Patch 2.200 discussion thread - RABBLERABBLERABBLE!

[HonestJohnny]

Quote:
DYMO wrote:

"I was forced to switch to OF"

Please explain this statement. They patched vCoH to accomadate OF but I do not see how they forced you to buy it. The original 2 factions still fight well against each other.

I purchased vCOH and could play the game without problems while it was still under patch 1.71. Now that on-line system got screwed because vCOH had to be patched to accomodate OF. There was no choice to this, if you still want to be able to play on-line.

The fact that I purchased OF is a totally different case. It resulted from my faith in Relic that the on-line system would be fixed in the near future. This did not happen and now we don't even know when it will happen and whether it will ever happen.

I don't care about the fact that Wehrmacht still fights well against Americans if the on-line system is fucked up and at times you can't play at all.

Unicous wrote:

i got to oppose to that. daton comments on rather stupid rants like "relic is fucked up and everybody does it better look at starcraft" and you get extremely personal instead of giving any counterargument called FACTS. that's the problem, stating that something is wrong despite four other people say it's the other way round is never very popular and when there are four people complaining about somebody who tries to be honest and give facts and figures whenever he can and tries not to OVERexaggerate things while everybody cries its all fucked up he is the bogeyman everbody can shit on. that's fucked up i say. that is called mobbing and that's one of the shittiest traits the human kind has.

Yes, here is a perfect example of Daton trying to be honest and giving facts ...

"Did you buy the game? Yes? Did you like it? No? Did you keep it? Yes? Then you have no right to complain. You have paid once for the product you got. If you kept that product you accepted it - and until you pay again, you have no rights to squat."

The above statement sound to me more like a hotline support form Relic than from an individual.

[Riddles]

Well to quickly interject gentlemen. And yes this is relevant to THIS thread.

I made my own post a while back, talking about Beta servers, Daton may have ripped it to shreads saying beta servers would be too expensive for Relic, but then buggo ( who incidently works for Relic as thier actual representative) came in and confirmed they would be doing some community beta testing at least for team automatch and possibly patch testing and snapped the crap outta him.

What im saying basically, We've got people of extreme opinions on both sides. The best we can do on these forums as far as discussion goes, is to try and be impartial, not too overtly for or against Relic. That way, we can focus more on the issue and get the response we need from the actual people with the answers.

An organised discussion, will also create a unified feel when reading it, so it is easier to respond to the masses. This would be appealing to a Relic employee no doubt as they can kill a few dozen birds with a stone.

[DatonKallandor]

I made my own post a while back, talking about Beta servers, Daton may have ripped it to shreads saying beta servers would be too expensive for Relic, but then buggo ( who incidently works for Relic as thier actual representative) came in and confirmed they would be doing some community beta testing at least for team automatch and possibly patch testing and snapped the crap outta him.

Talk about skewing the facts. You wanted permanent beta servers. Buggo only confirmed again what we already knew beforehand - Team Automatch would be beta tested before release.

I purchased vCOH and could play the game without problems while it was still under patch 1.71. Now that on-line system got screwed because vCOH had to be patched to accomodate OF. There was no choice to this, if you still want to be able to play on-line.

Scratch up another thinking CoH and RO are the same thing. They are not. RO would have been rebuilt from scratch anyway - it just happened that by having the OF Beta, you also had an easily available group for the Beta of the new RO. You know why they rebuilt it? So they can implement all that stuff people were whining to get, like Team Automatch.

[Unicous]

texture you're one of those guys that i meant. you are being very disrespectful, cussing like if you had diarrhea.

and daton is right you bought the game you accepted the software license agreement so now you are fucked. THIS IS CAPITALISM.
if you bought a game and you are not satisfied with it you can consider yourself lucky if the retailer takes it back solely because your expectations weren't met. CoH is a game that offers a singleplayer AND a multiplayer mode. bug fixes are a must, because if a game does not work you can and should return it. if you are dissatisfied, well that is you problem. patches in terms of balance and adding stuff are optional. coh 1.0 was playable in singleplayer mode thats all that is needed to. some minor glitches. multiplayer was not balanced a few bugs here and there sync errors and so on. but YOU accepted the EULA therefore you can not do anything as long as the game is playable in singleplayer mode, because the multiplayer mode is optional not mandatory.

[AphexBoy]

Unicious and Dalton:
What the hell is wrong with you? lol
Some ppl bought the game and are not happy with it right now, and they are in all they rights to complain about the late bad service relic is giving.
You say that we bought the game and we are fucked, what is that mentality? Any company that releases a product are obligated by law that the product is good and has to give a good service for it. Or else, its very simple, they will lose the trust of the customers wich as already begun. And I think you guys are very smart enuf to figure what happens if the sales goes down to a company. I let you do the maths.

[DatonKallandor]

Any company that releases a product are obligated by law that the product is good and has to give a good service for it.

Wrong. And if you think you are right - prove it. Sue. I'm gonna assure you you won't win, because you accepted the game in the condition it was. What you think you are entitled to and what you are actually entitled to by law are two different pair o' shoes.

[Unicous]

aphex, PLS GIVE ME FACTS. not assumptions. how can you tell about something you do not have any insight. are you a an THQ official with decreasing sales of OF or CoH. i think the answer is no.

this forum has about 35000 members i do not know how many users are inactive but telling from MY knowledge i assume there are not more than 10 -15000 members active. meaning reading and contributing. lets say 5000 people ( well, i dont think so maybe 1500 to 2500) are active in the coh/of subforums and now you tell me that 5000 are the coh community?


every company is bound by law. right. they do not have to make a product good, they have to adhere national law. if coh has a secret mod that features some sodomy porn they will have to face the lobby for animal rights and people against sodomy that will certainly going to sue the shit out of this company. but as long as the product itself is functioning you can't do anything.
i find american law very interesting, where people that smoke like a chimney can sue the tabacco companies because they did not include that smoking tabacco actually kills people. usa, the only nation where stupidity pays off. instead of ranting your asses off you could simply demand politely (because we are all so very respectful people here) that this situation needs a change. don't get me wrong, im very frustrated that this games is not yet balanced. but I can play the game. that is all that matters.

relic is not bound by any law to deliver patches for this game. neither is thq. but in order to keep the money flowing they need to satisfy the folks out there who want to buy it. so they make addons, invent new bugs that need to be fixed and change the balance to keep the COMMUNITY happy (community meaning online community). problem is patch was fucked up. community is not very forgiving but rather resentful, insulting relic as the worst developer ever and so on. that shows how much respect the community has towards the developer. imagining i was a member of the relic staff i'd certainly would've said ah fuck you were not going to post anything about upcoming events no competitions, you get your patch when its ready moan and squeak we dont care anymore. but NO. they just ignore that. amazing.

[Patje]

but YOU accepted the EULA

The EULA means nothing by law, at least in some countries. As it's only readable AFTER purchase of the product, it loses it's value for law. As you don't know the exact contents at the moment you buy the product (everybody can alter the text), it has to be formally signed before the purchase by both parties.
At least, that's how it is in my country, The Netherlands. And I did ask a lawyer about it.

[Unicous]

you sign it by accepting it. if dont accept it the EULA usually tells you to return it to your retailer. and that's it. the EULA is a contract. and every contract can be appealed. if you are going to successfully appeal is another story.

also you contradicted yourself

The EULA means nothing by law, at least in some countries.

in some countries sodomy is punished with death.

also if you buy something this is a contract too. did you sign something before you bought that lolly. no but you exchanged goods. in former times people spat in their hands, well thats gross and unhygienic, we are more civilized now. its called verbal contract.

[AphexBoy]

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't meant necessarly law, How about hum, product liability or warranty... whatever. Depends on the country. (If you want FACTS, check wikipedia or any site of your country with consummer protection)

ANYHOW, You keep playing with relics pogo, but you dont bring facts either very much.
I wonder whats in to you two...
Did you do the maths? Bad Services = bad sales = .......

EDIT:

Quote by unicious:
so they make addons, invent new bugs that need to be fixed and change the balance to keep the COMMUNITY happy

Invent new Bugs?? lolll where the hell did you get that?

[Unicous]

ever heard about jokes? here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

what do you mean by facts. a fact is a fact is a fact.

or do you want some kind of figures? well figures and surveys will never ever give you the whole truth, as long as you do not interview every single party, and assuming that none of them lied.

edit: ALSO: wikipedia is no reliable source as it stands under GNU Free Documentation License. meaning every fucking idiot can write down his mental outpour.

[Chuckwagon]

Well, I think the discussion has gone quite far a field. (And I'm sure I've helped take it there.) And it's gotten a bit personal and perhaps too heated. Which is unfortunate.

I have not taken any of this personally, and I would hope none of you would either. We do not know one another on a personal level, so it would be very difficult to accurately assess our intent and motivation when posting. Also, written comments often lack the context of face to face communication, so it is very easy to misunderstand one another.

For me, it's just various parties with various opinions. It's probable that not everyone has a firm understanding of the laws, Tort, Product Liability, Warranty, Contract, etc. that folks keep basing opinions on, nor have they considered history and the capricious nature of the courts and legal system. And I'm sure we have differing opinions based on our own understanding of such things. That doesn't make any of us bad people, and no personal attacks are needed. Disagree, offer opposing opinion (based on fact or belief, it matters little since it's an opinion) or just ignore. But let’s try to keep the heat turned low.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, I'll even get red in the face yelling argumentative at times. But lets all remember that nothing we say here has any real impact on anyone reading it if they choose to ignore it, nor does anything we read have any real impact on us if we do not choose it to, so getting mad and lashing out is just a waste. So keep up the debate, just don't take any of it personally.

Oh, and you are all wrong, I am always right, I know all, see all, and always choose correctly, women love me, children want to be me, and the universe revolves around me. So there.

[Patje]

you sign it by accepting it. if dont accept it the EULA usually tells you to return it to your retailer. and that's it. the EULA is a contract. and every contract can be appealed. if you are going to successfully appeal is another story.

Accepting it is not signing a contract, as it's signed after purchase. It has to be signed before purchase to be valuable. That is a law and the EULA does not go above the law.

also you contradicted yourself

I did not contradict myself. Only thing I said, is that the EULA means nothing by law, in some countries.

in some countries sodomy is punished with death.

Which means it's not globally accepted as law, same as the EULA.

also if you buy something this is a contract too. did you sign something before you bought that lolly. no but you exchanged goods. in former times people spat in their hands, well thats gross and unhygienic, we are more civilized now. its called verbal contract.

The only contract that is signed when buying the product, is that you legally own the product. It does, however, not mean that the EULA is legally binding, due to not showing the EULA before purchase. Also, when buying the product at a retail gameshop, I do NOT sign a EULA with the developer of that product. Which is also required for it to be valuable, as it's the developer that puts it in there.

Like I said, I checked it with a lawyer. He did say that there is movement to change it, so it does get value by law.

[Donutman]

well,looks like my question is completly ignored...
,or maybe someone would anwer..?.

[bottenbreker]

The only contract that is signed when buying the product, is that you legally own the product. It does, however, not mean that the EULA is legally binding, due to not showing the EULA before purchase. Also, when buying the product at a retail gameshop, I do NOT sign a EULA with the developer of that product. Which is also required for it to be valuable, as it's the developer that puts it in there.

have you ever read the last 2 pages of your manual?

the software is and shall remain a propietary product of THQ and its suppliers. THQ and its suppliers shall retain ownership of all patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, trade secrets and other proprietary rights relating to or residing in th esoftware. except as provided in section 2, yopu shall have no right, title or interest in or to the software. the software is licensed, not sold, to you for use only under the terms of this agreement. if you agree to be bound by all of the terms of this agreement, you will only own the media on wich software has been provided and not the software itself

License Agreement: Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts

[Chuckwagon]

Sorry Donutman, but there hasn't been any new info since the 3rd, as of this writing at least. I was hoping for more regular updates, but the lack of updates won't affect how soon the patch comes out.



bottenbreker:

have you ever read the last 2 pages of your manual?

Yes. And if they had included "By accepting the EULA you agree to provide sexual gratification to the developers of this product, as they see fit, and as they require, when and where they choose." Would it be binding? Just because they write it in there doesn't make it law.

For a contract to be binding there must be a "meeting of the minds" so to speak. EULAs do not create such. And therefore only things that would be typical to enforce in a contract can be expected to survive any legal challenge to the contents of a EULA. Just accept it folks, EULAs are only legal contracts in as much as they state what is legal and already obvious. In addition, since you are not required to actually read the EULA before accepting it, nor do you have the legal education needed to fully understand it, it would not be unreasonable for a court to disregard the EULA, which some have.

[bottenbreker]

For a contract to be binding there must be a "meeting of the minds" so to speak. EULAs do not create such. And therefore only things that would be typical to enforce in a contract can be expected to survive any legal challenge to the contents of a EULA. Just accept it folks, EULAs are only legal contracts in as much as they state what is legal and already obvious. In addition, since you are not required to actually read the EULA before accepting it, nor do you have the legal education needed to fully understand it, it would not be unreasonable for a court to disregard the EULA, which some have.

i don't remember that i had to read any contract companies/people asked me to sign, so that's not really an argument. you're supposed to read a contract before you accept. And, the EULA being disregarded might be in the wild wild west but i doubt it would be disregarded in Europe.

[Unicous]

Enforceability

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages[citation needed] to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.

The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The Eighth Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers.

well i'm german but this reads to me that it is binding (in the us) depending on whether the state has passed the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" or not.

edit: uh sry source ;-) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula#Enforceability

[AphexBoy]

Wrong. And if you think you are right - prove it. Sue. I'm gonna assure you you won't win, because you accepted the game in the condition it was. What you think you are entitled to and what you are actually entitled to by law are two different pair o' shoes.

Sue... you? YOU are gonna assure I lose? lol, yes daton very pertinent point here. Are you saying that you are from relic?

And yes Daton, I will agree with you that I accepted the game at the condition it WAS. you know passed tense?
So you say that, if I rely on your saying, that now since I bought the game, I am allowed to not accept the game anymore cause of the numbers of patch that changed the whole concept since it first came out. So you do agree of all complaints ppl made here about the game not the same anymore and demanding to fix it.

EDIT:
to Unicious post:

well i'm german but this reads to me that it is binding (in the us) depending on whether the state has passed the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" or not.
edit: uh sry source ;-) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula#EnforceabilityNow

THATS a fact but...

Quote from unicious:
ALSO: wikipedia is no reliable source as it stands under GNU Free Documentation License. meaning every fucking idiot can write down his mental outpour.

I think you'll have to change that or something...

[Chuckwagon]

i don't remember that i had to read any contract companies/people asked me to sign, so that's not really an argument. you're supposed to read a contract before you accept.

Yes, you are. It's part of establishing that "meeting of the minds" in that it insures I understand the particulars of the agreement. However, the argument has been made that if you want to enforce upon me a contract stipulation, you need to insure that I am aware of it. And allowing me to access your goods without insuring I have read and understood the contract is not a good start.

But even so, only parts of a EULA that are not standard to contracts that people would understand in every day life would be able to be challenged, as the courts have also held that you enter into similar agreements all the time and have an understanding of the standards for typical contracts. You can't just ignore the contract and hope it won't apply.

So what I was pointing out wasn't that you could just ignore the EULA, just that everything printed in one isn't automatically law and binding.

Add to that the fact that the companies are often in conflict with their own EULAs, and the legal messiness becomes quite apparent. For example, in the example you quoted, it states "you will only own the media on wich software has been provided and not the software itself." Yet the company has included on the disc software that will not allow me to make a copy of it. If I own it, the media that is, why can I not copy it? Of course I know and understand why they have done it, even if I don't agree, but it does sort of create a conflict.

[Unicous]

oh pls aphex don't prevaricate my posts.





also read that pls http://www.linfo.org/eula.html


Means of Acceptance of EULAs

There are several ways in which acceptance of a EULA is acknowledged by the end user. The acceptance method is decided by the software vendor and usually depends, at least in part, on the way in which the software is distributed. They include:

(1) By the user opening a shrink-wrapped package or an envelope containing the software. This method is employed for software that is distributed in boxes and books, respectively.

(2) By the user mailing a signed agreement or acceptance card to the software developer or vendor. This method is also sometimes used for software that is distributed in boxed form.

(3) By the user clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user's monitor. This method is typically employed for software that is downloaded from the Internet.




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subsequent to the introduction of the UCITA, software developers and vendors have been adding far more restrictive and invasive conditions to their EULAs. For example, some EULAs now permit the developer or vendor to search the user's system without prior notification. And some restrict the means by which the user is permitted to resolve disputes, or even go so far as to prohibit the user from complaining publicly about the product!

bold for emphasis

[rogerthat]

Dont stop there


Criticisms of EULAs

EULAs for some proprietary software (i.e., commercial software) have become the object of extensive criticism. There are several reasons for this, but they mostly derive from the lack of free competition in the software field and the consequent lack of choice with regard to EULAs. They include:

(1) EULAs on shrink-wrapped packages virtually require the user to agree to the EULA before being able to read it. This is because such EULAs are usually contained inside of the shrink-wrapped packages.

(2) EULAs are usually incomprehensible to most users due to their extensive use of arcane legal terminology, long and complex sentences and (sometimes) fine print. Consequently, few people even attempt to read more than the first few words of such agreements.

(3) EULAs are too restrictive. Virtually all of the restrictions in some EULAs have been the subject of complaints. A common complaint is that some EULAs prevent users from legally installing the software on a second computer for use at a different location (such as at home) even if the computers will be used by only one individual and only one at a time.

Another type of restriction is the prohibition of the user from criticizing the software or its developer. And some EULAs contain clauses that could be interpreted as prohibiting users or journalists from publishing reviews or benchmark test results without prior permission.

(4) Some EULAs provide the software developer or vendor with highly intrusive powers. For example, Microsoft EULAs state that they give the company the right to collect information about the user's system and its use and to supply this information to other organizations. They also state that they grant Microsoft the right to make changes to the user's computer without requesting permission. In addition, EULAs frequently have a clause that allows vendors to make updates (i.e., changes that benefit the vendor) to users' systems without asking or notifying the user.

(5) EULAs for costly software do not provide sufficient protection for the user from poor quality control or defects in the software. For example, some Microsoft EULAs offer a warranty for only the first 90 days and do not provide a warranty for updates and patches.

(6) EULAs often contain provisions with which users would disagree -- if they were able to read and understand them. However, they have no choice other than to say that they accept them even if they intend to violate the provisions of the EULA, because of the real or perceived lack of alternative products and EULAs from which to chose.

(7) EULAs often greatly limit the software developer's or vendor's liability for defects in the software. Critics point out that similar waivers of liability would not be tolerated for other products, such as aircraft, pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs.

(8) Some provisions of EULAs are vague and difficult to correctly interpret even by legal experts, and questions remain as to the extent of enforceability. Examples include prohibitions on users publicly complaining about the software, restrictions on journalists from reviewing the software and pronouncements of limited liability.

[Chuckwagon]

Subsequent to the introduction of the UCITA, software developers and vendors have been adding far more restrictive and invasive conditions to their EULAs. For example, some EULAs now permit the developer or vendor to search the user's system without prior notification. And some restrict the means by which the user is permitted to resolve disputes, or even go so far as to prohibit the user from complaining publicly about the product!

What you have posted isn't LAW. It is policy, and not even public policy. And none of it makes EULAs any more legal or not than what was previously stated.

And as for the BOLD portion of the post, look up what happened to Microsoft when they attempted to enforce a EULA provision such as that when a reviewer tried to publish results and Microsoft sued. In the U.S. the First Amendment right to free speech makes any such EULA provision a waste of time.

[Unicous]

well it says (bold for emphasis) Criticisms of EULAs

i can criticize many things. wont get me anything but a heart attack


eula is no law it's a contract.

[DatonKallandor]

Did you do the maths? Bad Services = bad sales = .......

Bad Services = Incredible Sales = Market Leader = EA =.....

So you say that, if I rely on your saying, that now since I bought the game, I am allowed to not accept the game anymore cause of the numbers of patch that changed the whole concept since it first came out. So you do agree of all complaints ppl made here about the game not the same anymore and demanding to fix it.

Nope - remember that thing you did when you went online to get the patch (and the blurb you accepted when you installed the patch)? Terms and Conditions. You signed em.

[AphexBoy]

EULA, doens't fully comply here in canada, cause it breach the personal privacy and doesn't comply completly with the customer protection law.

Quote:
Did you do the maths? Bad Services = bad sales = .......


Bad Services = Incredible Sales = Market Leader = EA =.....

Whooooaa, on what planet you live? lol
you are comparing to... EA?? relic to EA mmmmh
Maybe you misunderstood me I was talking about relic here. You could compare THQ and EA.

But if relics games start to go down to much THQ will just cut them.

[Chuckwagon]

EULA, doens't fully comply here in canada, cause it breach the personal privacy and doesn't comply completly with the customer protection law.

I suppose that's a great example. And I bet Canada isn't the only place that has laws that invalidate the EULA as a binding contract. Even in countries that don't throw out the whole thing they still argue over the parts, and only enforce what they think they should.

That's why I still hold to the opinion that just becasue it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's binding. And why using the EULA to support an argument probably won't carry any weight with me.

[Patje]

have you ever read the last 2 pages of your manual?

License Agreement: Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts

Yep, it says that you own the cd/dvd, but not the software. They can write what they want, doen't necessarliy mean it's binding.

eula is no law it's a contract.

A contract that is not approved globally.

[Unicous]

why would he compare EA`, a publisher, to a developer?

[drChengele]

I don't have the EULA here with me, but I am certain that if you read the fine print, you can easily interpret the EULA prohibiting modding the game. Now go and shut down the modding sections of this site and put the prominent modders in jail. I say start with Corsix and fneep for providing the mod tools.

And, the EULA being disregarded might be in the wild wild west but i doubt it would be disregarded in Europe.

Actually, it is Europe (or, to be more precise, European Union), rather than US, whose regulations are more geared towards legal protection of the end customer.

This, of course, is all irrelevant to the discussion. I can only view the EULA after I purchase the game, open the package, and insert the disc into my drive. If I purchase the game and disagree with the EULA, and can't get my refund (which I can't), what can I do? Not install the game? One can argue that the same can be said for all games overall - how do you know you'll like a game before playing it? Answer is simple: demos. They provide an accurate sampling of gameplay yet come with different EULAs.

relic is not bound by any law to deliver patches for this game. neither is thq. but in order to keep the money flowing they need to satisfy the folks out there who want to buy it. so they make addons, invent new bugs that need to be fixed and change the balance to keep the COMMUNITY happy (community meaning online community). problem is patch was fucked up. community is not very forgiving but rather resentful, insulting relic as the worst developer ever and so on. that shows how much respect the community has towards the developer.

I fail to see the argument here. Relic fucked up and users are supposed to not show any outrage? It is the right of every single damn owner of this game to express his opinion. Is the argument that the reaction too strong and too negative? Who are you to judge if it is too negative or not? Who are you to be outraged by peoples' reaction? I think Relic fucked up and want to voice my criticism on a (gasp!) Relic-related (but not Relic-run) forum. Fine. You think Relic didn't deserve the bad rep. Also fine. The difference between us is that you are commenting on my attitude, not vice versa.

Just because Relic isn't obligated to make these patches doesn't mean they are doing it to please the community out of kindness of their hearts. To think so is naive. They are doing it for profit, just like any company should.

Also, just because Relic isn't obligated to make these patches, doesn't automatically mean that people lose the right to complain about a screwed up patch. Consider this: I am a doctor. I sometimes put in some hours at a free clinic to learn the trade, so to speak. I am not obligated to do so and I do not receive profit from it. If I kill a man through incompetence, will I not answer by law just because my work is pro bono?

My point is: you going to make patches? Fine. Do it right, or be prepared for massive outrage of your users when you fuck up.

[Unicous]

chengele pls read your manual. the eula, ( well i dont know about you guys but in the german manual the eula is documented dunno about us an a). it reads that if you install the software you admit that you have read and accepted the eula. if one does not accept the eula he has to cease using the software immediately ( )
and return it to the retailer.

outrage as in verbal abuse? every one can express their opinion in countries where there is the right of free speech in a respectful manner that means no PERSONAL offenses.

My point is: you going to make patches? Fine. Do it right, or be prepared for massive outrage of your users when you fuck up.

so in reverse relic would be better off ceasing to make patches in order to avoid outrages do i see that.

of course it is forbidden to mod anything that you do not have the license/patent for.

[RangerX3X]

Until someone shows me a single case where a software company has successfully brought litigation against an individual customer in a jury trial (damages awarded or not) any EULA is completely meaningless to me as an end consumer.

I couldn't care and less and will continue to use what I bought (spare me the "lease" argument) as I see fit.

[Relic]

Just an update, we've definitely fixed a couple issues and the patch has been going through QA for a bit now. Patch will be out sometime after the weekend.

[tatatank]

heard that one before................................ oh burn..........

glad to hear it and hopefully some more balance changes made it in while we waited.

[Darksider2]

patch has been going through QA for a bit now

i pray that means THQ is actually testing it and it's not in queue to be tested.

[DatonKallandor]

Maybe you misunderstood me I was talking about relic here. You could compare THQ and EA.

Relic and THQ are the same entity, business wise. They only operate separately logistically.

[drChengele]

the eula, ( well i dont know about you guys but in the german manual the eula is documented dunno about us an a). it reads that if you install the software you admit that you have read and accepted the eula. if one does not accept the eula he has to cease using the software immediately ( [img]images/smilies/Insane%20-%20Wig.gif[/img] )
and return it to the retailer.

The very core of the past few pages of this discussion is that EULA is not universally legally binding, so citing what EULA states or doesn't state - doesn't matter. I am not a lawyer and I do not know if EULA is considered a legally binding contract. I can put a fine-print paper on my frontyard door that says "by entering this yard you are agreeing to allow me to blow your brains out and take all your money", and yet, somehow I doubt I would not be jailed as a premeditated murderer if I actually did it. In short, EULA is there to protect the rights of the publisher, by informing the customer what laws apply to him. EULA cannot make up rules not backed up by the law. Like you said, enforcement. I live outside US so I'm afraid there is zero EULA enforcement possibility under the laws of my country.

so in reverse relic would be better off ceasing to make patches in order to avoid outrages do i see that.

That is one option, or what they could do is make quality patches that do not require rollback, reinstallation, and waiting for critical bugfixes.

I know. Radical suggestion, eh?

[Dboz]

Thanks alot for the update Buggo. I wish that it could be out for this weekend, but if it isnt ready, it isnt ready. Just please dont let another catastrophe happen again.

Thanks again.

[tuffy!]

damn it!! its been over a week and i was hoping we'd get it for the weekend. what could possibly take so long???

[Shaitan]

Hurray, just in time for my Christmas break. I can finally start the campaign then.

[bottenbreker]

thnx 4 the update buggo

[Avatar13]

Thanks for the latest news Buggo! Have a great weekend.

[dazzo1987]

good to see its comin soon.

Really do hope there is some performance improvement

.

[Borrish]

haha. You know what i love? People spend ages complaining that Relic doesn't tell us anything, and then when they do people just have a go at them anyway.

[Ano2]

Balance is dire, Connection issues are awful, performance is poor and the stats don't work properly. Of course the bitching is high, the game is in a very bad way.

Still thanks for the update Buggo, hope this patch is excellent otherwise this game will probably lose a few thousand more players.

[EclipseXX]

well this patch better do something right, or it will be a definite c u l8r for coh from me (and i'm quite sure i'm not the only one feeling that way).

i've stopped playing online after OF was released (although i've bought the damn thing) once i realised that game was in worse state than it used to be during initial coh release.
i despise lame thq and relic pr stating that it was not released prematurely and "...it's the way we wanted it to be...", since wanting a major release to be in such a shitty state would have been equal to wanting yourself to die a long and painful death - which is what's happening to mp component of coh. still they managed to screw things up further with this patch, one wonders is there someone at thq/relic intentionally working on driving ppl away from playing this game. i had 10 friends regularly playing online in 1.7 era, now it's down to none (two waiting for 2.2 and keeping our fingers crossed).

not to mention permanently-incoming never-coming arranged ranked teamplay. bloody morons

[Akranadas]

Koole, we deleted your post ecause it rude and someone overall sarcastic to the point of being spam.

Do not repost to say "My post was deleted?" because that ones now deleted to.

This thread has been been cleaned up.

[ChocoboKnight88]

It's good to finally hear news about the patch. I had my own balance mod postponed while I wait for this patch to come out, since only Relic can fix some things that I can't. I'm looking forward to Monday, that's for sure.

[Phazon]

I hope all the reported issues found with the "first release" of 2.200 were thoroughly addressed and dealt with.

[Tuxi]

I really hope that it will stay and work well this time. I hope that it will balance this game too.