The War Z devs

**Alundil** · 01-10-13, 04:46 PM

I think it is possible to have a discussion without getting into uncivil lines of comment (this isn't the drama forum, save it for that place).

With that said the WarZ devs instruct valve what info to put on the store page. Not the other way around. Titov (sp) said as much in the gamespy interview iirc.

That's in his own words.

As for Valve's diligence, or lack thereof, sure they didn't fact check the dev team's statements and that is their fault. I also believe they are in the process, as a result of this, of reviewing the submission requirements of existing approved developers (which is apparently why the feature page was accepted as it was by Valve in the first place).

As for who bought more copies where; Is that really an important point in the discussion? Isn't it enough to say that for a time, WarZ was the top selling game on Steam and that, by definition, accounts for a large number of people who purchased the title based off of the Steam page information (which was factually inaccurate)?

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

**Guyver** · 01-10-13, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

As for Valve's diligence, or lack thereof, sure they didn't fact check the dev team's statements and that is their fault. I also believe they are in the process, as a result of this, of reviewing the submission requirements of existing approved developers (which is apparently why the feature page was accepted as it was by Valve in the first place).

They shouldn't really have to fact check, though should they? I mean, I know that they will now, because of this...but if I recall, this is the first time something like this has ever happened since Steam launched. To me..to put any of the blame on Valve is crazy. It's not their job to keep another dev company honest...that's on soley on the WarZ team.

**Alundil** · 01-10-13, 05:37 PM

I disagree. A retailer (in this case Valve) should have an excellent understanding of "what" they are selling. They don't have to know how it works or is built or how to repair it. But they should have a good understanding of what they are selling.

**Guyver** · 01-10-13, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

I disagree. A retailer (in this case Valve) should have an excellent understanding of "what" they are selling. They don't have to know how it works or is built or how to repair it. But they should have a good understanding of what they are selling.

That's true...but, I still don't think you can put much blame on Valve for this. It's pretty cut and dry: Dev team lists a ton of stuff that's not in the game yet..and the buyers get pissed...and rightly so.

It doesn't matter if those features will be in the game later or not. The features were listed as current, not upcoming.

**CivilWars** · 01-10-13, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

I disagree. A retailer (in this case Valve) should have an excellent understanding of "what" they are selling. They don't have to know how it works or is built or how to repair it. But they should have a good understanding of what they are selling.

Do you think Gamestop or Best Buy read every label on every game the sell in their stores? Should they have to? Should they have responsibility if EA said VoIP is enabled on the BF3 box, but indeed it is not?

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-10-13, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Do you think Gamestop or Best Buy read every label on every game the sell in their stores? Should they have to? Should they have responsibility if EA said VoIP is enabled on the BF3 box, but indeed it is not?

Technically, there was VOIP for XBox and PS3.

**Alundil** · 01-10-13, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Do you think Gamestop or Best Buy read every label on every game the sell in their stores? Should they have to? Should they have responsibility if EA said VoIP is enabled on the BF3 box, but indeed it is not?

I see your point. I also think that there should be (is?) a difference between the digital medium in that regard and a brick & mortar structure. Might it make it more costly for a company like Valve to require some knowledge about the state of a salable good? It might. But is insuring that your customers aren't getting screwed (or feeling like they did) worth something in this equation?

Does a retailer have some expectation of quality or veracity in product descriptions from a vendor? They should.
Should they require attestation by said vendor of true, accurate salable quality? They should.
If GameStop sold you a broken game, or one that didn't live up to the boxed feature promises, do they bear some of the responsibility/fallout? Perhaps not legally or directly financially. Maybe they should though. It's a tough question and I am sure that there are consumer law attorneys watching this with some interest. In Valve's defense they quickly made their customers "whole" by offering full refunds.

**CivilWars** · 01-10-13, 06:02 PM

I don't see it as much different. Most/all brick and mortar companies say no refunds on opened PC games as a company policy. So, if I buy (insert title here) from Steam or Best Buy, and they advertise things that are not true, I am just as screwed either way in terms of getting my money back. Yes, I realize that Valve offered refunds to everyone, and Best Buy likely would too, but just going by regular policy. Me personally, if I bought a game that didn't live up to what it advertised I would blame the developer, not the distributor.

**i8pptuakamonstercam** · 01-10-13, 07:43 PM

Ya, blame the warz dev team for putting out something that wasn't even close to being finished.

If anything that hurts them way more than valve.

**Alundil** · 01-10-13, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

Ya, blame the warz dev team for putting out something that wasn't even close to being finished.

If anything that hurts them way more than valve.

Agreed and not doubting. Just thinking that value needs more product qa than they exhibited and it looks they are rectifying that.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.