Hmm maybe it's a problem with your expanation friend? i mean to be honest i dont class myself as anything above or below average, but not stupid either...and to be fair i can see that the word enhanced for can be taken in a few different contexts. yes any muppet can look through a dictionary and try to be clever, but usually you will find an average person will see that for what it is.
To me to enhance something for, means to prepare something for...now if they eventually implement DX10 without having to recode the whole game engine then the game was already enhanced for DX10. If they dont manage it then hit them like they deserve
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this. The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this.
The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
Wow this has become one big fight over simple wording on the box. While i agree it probably won t hold up in court and as much as i hated AOC i would feel cheated buying it, it s the misleading wording FC uses to originally sell it s product. In the long run as we can see in a short 2+ months it does nothing but hurt you. Now they have things to prove to the public that i think they can redeem themselves but to the masses they wanted to keep it s time is running out. As far as it goes i do hope the guy wins and drag FC through the mud, but i doubt he will.
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this.
The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
en·hance
To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features: computer software enhanced with cutting-edge functionalities.
When the game is enhanced for something it means that it includes advanced features for that particular thing. In other words, if the game says that it's enhanced for DX10 it's suppose to have advanced features to utilize DX10. It doesn't. The game does not run on DX10 at all. It runs on DX9. Vista actually has both. The DX9 version that comes with Vista is a stripped down older version but, to provide better compatibility with older games, you can actually install another version without any problems and without overwriting DX10.
Again, the game, even when running on Vista, does not run on DX10. So even if we're using your definition of 'enhanced' it's still failing to do what it's advertised to do because it runs on DX9.
The days of gaming companies writing in clauses to protect from legal action could be drawing to a close. especially, if this class action suit were to be successful. Now, mind you, this person is fighting a long uphill battle, but if he is savvy, he'll find support financially. It's out there. folks.
First and foremost, if he intends to spend the money on this, then he needs a powerful legal group to work for him and the rest of us. This would be somewhat groundbreaking in nature. Think about those that first attempted legal action against those powerful tobacco corporations. Now, because so many have come forward in class action suits, money for these actions has become readily available.
Imagine, if you will what could happen here. If the print media as well as television and radio media get involved, it could very well make it quite difficult for FunCom. He won't stand alone and i do have a feeling, if he chooses his legal options wisely, he will have advise that might be similar to what was given for lawsuits against other BIG corporations.
If, and this is a BIG "if", the suit is actually successful some years down the road. We will all reap the benefit of gaming companies taking more care in what they claim they will provide to the consumer upon release. But, alas, this will take several years and most probably would need many of us to come into the fight as well.
As of now, well, I have to look at it pragmatically, he doesn't have too much in his favor now, but could if his legal team knows how to approach the argument, then it could actually become a good fight. I wish him and anyone else out there brave enough to attempt this good luck.
WE all do need a voice as the days of innocent MMO development and marketing are over. Unfortunately, like many products out there, it's "buyer be aware"!
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
Truth is many people upgraded their PC for DirectX and bought Vista, spending hundreds, if not one thousand or more dollars. I think Funcom should repay those costumers, and hopefully a sensible judge would agree on that.
And yet the game can be played on XP with DX9 just fine.
Since when should a software company be responcible for your desicion to upgrade your hardware.
I also can't find simpathy for anyone that spent thousands to play a single 50 dollar game. Why would you do something like that?
Consider this. You buy a van, the company tells you that it is 3m high because it has such a big load. Your garage door is only 2m high, so you spend the money to put a 3m high door. Then the van arrives and it's 2m high. Probably a judge will see that you have the right to a refund and to the expenses of building a new door that you wouldn't have done if it was not for the new van.
Take it for a test drive first, why cant people wait? mentality on thinking they will loose out I guess if they dont start from day 1 in an mmorpg.
You couldn't take it for a "test drive" because they are just now offering a "free trial".
If a company puts out a product and charges 49.99 for it, barring any production errors I should be able to use said product immediately as advertised, in this case being enhanced for dx-10. So If I want to start from day one I will, I didn't say their game was done, FC did. I'm not going to take into account the history of game openings and how bad they can be because this kind of thinking is what allows game producers like FC to continue to shovel out crap with no regard for the mmo community.
I find myself loath to admit this but I do agree with Avery on the upgrade situation. There is close to no way a company should have to pay for you upgrading your computer. If you upgraded your computer to get the full effect out of this game and the game didn't deliver as promised the only way you can be made whole is to refund the cost of the game. I would think the only chance you would have is if your computer didn't meet the minimum specs and you upgraded to get at least that, but where is the line drawn? What is reasonable? Buying a new GPU or buying a brand new top of the line gaming rig? At lthe very east you have a better system to play with now.
Please believe me, I in know way support FC or this game in any way. In fact I filled a complaint with the BBB to try and get a full refund on my purchase of aoc.
_____________________________ If you are insulted by being called a fanboi it's a good bet that you are one
The guy originally wrote his post in an admitted drunken stupor. I wouldn't put too much stock into him carrying through with his threat. And if he does carry through with it, he really has far too much time on his hands, imo.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this. The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
That is not what I said <shrug>, if you choose to believe that fine. I said it would need to support DX10 to offer an enhanced experience for DX10.Your logic is flawed. DX10 is a superset of DX9 that provides .....guess what graphics enhancements. Just becaus you can run DOS games in XP does not mean they (DOS games) support XP. DX10 will suport DX9 games but AoC does not support DX10. See the difference? FC admit they can not support it yet, I wonder why you are trying to claim it does.
you've never read the "Online game experience may change during time." on the package? Though im not quoting it. But it's there anyhow. And since when should you belive what the package says?
It's like commercials. "This toothpaste gives you white teeth!"
And oh, suing a game for refund on the box bought. It can only happen in the states!
Obviously you don't understand what that statement means. It has nothing to do with product promises and features. It's simply a way for the game companies to protect themselves from lawsuits about some kid getting verbally abused online and commiting suicide and the family suing the game publisher.
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this.
The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
You got to laugh, are you saying that the enhancements do exist but we can't experience them? How will we ever know if the DX10 enhancements exist if we can not experience them? Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#The_possibility_of_unperceived_existence and some of the links from it and then you think about what you have said. Man you have to wonder about what they are teaching kids nowadays.
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this. The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
That is not what I said <shrug>, if you choose to believe that fine. I said it would need to support DX10 to offer an enhanced experience for DX10.Your logic is flawed. DX10 is a superset of DX9 that provides .....guess what graphics enhancements. Just becaus you can run DOS games in XP does not mean they support XP. DX10 will suport DX9 games but AoC does not support DX10. See the difference? FC admit they can not support it yet, I wonder why you are trying to claim it does.
Correct, 'DOS games' are by definition 'XP Compatible', but just because a 'DOS Game' only uses a limited subset of 'XP Functionality', that doesn't mean that they couldn't be said to 'Support XP'.
I am well area that 'DX10' is a superset' of 'DX9' & wasn't trying to claim that AoC utilises any of the additional 'DX10 Only' features, just that I didn't think an attempt to sue Funcom based purely on 'Enhanced for DX10' being on the box would succeed because it was too open to willful misinterpretation.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
I fully support AoC and am enjoying playing BUT I do think they they must address this situation.
I remember buying SWG somewhat for the reason that there were no jedi...oh well. I also continues to pay till the NGE. SO I guess my watermark for BS from a company is pretty high. I can't imagine being a lev 80 with the end game being jacked. I think FC has a responsibility to fix these issues but I know, becasue of the first 20 levels, that they have the ability to fix it, the drive to fix it and the vision to make AoC a great game. I guess I just see what it will be.
As per the many...MANY...posts on why this has happened well coming from a game company backgroud I can tell you the meat and potatoes people working on the game have little control over the release. Money people decide many things for most game companies and that can be a very bad mistake. I have no idea why AoC was released so early. I hope, and most of my guildmates do as well since it is a heated topic day after day, that companies in general get "it" that having some issues is okay but not having this much content really hurts a title and as in SOE's case a company. SWG was a mess but then the Matrix online came out and wow ya, um what? Followed by Vanguard!!! LOL. That is a way to send a company into a tailspin. Welcome to SOE. Now I have heard reliable facts that VG is much better and SOE really fixed alot of problems but ya its too late unless they can pull a big expansion out and lower the price. SWG is on life support but they keep trying. I support them in their efforts but how can they win back trust. This is the meat of what I think FC is losing...trust. WoW is not a great game but it appeals to certain gamer types and Blizzard is a very trustworthy company. I have preordered Blizz titles just on faith. Even as a supporter of AoC I would not say I would preorder anythign from them. Turbine as far as D&D online did not have a good rep but LOTRO is raising it. I hope FC and the rest take note that if you piss people off, they will blog and review and gripe over and over and many, many boards. I cannot believe any responsible company would consider releasing a game too early after the debacles of the past and the impact it has had on the companies.
Again I support and still play AoC and have a great time doing so. I am not at 80 and I am taking my time, reading quests and getting to know areas. I hope they and the others put out games that are fun, thick and all around good to play.
Lets not make video games like fast food (fattening, cheap and bad for you) but instead lets shoot for complex handcrafted meals. I know I am a dreamer.
I am amazed anyone trying to argue semantics on this.
The game is not enhanced for DX10. Period. It does not even support DX10. It would need to support DX10 before it could give an enhanced experience in DX10 wouldn't it? If you are confused please see the definition for 'enhanced'. I posted a few posts ago. It never cease to amaze me how many people have the capacity for self delusion and irational thoughts and conclusions. Go look up enhanced, also look up vaccuous, innane, vacant, idiot, half-wit etc. etc.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
You got to laugh, are you saying that the enhancements do exist but we can't experience them?
NOPE, i said and I quote " What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time"
How will we ever know if the DX10 enhancements exist if we can not experience them?
The BOX does not say the game is DX10 enhanced they box say's enhanced FOR DX-10
I seriously doubt anyone gets a dime that takes Funcom to court......If nothing else people should learn that you dont just rush blindly into things you do some research and get some opinions before buying...There were plenty of signs that AoC was not ready to be released and many people simply chose to ignore them.....Funcom did nothing different than any sales person hasnt done before...>They take their crap product and build it up so that it sounds like the best product on the planet.....Get enough morons to buy your product and youre set.......
Correct, 'DOS games' are by definition 'XP Compatible', but just because a 'DOS Game' only uses a limited subset of 'XP Functionality', that doesn't mean that they couldn't be said to 'Support XP'.
I am well area that 'DX10' is a superset' of 'DX9' & wasn't trying to claim that AoC utilises any of the additional 'DX10 Only' features, just that I didn't think an attempt to sue Funcom based purely on 'Enhanced for DX10' being on the box would succeed because it was too open to willful misinterpretation.
Well now we are back on track and it all boils down to "enhanced" which has been defined a couple of times. As it stands there is no enhancement for DX10 users.
We will have to respectfully disagree about DOS running on XP. The reason is that XP supports DOS through emulation not the other way round. Would anyone really claim that say Zork supports XP, no you would say that XP will support Zork. Same with backward compatibility with the DX API.
Well now we are back on track and it all boils down to "enhanced" which has been defined a couple of times. As it stands there is no enhancement for DX10 users. We will have to respectfully disagree about DOS running on XP. The reason is that XP supports DOS through emulation not the other way round. Would anyone really claim that say Zork supports XP, no you would say that XP will support Zork. Same with backward compatibility with the DX API. http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&table=CONTENT&func_id=1526 edit: the link is to what FC consider enhanced
I was already aware that 'DOS' is just an emulation as I still maintain old school batch 'C' programs as part of my RL job. I didn't say that DOS ran XP, I said that a 'DOS Game' could be considered to 'Support XP' in the sense that it could be used on 'XP' by definition. All that you seem to be saying is that 'DX10' supports all of 'DX9', but 'DX9' only supports a subset of 'DX10'. Correct, but that doesn't mean that a game written for 'DX9' could not also be said to implicitly support 'DX10'.
The link you posted was interesting but both it & the box still say that the 'Game is enhanced for DX10' not that it currently makes full usage of the additional features. Technically the lawyers could argue that the game was indeed designed with 'DX10' in mind even if additional features were not yet available. I am not saying that I even remotely condone that stance, just that the case sounds too vague to succeed in court.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Well now we are back on track and it all boils down to "enhanced" which has been defined a couple of times. As it stands there is no enhancement for DX10 users. We will have to respectfully disagree about DOS running on XP. The reason is that XP supports DOS through emulation not the other way round. Would anyone really claim that say Zork supports XP, no you would say that XP will support Zork. Same with backward compatibility with the DX API. http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&table=CONTENT&func_id=1526 edit: the link is to what FC consider enhanced
I was already aware that 'DOS' is just an emulation as I still maintain old school batch 'C' programs as part of my RL job. I didn't say that DOS ran XP, I said that a 'DOS Game' could be considered to 'Support XP' in the sense that it could be used on 'XP' by definition. All that you seem to be saying is that 'DX10' supports all of 'DX9', but 'DX9' only supports a subset of 'DX10'. Correct, but that doesn't mean that a game written for 'DX9' could not also be said to implicitly support 'DX10'.
The link you posted was interesting but both it & the box still say that the 'Game is enhanced for DX10' not that it currently makes full usage of the additional features. Technically the lawyers could argue that the game was indeed designed with 'DX10' in mind even if additional features were not yet available. I am not saying that I even remotely condone that stance, just that the case sounds too vague to succeed in court.
In order for something to be enhanced for DX10, it needs to support all, or at least some, of the advanced features of DX10. Since AoC currently only uses DX9 dlls, can you honestly say that it's enhanced for DX10?
To enhance is to provide with improved or advanced features. Being backwards compatible with something is not enhancing it. The "Enhanced for DirectX 10" on the game box means that the game is designed to utilize the features of DX10. Not that it's backwards compatible with DX9.
I realize that the individual used a forum post to provide information about the case they were bringing vs Funcom, but still... they need to tighten up their story and get things in order. There may be holes in Funcom's box advertisement, EULA, TOS, etc.,... but if someone plans to bring a case against someone else, they should really try to get all of their bullets together and load the gun first.
DirectX10 support vs enhancement? The finger can be pointed at Microsoft or the OS OR even graphics card manufacturers and their driver software. What is implied vs what is clearly defined vs verbage vs interpretation vs ... it's pointless. Add in to the mix that there are variables of components in systems and you have a fight that you probably won't be able to win there.
Single Core, Dual Core, and Multi Core? Forget that... the term is 'thread-enabled'. Ask if there is a cap @ 2-cores or 4-cores on the application. Then ask if the actual number of cores supported was ever stated. Quite a few app's are cap'd at 4-cores (per CPU), yes your OS may 'see' more than 4, but whether or not your app's use them... that's the story. 4 cores used to be listed as 'multi-core', but now it's 'QuadCore', so has the carrot moved to 6-8 core + for 'multi-core'? In truth, MultiCore = More then 1 core/plural. We think it should mean >2 cores, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It's all marketing... smoke and mirrors.
PvP by July? Okay, make sure there aren't disclaimers anywhere. If it's some post online, make sure it came from 1) someone within the company who is responsible for that portion of the game and has been established as a spokesperson for said portion and 2) not some poser.
Let's face it, software companies are being 'forced' to back AMD, Intel, and nVidia's play and push users to purchase new technology (actively 'advertise'). These gaming companies NEED those companies to participate in their development and testing process, so the 'scratch my back/I scratch yours' policy comes into play.
If you want to really kick someone in the teeth... look at Intel, AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft. Microsoft keeps pushing inflated-fat pigs they called OS's. Intel and AMD keep shoving more cores at us while software vendors haven't recoded their app's to make use of them. AMD/ATI and nVidia keep throwing multi-card solutions at us to make up for inflated OS, poor drivers, and simply 'to make a buck'.
I'm not saying that there isn't something wrong with AOC or that it followed through on some of the promises... but I think this goes beyond the individual software vendors/publishers.
I guess its pretty academic, the guy was probablly just venting. I think he has a decent case but he would be better off just doing a CC chargeback, hell I bet FC would refund him.
Recklaw, exatly the box says "Enhanced for DX10" but the game inside the box is curently not enhanced for DX10.
The engine was built (enhanced) to work with DX10 , I have to say it again if your using this as an argument , Look up the definition , Not your own personal idea of what that means .
What you think when you pick up the box is irrelevant it comes down to how it is interpreted in a court of law , Thinking this is a sure fire win is going to far , Sure most customers probably took it to mean supported , that dosen't mean it does or doesn't . It just means they used curious wording on the box. Maybe as a safeguard , Maybe not .
Either way , Until you fnd a lawyer willing to take a huge corp to task for a 50$ purchase , And willing to do it pro bono ( otherwise what's the point?) . Noone will know how this evidence of fraud will hold up in court.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I said that a 'DOS Game' could be considered to 'Support XP' in the sense that it could be used on 'XP' by definition.
You could consider it that way, but at best its sloppy thinking at worse its wrong. The software runs on DOS period. Thats all it supports period. It uses Int21 int14 etc. It knows nothing of other operating systems and therefore can not 'support' them. It is XP that proides support for DOS applications not the other way round! To conclude because XP supports DOS apps - DOS apps support XP is a complete logical phallacy (as I am sure you know really).
Comments
Hmm maybe it's a problem with your expanation friend? i mean to be honest i dont class myself as anything above or below average, but not stupid either...and to be fair i can see that the word enhanced for can be taken in a few different contexts. yes any muppet can look through a dictionary and try to be clever, but usually you will find an average person will see that for what it is.
To me to enhance something for, means to prepare something for...now if they eventually implement DX10 without having to recode the whole game engine then the game was already enhanced for DX10. If they dont manage it then hit them like they deserve
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
Wow this has become one big fight over simple wording on the box. While i agree it probably won t hold up in court and as much as i hated AOC i would feel cheated buying it, it s the misleading wording FC uses to originally sell it s product. In the long run as we can see in a short 2+ months it does nothing but hurt you. Now they have things to prove to the public that i think they can redeem themselves but to the masses they wanted to keep it s time is running out. As far as it goes i do hope the guy wins and drag FC through the mud, but i doubt he will.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
en·hance
When the game is enhanced for something it means that it includes advanced features for that particular thing. In other words, if the game says that it's enhanced for DX10 it's suppose to have advanced features to utilize DX10. It doesn't. The game does not run on DX10 at all. It runs on DX9. Vista actually has both. The DX9 version that comes with Vista is a stripped down older version but, to provide better compatibility with older games, you can actually install another version without any problems and without overwriting DX10.
Again, the game, even when running on Vista, does not run on DX10. So even if we're using your definition of 'enhanced' it's still failing to do what it's advertised to do because it runs on DX9.
The days of gaming companies writing in clauses to protect from legal action could be drawing to a close. especially, if this class action suit were to be successful. Now, mind you, this person is fighting a long uphill battle, but if he is savvy, he'll find support financially. It's out there. folks.
First and foremost, if he intends to spend the money on this, then he needs a powerful legal group to work for him and the rest of us. This would be somewhat groundbreaking in nature. Think about those that first attempted legal action against those powerful tobacco corporations. Now, because so many have come forward in class action suits, money for these actions has become readily available.
Imagine, if you will what could happen here. If the print media as well as television and radio media get involved, it could very well make it quite difficult for FunCom. He won't stand alone and i do have a feeling, if he chooses his legal options wisely, he will have advise that might be similar to what was given for lawsuits against other BIG corporations.
If, and this is a BIG "if", the suit is actually successful some years down the road. We will all reap the benefit of gaming companies taking more care in what they claim they will provide to the consumer upon release. But, alas, this will take several years and most probably would need many of us to come into the fight as well.
As of now, well, I have to look at it pragmatically, he doesn't have too much in his favor now, but could if his legal team knows how to approach the argument, then it could actually become a good fight. I wish him and anyone else out there brave enough to attempt this good luck.
WE all do need a voice as the days of innocent MMO development and marketing are over. Unfortunately, like many products out there, it's "buyer be aware"!
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
And yet the game can be played on XP with DX9 just fine.
Since when should a software company be responcible for your desicion to upgrade your hardware.
I also can't find simpathy for anyone that spent thousands to play a single 50 dollar game. Why would you do something like that?
Consider this. You buy a van, the company tells you that it is 3m high because it has such a big load. Your garage door is only 2m high, so you spend the money to put a 3m high door. Then the van arrives and it's 2m high. Probably a judge will see that you have the right to a refund and to the expenses of building a new door that you wouldn't have done if it was not for the new van.
Take it for a test drive first, why cant people wait? mentality on thinking they will loose out I guess if they dont start from day 1 in an mmorpg.
You couldn't take it for a "test drive" because they are just now offering a "free trial".
If a company puts out a product and charges 49.99 for it, barring any production errors I should be able to use said product immediately as advertised, in this case being enhanced for dx-10. So If I want to start from day one I will, I didn't say their game was done, FC did. I'm not going to take into account the history of game openings and how bad they can be because this kind of thinking is what allows game producers like FC to continue to shovel out crap with no regard for the mmo community.
I find myself loath to admit this but I do agree with Avery on the upgrade situation. There is close to no way a company should have to pay for you upgrading your computer. If you upgraded your computer to get the full effect out of this game and the game didn't deliver as promised the only way you can be made whole is to refund the cost of the game. I would think the only chance you would have is if your computer didn't meet the minimum specs and you upgraded to get at least that, but where is the line drawn? What is reasonable? Buying a new GPU or buying a brand new top of the line gaming rig? At lthe very east you have a better system to play with now.
Please believe me, I in know way support FC or this game in any way. In fact I filled a complaint with the BBB to try and get a full refund on my purchase of aoc.
_____________________________
If you are insulted by being called a fanboi it's a good bet that you are one
The guy originally wrote his post in an admitted drunken stupor. I wouldn't put too much stock into him carrying through with his threat. And if he does carry through with it, he really has far too much time on his hands, imo.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
That is not what I said <shrug>, if you choose to believe that fine. I said it would need to support DX10 to offer an enhanced experience for DX10.Your logic is flawed. DX10 is a superset of DX9 that provides .....guess what graphics enhancements. Just becaus you can run DOS games in XP does not mean they (DOS games) support XP. DX10 will suport DX9 games but AoC does not support DX10. See the difference? FC admit they can not support it yet, I wonder why you are trying to claim it does.
Obviously you don't understand what that statement means. It has nothing to do with product promises and features. It's simply a way for the game companies to protect themselves from lawsuits about some kid getting verbally abused online and commiting suicide and the family suing the game publisher.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
You got to laugh, are you saying that the enhancements do exist but we can't experience them? How will we ever know if the DX10 enhancements exist if we can not experience them? Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#The_possibility_of_unperceived_existence and some of the links from it and then you think about what you have said. Man you have to wonder about what they are teaching kids nowadays.
So if your machine only has 'DX10' & AoC doesn't even support 'DX10', then surely it wouldn't run at all.
Maybe you need to check the definition of the word 'support'.
That is not what I said <shrug>, if you choose to believe that fine. I said it would need to support DX10 to offer an enhanced experience for DX10.Your logic is flawed. DX10 is a superset of DX9 that provides .....guess what graphics enhancements. Just becaus you can run DOS games in XP does not mean they support XP. DX10 will suport DX9 games but AoC does not support DX10. See the difference? FC admit they can not support it yet, I wonder why you are trying to claim it does.
Correct, 'DOS games' are by definition 'XP Compatible', but just because a 'DOS Game' only uses a limited subset of 'XP Functionality', that doesn't mean that they couldn't be said to 'Support XP'.
I am well area that 'DX10' is a superset' of 'DX9' & wasn't trying to claim that AoC utilises any of the additional 'DX10 Only' features, just that I didn't think an attempt to sue Funcom based purely on 'Enhanced for DX10' being on the box would succeed because it was too open to willful misinterpretation.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
I fully support AoC and am enjoying playing BUT I do think they they must address this situation.
I remember buying SWG somewhat for the reason that there were no jedi...oh well. I also continues to pay till the NGE. SO I guess my watermark for BS from a company is pretty high. I can't imagine being a lev 80 with the end game being jacked. I think FC has a responsibility to fix these issues but I know, becasue of the first 20 levels, that they have the ability to fix it, the drive to fix it and the vision to make AoC a great game. I guess I just see what it will be.
As per the many...MANY...posts on why this has happened well coming from a game company backgroud I can tell you the meat and potatoes people working on the game have little control over the release. Money people decide many things for most game companies and that can be a very bad mistake. I have no idea why AoC was released so early. I hope, and most of my guildmates do as well since it is a heated topic day after day, that companies in general get "it" that having some issues is okay but not having this much content really hurts a title and as in SOE's case a company. SWG was a mess but then the Matrix online came out and wow ya, um what? Followed by Vanguard!!! LOL. That is a way to send a company into a tailspin. Welcome to SOE. Now I have heard reliable facts that VG is much better and SOE really fixed alot of problems but ya its too late unless they can pull a big expansion out and lower the price. SWG is on life support but they keep trying. I support them in their efforts but how can they win back trust. This is the meat of what I think FC is losing...trust. WoW is not a great game but it appeals to certain gamer types and Blizzard is a very trustworthy company. I have preordered Blizz titles just on faith. Even as a supporter of AoC I would not say I would preorder anythign from them. Turbine as far as D&D online did not have a good rep but LOTRO is raising it. I hope FC and the rest take note that if you piss people off, they will blog and review and gripe over and over and many, many boards. I cannot believe any responsible company would consider releasing a game too early after the debacles of the past and the impact it has had on the companies.
Again I support and still play AoC and have a great time doing so. I am not at 80 and I am taking my time, reading quests and getting to know areas. I hope they and the others put out games that are fun, thick and all around good to play.
Lets not make video games like fast food (fattening, cheap and bad for you) but instead lets shoot for complex handcrafted meals. I know I am a dreamer.
What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time.
You got to laugh, are you saying that the enhancements do exist but we can't experience them?
NOPE, i said and I quote " What I highlighted 2 complete different things, maybe try and think before you post next time"
How will we ever know if the DX10 enhancements exist if we can not experience them?
The BOX does not say the game is DX10 enhanced they box say's enhanced FOR DX-10
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest#The_possibility_of_unperceived_existence and some of the links from it and then you think about what you have said. Man you have to wonder about what they are teaching kids nowadays.
Yeah indeed seeing your reply's it really makes you wonder , nvm I am afraid you will never understand it as you might think the same about me.
I seriously doubt anyone gets a dime that takes Funcom to court......If nothing else people should learn that you dont just rush blindly into things you do some research and get some opinions before buying...There were plenty of signs that AoC was not ready to be released and many people simply chose to ignore them.....Funcom did nothing different than any sales person hasnt done before...>They take their crap product and build it up so that it sounds like the best product on the planet.....Get enough morons to buy your product and youre set.......
Correct, 'DOS games' are by definition 'XP Compatible', but just because a 'DOS Game' only uses a limited subset of 'XP Functionality', that doesn't mean that they couldn't be said to 'Support XP'.
I am well area that 'DX10' is a superset' of 'DX9' & wasn't trying to claim that AoC utilises any of the additional 'DX10 Only' features, just that I didn't think an attempt to sue Funcom based purely on 'Enhanced for DX10' being on the box would succeed because it was too open to willful misinterpretation.
Well now we are back on track and it all boils down to "enhanced" which has been defined a couple of times. As it stands there is no enhancement for DX10 users.
We will have to respectfully disagree about DOS running on XP. The reason is that XP supports DOS through emulation not the other way round. Would anyone really claim that say Zork supports XP, no you would say that XP will support Zork. Same with backward compatibility with the DX API.
http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&table=CONTENT&func_id=1526
edit: the link is to what FC concider enhanced
Recklaw, exatly the box says "Enhanced for DX10" but the game inside the box is curently not enhanced for DX10.
I was already aware that 'DOS' is just an emulation as I still maintain old school batch 'C' programs as part of my RL job. I didn't say that DOS ran XP, I said that a 'DOS Game' could be considered to 'Support XP' in the sense that it could be used on 'XP' by definition. All that you seem to be saying is that 'DX10' supports all of 'DX9', but 'DX9' only supports a subset of 'DX10'. Correct, but that doesn't mean that a game written for 'DX9' could not also be said to implicitly support 'DX10'.
The link you posted was interesting but both it & the box still say that the 'Game is enhanced for DX10' not that it currently makes full usage of the additional features. Technically the lawyers could argue that the game was indeed designed with 'DX10' in mind even if additional features were not yet available. I am not saying that I even remotely condone that stance, just that the case sounds too vague to succeed in court.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
I was already aware that 'DOS' is just an emulation as I still maintain old school batch 'C' programs as part of my RL job. I didn't say that DOS ran XP, I said that a 'DOS Game' could be considered to 'Support XP' in the sense that it could be used on 'XP' by definition. All that you seem to be saying is that 'DX10' supports all of 'DX9', but 'DX9' only supports a subset of 'DX10'. Correct, but that doesn't mean that a game written for 'DX9' could not also be said to implicitly support 'DX10'.
The link you posted was interesting but both it & the box still say that the 'Game is enhanced for DX10' not that it currently makes full usage of the additional features. Technically the lawyers could argue that the game was indeed designed with 'DX10' in mind even if additional features were not yet available. I am not saying that I even remotely condone that stance, just that the case sounds too vague to succeed in court.
In order for something to be enhanced for DX10, it needs to support all, or at least some, of the advanced features of DX10. Since AoC currently only uses DX9 dlls, can you honestly say that it's enhanced for DX10?
To enhance is to provide with improved or advanced features. Being backwards compatible with something is not enhancing it. The "Enhanced for DirectX 10" on the game box means that the game is designed to utilize the features of DX10. Not that it's backwards compatible with DX9.
I realize that the individual used a forum post to provide information about the case they were bringing vs Funcom, but still... they need to tighten up their story and get things in order. There may be holes in Funcom's box advertisement, EULA, TOS, etc.,... but if someone plans to bring a case against someone else, they should really try to get all of their bullets together and load the gun first.
DirectX10 support vs enhancement? The finger can be pointed at Microsoft or the OS OR even graphics card manufacturers and their driver software. What is implied vs what is clearly defined vs verbage vs interpretation vs ... it's pointless. Add in to the mix that there are variables of components in systems and you have a fight that you probably won't be able to win there.
Single Core, Dual Core, and Multi Core? Forget that... the term is 'thread-enabled'. Ask if there is a cap @ 2-cores or 4-cores on the application. Then ask if the actual number of cores supported was ever stated. Quite a few app's are cap'd at 4-cores (per CPU), yes your OS may 'see' more than 4, but whether or not your app's use them... that's the story. 4 cores used to be listed as 'multi-core', but now it's 'QuadCore', so has the carrot moved to 6-8 core + for 'multi-core'? In truth, MultiCore = More then 1 core/plural. We think it should mean >2 cores, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It's all marketing... smoke and mirrors.
PvP by July? Okay, make sure there aren't disclaimers anywhere. If it's some post online, make sure it came from 1) someone within the company who is responsible for that portion of the game and has been established as a spokesperson for said portion and 2) not some poser.
Let's face it, software companies are being 'forced' to back AMD, Intel, and nVidia's play and push users to purchase new technology (actively 'advertise'). These gaming companies NEED those companies to participate in their development and testing process, so the 'scratch my back/I scratch yours' policy comes into play.
If you want to really kick someone in the teeth... look at Intel, AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft. Microsoft keeps pushing inflated-fat pigs they called OS's. Intel and AMD keep shoving more cores at us while software vendors haven't recoded their app's to make use of them. AMD/ATI and nVidia keep throwing multi-card solutions at us to make up for inflated OS, poor drivers, and simply 'to make a buck'.
I'm not saying that there isn't something wrong with AOC or that it followed through on some of the promises... but I think this goes beyond the individual software vendors/publishers.
To quote the great Bill Clinton "...That depends on what your definition of "is" is."
I guess its pretty academic, the guy was probablly just venting. I think he has a decent case but he would be better off just doing a CC chargeback, hell I bet FC would refund him.
Judges are not illiterate and will understand the meaning of "enhanced".
The engine was built (enhanced) to work with DX10 , I have to say it again if your using this as an argument , Look up the definition , Not your own personal idea of what that means .
What you think when you pick up the box is irrelevant it comes down to how it is interpreted in a court of law , Thinking this is a sure fire win is going to far , Sure most customers probably took it to mean supported , that dosen't mean it does or doesn't . It just means they used curious wording on the box. Maybe as a safeguard , Maybe not .
Either way , Until you fnd a lawyer willing to take a huge corp to task for a 50$ purchase , And willing to do it pro bono ( otherwise what's the point?) . Noone will know how this evidence of fraud will hold up in court.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You could consider it that way, but at best its sloppy thinking at worse its wrong. The software runs on DOS period. Thats all it supports period. It uses Int21 int14 etc. It knows nothing of other operating systems and therefore can not 'support' them. It is XP that proides support for DOS applications not the other way round! To conclude because XP supports DOS apps - DOS apps support XP is a complete logical phallacy (as I am sure you know really).