[ut3] Official release date
Sir Brizz
sir.brizz at gmail.com
Sat Feb 7 01:53:21 EST 2009
UT3 isn't a Games for Windows game, so no.
Brad: I completely agree with you.
Brizz
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Ryan F. Barton <debian.moment at gmail.com>wrote:
> Who really cares at this point? I am willing to bet the reason it hasn't
> been released is due to the "games for windows" agreement. As long as
> Microsoft gets clients for this program there will be no more linux
> games.
>
> On Sat, 2009-02-07 at 00:09 -0600, Brad Nagel wrote:
> > Epic may have zero liability but I think we can all agree that it
> > makes them look like d-bags with Mark Rein playing the role of head
> > d-bag. That little bastard will say anything to sell a game.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Brizz Cardon <sir.brizz at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong on this one.
> >
> > You'd have a really hard time taking this to court. Verbal
> > commitments are binding only under certain circumstances,
> > additionally, as no timeline was actually given, Epic hasn't
> > technically broken their commitment.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you're looking at this completely
> > altruistically, which just doesn't fit the bill here. If you
> > buy something and it doesn't work for you, that is YOUR
> > PROBLEM. If you buy a natural gas truck knowing that there are
> > no natural gas stations for hundreds of miles around where you
> > live, whose fault is it that you can't drive the truck? Surely
> > not the people who made it. Even if they said "Natural gas
> > stations will be coming to your area soon", they have ZERO
> > LIABILITY (unless it is given as part of the contract when you
> > buy).
> >
> > Software, in the US particularly, is even worse. The consumer
> > doesn't have any rights in regards to it except that it
> > functions as specified, EULAs are specifically designed to
> > protect software companies from things like this. Basically,
> > if it's not printed on the box, the company has no liability
> > to provide it to you.
> >
> > So the solution is simple, contact the Better Business Bureau,
> > try to get your money refunded. You can't blame anyone but
> > yourself for making a poor purchase.
> >
> > You would have me believe that a company is responsible for
> > everything it says, like if Company X sells Game Y and
> > promimses Patch Z that the company is completely liable if
> > Patch Z doesn't actually come out. It's just untrue. Buying
> > something because you believe that something will be released
> > for it is not being a good consumer, and you are completely to
> > blame for making a purchase like that.
> >
> > Brizz
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, David L. Willson
> > <DLWillson at thegeek.nu> wrote:
> > Brizz, The cars & roads analogy ~is~ exact. UT3
> > plays, on roads I prefer not to drive. You're wrong
> > about this because you keep ignoring the fact that
> > Epic advertised a feature delivery. Epic is wrong not
> > to meet their commitment. The buyers are ~not~
> > accountable for the commitment Epic made, or Epic's
> > failure to meet it. Let's take your PS3 game
> > example. Feature: When you buy game X for the PS3,
> > which will be ported to (insert the platform of your
> > choice), you are entitled to download the port. If
> > you buy the game based on that feature, you are
> > damaged when the ISV that advertised the feature
> > doesn't port the game. How can that be your risk and
> > responsibility? It doesn't matter if Epic or Brizz
> > thinks it's the buyer's problem, because advertisement
> > and verbal commitments are binding, both in principal
> > and in law. You keep ignoring that. Epic didn't say
> > "might", they said "would". They didn't say "best
> > effort". They said, "we're a cross-platform gaming
> > company, and we will cross to this platform."
> >
> > On timeframes: You're right. It hasn't come out. At
> > this point, disappointed Linux gamers who have
> > purchased the game have a certain amount of "damage"
> > from an unusable feature. If and when Epic ports, the
> > damage will no longer exist. Hmm... I wonder if
> > there're enough of us to test this in a class action
> > suit. Let's say the missing, but promised, feature is
> > worth 10% of the purchase price to those that bought
> > the game. If there are 10,000 gamers with damages, it
> > might be worth it.
> >
> > By the time you realize Epic is fully and completely
> > responsible for all the failure and disappointment
> > here, the port will be complete, and we'll have
> > nothing more to argue about. Until that sad day, I
> > remain your faithful illuminating friend, David.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Brizz Cardon" <sir.brizz at gmail.com>
> > To: ut3 at icculus.org
> >
> > Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 9:42:57 PM GMT -07:00
> > US/Canada Mountain
> > Subject: Re: [ut3] Official release date
> >
> >
> >
> > While similar, it's not exact.
> >
> > The issue here is not that a Linux binary will never
> > come out, it's that it hasn't come out in your
> > timeframe.
> >
> > And, honestly, you can't buy things based on things
> > people say. If you do, that's your own problem. This
> > is like if you found out the car in your example below
> > wouldn't even turn on for you but you decided to buy
> > it anyway expecting that eventually it would be able
> > to turn on. Why would buy something that you can't
> > even use with nothing more than the HOPE that you will
> > be able to use it at some point in the future?
> >
> > The state of the game when you buy it IS all that
> > matters. I could buy a hundred PS3 games right now,
> > but not having a PS3 I wouldn't be able to play any of
> > them. Whose fault is that? It really doesn't matter if
> > they promised it would do this or that, you knew at
> > the moment you bought it that it wouldn't and there
> > was no timeline for when it would.
> >
> > Brizz
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM, David L. Willson <
> > DLWillson at thegeek.nu > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brizz > They delivered a functional game. If you
> > bought it the way it was packaged, you have no one to
> > blame but yourself if it disappoints you.
> >
> > No. That implies that only the statements on the box
> > matter, which is utterly false.
> >
> > Let's take an analogy. Let's say I deliver to you a
> > car, which you pay for, on the strength of my
> > advertised commitment that the car will drive on dirt
> > roads. Near the completion of the car, I say, "Gosh
> > Brizzo, I can't get that dirt road thing done on time,
> > but I'll get it done. I will. You know me. I make cars
> > that drive on all sorts of roads. That's what I'm
> > about." If, after a year or so, you complained to a
> > friend that that asshole Willson never modified your
> > car the way he said he would, and your friend said
> > that you have only yourself to blame for trusting that
> > I would, because the door-tag didn't say "made for
> > dirt roads", since, well, it couldn't, because
> > according to my own statements it wasn't dirt road
> > ready, but that it would after I modified it for
> > you... Well, you might think your friend was very dim.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
> > ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
> > Mailing list archives:
> > http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sir_Brizz
> > Technical Manager
> > sir_brizz at beyondunreal.com
> >
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
> > ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
> > Mailing list archives:
> > http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sir_Brizz
> > Technical Manager
> > sir_brizz at beyondunreal.com
> >
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
> Mailing list archives: http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
>
>
>
--
Sir_Brizz
Technical Manager
sir_brizz at beyondunreal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/ut3/attachments/20090206/d7315b36/attachment.htm>
More information about the ut3
mailing list