PUGB on XB1 drops to 4fps, issues also on XB1X- Digital Foundry

[DonFerrari]

AlfredoTurkey said:

DonFerrari said:

The way the disclaimer is but doesn't make it at all not get to that extreme, the way it's written and could be interpreted is full protection against any shenanigans, and that is why I said all the burden was on the customer and that is why on court it would probably be reversed if MS didn't take all the steps they can to release the game.

If people were able to earn the full 60USD back from things like MP on KZ using temporary frames to hit "1080p" with 60fps on MP then how would one not expect that they not delivering the game wouldn't generate lawsuits and wins from buyers?

Also if you launch a MP game and shut the server 6 months after you would probably face legal issues, while shutting after 5 years is less likely to generate you problems.

Unbelievable.

Sure the busted ports shouldn't, but on this note are you saying that even the main game that is working good should be nominated because it have a shitty port or just the port shouldn't be nominated? Because although I would agree that if a game have bad versions the game as a whole shouldn't be enjoying good sales and getting prizes if they are evaluating only one version then they can say the others hold no weight on it.

So millions of people playing it make it a GOTY? So CoD should win GOTY every year, or the candy crush type games... the merits for GOTY isn't two dimensional "being release" "millions playing".

You are going to get if it releases a finished game, they already have a fineprint saying the game may not release and they aren't responsible for it.

If the full game doesn't release this is all they will get. And would make no sense for you to pay in advance and then don't get the end product.

Please explain how the MP not working makes half of the game.

I saw the video yesterday on base X1, that looks ugly. People were saying PS360 level of IQ, but to me it looks worse than a PS2 game. If I were going by memory this is level of Medal of Honor on PS1.

I'm not on the crowd of "gameplay above graphics". But I agree with you that for a game to be enjoyable it must hit at least an acceptable level on framerate, graphics, gamedesign, gameplay, etc. Our preferences and what have more value is sure personal and may make we prefer a cinematic game or a platformer, but if the cinematic game have bad framerates or is unplayable or the platformer look ugly they shall fail.

It's not hard to explain. There are two modes in most modern games. Online and offline. If the online works but the offline doesn't, it's not a fully functioning game. Only half of it works. 

So you are generalizing from other games? Because online competition on DC is one of the various different modes in the game, so it hardly is half of the game, unless of course you are trying to flame the game. Which by the way is off-topic.

jason1637 said:

DonFerrari said:

So millions of people playing it make it a GOTY? So CoD should win GOTY every year, or the candy crush type games... the merits for GOTY isn't two dimensional "being release" "millions playing".

You are going to get if it releases a finished game, they already have a fineprint saying the game may not release and they aren't responsible for it.

well that's how GOTY sorta is already. You don't see indie games wit low sales get nominated for it. Games are about fun and if millions of people are having fun playing games like CoD or Candy Crush then its GOTY material. GOTY is subjective anyway so it differs from person to person.

Well if the game isn't finished you get refunded and I'm pretty sure that hasn't happen to game preview on Xbox.

Eeeerrrrr no. Being release and having sold is just a small part of the aspects, the amount of sales doesn't get evaluated on the GOTY since why Fifa and CoD doesn't win GOTY every year.

If you are saying it's GOTY material you are afirming it is among the best overall games of the year... which funny enough contradicts all that is exposed on the deficiencies of the game and also the fact that it's a preview.

Zekkyou said:

DonFerrari said:

The way the disclaimer is but doesn't make it at all not get to that extreme, the way it's written and could be interpreted is full protection against any shenanigans, and that is why I said all the burden was on the customer and that is why on court it would probably be reversed if MS didn't take all the steps they can to release the game.

If people were able to earn the full 60USD back from things like MP on KZ using temporary frames to hit "1080p" with 60fps on MP then how would one not expect that they not delivering the game wouldn't generate lawsuits and wins from buyers?

Also if you launch a MP game and shut the server 6 months after you would probably face legal issues, while shutting after 5 years is less likely to generate you problems.

You're digging way too deep into this. It's a disclaimer, not an in-depth legal document. Just because you can interpret it one way, doesn't mean that is the intention. Even if MS were planning to give you universal life-time guaranteed protection from the actions of every single independent developer ever (lol), they'd still include that disclaimer because what kind of dipshit company wouldn't provide themselves with that potential flexibility? Emphasis on 'potential'.

Go look at a game on the PlayStation store. Most games have multiple disclaimers, including one which explicitly states it's a "One-time license fee". Just because that technically implies they can do all kinds of messed up things, doesn't mean they're actually planning to do so. It's there to provide them potential flexibility, and the extra 1% of protection they might one day need.

And what customer should cushion the gambles of the company? If the disclaimer doesn't have any legal validity then the protection you were claiming before is null.

And the disclaimers of digital owned games is one of the things that make me very much a hard copy owner first.