|
|
|
|
|
by Kuxe
972 days ago
|
|
> You don't get to sell a car with an asterisk that says "by the way, the fuel tank leaks so until we find a way to fix it you'll use twice as much fuel as normal". Yeah. But in case of CS2, gamers did buy the leaking car. Devs analogously said "by the way, the fuel tank leaks" and people just went with "OK" and bought CS2, after which the customer started to complain (rave?!) about leaking fuel tanks. The car salesman retail store said "Well you can have all money back no questions asked until you've driven at least 160km". Steam has generous refunds. What does the customer do? (S)he still goes onto review sites and bitch about bad leaking fuel tanks. It is very much in bad faith on the customers part. I wouldn't rush to Colossal Games defense if customers just said "It ran bad for me on my 4090 for some reason so I refunded". That's not what's going on with the negative reviews though. People act entitled. |
|
I would argue a dealer telling you about a major defect directly before you buy the car is a bit different than a post on some forums that the product they're selling is not well made.
I would suggest it's not reasonable to expect that someone buying a game has to do research on a forum to know the game is unfinished -- if it's being sold as a finished game it's reasonable to expect it's in a playable state. the original post was meaning to say it would be unheard of for other products to allow companies to sell known unfinished products as finished products, even with the promise of completing the product. and consumers would similarly balk at such a proposal for virtually any other object.
it was more the absurdity of the different way games are treated which is anti-consumer.