise so we should just drive away in our faulty car?

You hear a car advertisement on the radio describing how awesome it would be to drive said car and that it would be like vacation on a tropical island... You go and buy that car and feel that it's still driving a car, you don't feel like you are on vacation. Do you ask for a refund? What do you think your chances are? You can't believe every word that you hear on an advertisement. You should be cautious and verify the facts.

Even more red herrings from the actual point made - we are talking about a faulty product. The misleading vertical slice marketing is another debate entirely. Of course the hypothetical reasonable person wouldn't expect to actually be whisked away to a tropical island vacation when they got in their car, much like the same person wouldn't expect to suddenly be an elite hacker using their cellphone to control traffic lights because they bought Watch Dogs.

A reasonable person might expect a billion-euro AAA game development company to deliver a product on PC that isn't a horrid buggy mess.

 

[AlienTaker]

Iemand word uit gekak . But i'm not happy with how the game has turned out when it comes to the performance issue of the game hate trying yo do the online hacks and there is like 5 million years delay and when things start happening i'm dead,hacked or lost

 

[Wyzak]

So Wyzak, if I understand your argument, the bottom line is that consumers are at fault when they buy a product that turns out the have been defective in some way. They should have known better and live with the consequences of their not knowing better. The company has no accountability because the consumer should have known better, after all there were plenty of "warning signs".

Nobody put a gun against your head and forced you to buy the product. You made the decision to buy it, so some of the responsibility remains with you. This doesn't just apply to Watch Dogs, it applies to everything in life. If you can't comprehend that there's really no point in discussing this any further.

I feel really badly for those who are still unable to play the game and I really hope that it gets patched soon. It is a fun game and hopefully you will soon be able to get your moneys worth.

 

[Ike_009]

Nobody put a gun against your head and forced you to buy the product. You made the decision to buy it, so some of the responsibility remains with you. This doesn't just apply to Watch Dogs, it applies to everything in life. If you can't comprehend that there's really no point in discussing this any further.
.

Cool, I'll remember this next time someone buys a phone or a car or even a TV. I can't wait to tell the guy who buys a car it's his fault,( after he bought what he expected to be a working car), after the brakes jam from a broken part and he wraps it around a pole. After all nobody forced him to by the car, it's his fault there was a development fault after which a substandard product was sold to the guy who should have researched his purchase thoroughly.

 

[MetalSoup]

Nobody put a gun against your head and forced you to buy the product. You made the decision to buy it, so some of the responsibility remains with you.

So what about me? Am I at fault because someone who doesn't really follow game news bought me a buggy game as a present? Do I blame the gift giver? Am I not allowed to complain about a broken game because I didn't pay for it myself? Your argument falls completely flat when you can't blame the buyer.

The facts remain: the game is broken, it's Ubisoft's fault, and to try and push the blame onto consumers is ridiculous.

 

[Graal]

Nobody put a gun against your head and forced you to buy the product. You made the decision to buy it, so some of the responsibility remains with you. This doesn't just apply to Watch Dogs, it applies to everything in life. If you can't comprehend that there's really no point in discussing this any further.

I feel really badly for those who are still unable to play the game and I really hope that it gets patched soon. It is a fun game and hopefully you will soon be able to get your moneys worth.

James typed out a massive post cutting your arguments to teeny-tiny bits, and your only response is to parrot the same nonsense you've been throwing out all along. How about you actually read, comprehend and address his arguments.

Wyzak, just admit it. You're not interested in debate, you're just interested in your opinion. No matter what we say, you will not relinquish your opinion because "Watchdogs is the best thing since popcorn and ain't nobody telling me any different, nuh-ah!"

None so blind as those refuse to see.

 

[Wyzak]

Cool, I'll remember this next time someone buys a phone or a car or even a TV. I can't wait to tell the guy who buys a car it's his fault,( after he bought what he expected to be a working car), after the brakes jam from a broken part and he wraps it around a pole. After all nobody forced him to by the car, it's his fault there was a development fault after which a substandard product was sold to the guy who should have researched his purchase thoroughly.

Using your example (which is a really bad one - if the situation was really so dire the company would be forced to issue a recall by the relevant authority in that country):
If there were reports available that this has happened to other cars, or the person chose to buy a cheaper brand vehicle without the necessary safety tests. Then yes some of the fault lies with him. He chose to buy that car instead of another car which have been proven not to have such defects.

So what about me? Am I at fault because someone who doesn't really follow game news bought me a buggy game as a present? Do I blame the gift giver? Am I not allowed to complain about a broken game because I didn't pay for it myself? Your argument falls completely flat when you can't blame the buyer.

The facts remain: the game is broken, it's Ubisoft's fault, and to try and push the blame onto consumers is ridiculous.

Like I said, I really feel for those who have legitimate issues. But try and be patient, they are working on the issues and the issues should be resolved shortly. You got the game for free, others spent money on it (some probably money they didn't really have). Some people would say you have less reason to moan than other people.

 

[MetalSoup]

Some people would say you have less reason to moan than other people.

Some people? Are you one of them? People that think you can't complain about something you didn't buy or pay for yourself?

I own the game, I want to play it but I can't, and it's Ubisofts fault, that's all that matters to me.

 

[James]

Nobody put a gun against your head and forced you to buy the product. You made the decision to buy it, so some of the responsibility remains with you. This doesn't just apply to Watch Dogs, it applies to everything in life. If you can't comprehend that there's really no point in discussing this any further.

I feel really badly for those who are still unable to play the game and I really hope that it gets patched soon. It is a fun game and hopefully you will soon be able to get your moneys worth.

Okay, we're getting close to actually boiling this down.

Of course nobody was extorted into buying the product - consumerism is an act of will, but there are considerations such as ethical treatment of customers, and in fact, laws about delivering working products (or products that match the advertised claims). I accept that consumers obviously take a certain degree of responsibility for the purchase because it's their money they are using, but they are reasonable to expect the product they decided to buy will actually work properly.

Why does that excuse a company (or Ubisoft in particular) from the bearing the consequences of delivering a faulty product (either harsh criticism or attempts at wringing a refund out of them)?

Despite this immense back and forth on the topic, I struggle to discern your relevant position on the matter.

What I've got so far is that, basically, you think those of us who are pissed off with Ubisoft should blame ourselves (at least partly) because the warnings signs were there and if we were as smart as you, we'd have not pre-ordered the game in the first place.

That's a pretty condescending, dismissive, and smug attitude that presupposes a lot of information about the purchaser, what led them to make their purchase decision, and how they reacted to the realisation that the product did not live up to standards. It also lends nothing to the debate about why or why not Ubisoft should be lambasted for delivering a shoddy game.

 

[Wyzak]

Some people? Are you one of them? People that think you can't complain about something you didn't buy or pay for yourself?

I own the game, I want to play it but I can't, and it's Ubisofts fault, that's all that matters to me.

Well yes I happen to be one of those. A portion of the value that one expects to derive from a product comes from the price that you spend on the item. Since you spent no money on the item you don't necessarily feel the need to have to recover anything.

Are you equally aggrieved if you buy an item at full retail price versus buying another 80% off on a Steam sale? No, "ag whatever, I got it for a steal so whatever"?

 

[MetalSoup]

Well yes I happen to be one of those. A portion of the value that one expects to derive from a product comes from the price that you spend on the item. Since you spent no money on the item you don't necessarily feel the need to have to recover anything.

So by that logic you had no right to complain about Diablo 3, or even Sim City.

Are you equally aggrieved if you buy an item at full retail price versus buying another 80% off on a Steam sale? No, "ag whatever, I got it for a steal so whatever"?

Of course. If I actually want to play a game I want it to work, regardless of how I got it or how much I paid for it. That's going off topic in my opinion though.

 

[DarthCat]

Why didn't they test the game before release to fix all bugs?

 

[Ike_009]

Using your example (which is a really bad one - if the situation was really so dire the company would be forced to issue a recall by the relevant authority in that country):
If there were reports available that this has happened to other cars, or the person chose to buy a cheaper brand vehicle without the necessary safety tests. Then yes some of the fault lies with him. He chose to buy that car instead of another car which have been proven not to have such defects.

I don't it's a bad example, Ubisoft is a big developer so we could use BMW in our case study. I would expect BMW to have gone through all the necessary safety test, it's not like BMW are a small company. Then since we want to keep this in line with watchdogs, what reports would he read if the car hasn't been released or any long term road tests completed to identify the fault. Maybe our consumer should do proper research and invest in a time machine so he can go into the future to read about these problems? Pray tell where I can purchase this time machine, or would I need a time machine to go into the future to read reviews about the time machine I wish to buy on day 1 before the reviews come out?

 

[Wyzak]

Okay, we're getting close to actually boiling this down.

Of course nobody was extorted into buying the product - consumerism is an act of will, but there are considerations such as ethical treatment of customers, and in fact, laws about delivering working products (or products that match the advertised claims). I accept that consumers obviously take a certain degree of responsibility for the purchase because it's their money they are using, but they are reasonable to expect the product they decided to buy will actually work properly.

Why does that excuse a company (or Ubisoft in particular) from the bearing the consequences of delivering a faulty product (either harsh criticism or attempts at wringing a refund out of them)?

Despite this immense back and forth on the topic, I struggle to discern your relevant position on the matter.

What I've got so far is that, basically, you think those of us who are pissed off with Ubisoft should blame ourselves (at least partly) because the warnings signs were there and if we were as smart as you, we'd have not pre-ordered the game in the first place.

That's a pretty condescending, dismissive, and smug attitude that presupposes a lot of information about the purchaser, what led them to make their purchase decision, and how they reacted to the realisation that the product did not live up to standards. It also lends nothing to the debate about why or why not Ubisoft should be lambasted for delivering a shoddy game.

I haven't said anywhere that Ubisoft is without blame. I have simply tried to explain that it is a massively challenging task to perform QA on such a product. I have also attempted to get some people to admit that they are at least partially to blame for deciding to buy the item.

The way I see it (UB = user blame level, CB = company blame level. Higher is more blame, lower is less blame):
UB 0, CB 2: User does research, decides not to buy the product
UB 0, CB 2: User gets game for free, doesn't like the product or product doesn't work
UB 1, CB 2: User does some research, doesn't like the product or product doesn't work
UB 2, CB 2: User buys blindly (or pre-orders), doesn't like the product or product doesn't work
UB 3, CB 1: User buys knowing there are issues, buys it anyway, doesn't like the product or product doesn't work

Disclaimer: There is no relation between UB and CB levels. a UB1 does not compare to a CB1, and a UB2 vs a CB1 does not imply that the user is more to blame than the company. UB levels can only be compared with UB levels and CB levels can only be compared with CB levels.

 

[to0kenZA]

I have simply tried to explain that it is a massively challenging task to perform QA on such a product.

1) Insert CD
2) Install
3) Game crashes on launch.

Total testing time: 10 mins

1) Install on high end gaming rig
2) Play game for 10 mins and drive around
3) Game stutters like a console port.

Total testing time: 10 mins


Hell, If they pay me a hundred bucks, I'll QA this shit for them in minutes.

 

[MetalSoup]

Why didn't they test the game before release to fix all bugs?

Actually that's what we all want to know. (Except Wyzak of course, he'll probably claim the game has too much scope )

 

[Wyzak]

So by that logic you had no right to complain about Diablo 3, or even Sim City.

I said a portion of the value, not all value. I placed value in the Diablo franchise name prior to D3.

Of course. If I actually want to play a game I want it to work, regardless of how I got it or how much I paid for it. That's going off topic in my opinion though.

I don't think it's off topic. You are saying that the amount that you pay for a game has no bearing whatsoever on what you expect from the game? I find that hard to believe.

Why didn't they test the game before release to fix all bugs?

That has been covered in the past. It is a gigantic task if you take into account the endless PC configurations etc. Ubisoft should have done better, but it is still and will always be a very difficult task.

I don't it's a bad example, Ubisoft is a big developer so we could use BMW in our case study. I would expect BMW to have gone through all the necessary safety test, it's not like BMW are a small company. Then since we want to keep this in line with watchdogs, what reports would he read if the car hasn't been released or any long term road tests completed to identify the fault. Maybe our consumer should do proper research and invest in a time machine so he can go into the future to read about these problems? Pray tell where I can purchase this time machine, or would I need a time machine to go into the future to read reviews about the time machine I wish to buy on day 1 before the reviews come out?

If the company hasn't had time to complete all the necessary tests then they probably wouldn't release it in the first place, or if they do then it is your responsibility to check whether they had completed the necessary safety tests that you expect and if they hadn't wait until they have. You are taking some risk by buying something early after release. I took some risk when I decided to buy a socket 1366 motherboard thinking that it will be the standard for the next few years. It wasn't.

 

[Ike_009]

If the company hasn't had time to complete all the necessary tests then they probably wouldn't release it in the first place, or if they do then it is your responsibility to check whether they had completed the necessary safety tests that you expect and if they hadn't wait until they have. You are taking some risk by buying something early after release. I took some risk when I decided to buy a socket 1366 motherboard thinking that it will be the standard for the next few years. It wasn't.

// Waits for instructions on how to hack into BMW servers to see testing results