(03-24-2012, 07:19 PM)Taelas Wrote: In my opinion, BioWare has an obligation to meet the expectations that arose as a direct result of those statements. If they can just hide behind 'artistic integrity', then that sets a precedent I don't care for.
Hardly a precedent, hyping a game and failing to meet your promises is par for the course in this industry, and in most industries. Where would Peter Molyneux be, if people could sue him for promising one thing, and delivering another? Almost all commercially available works are like this - you buy it as is, the parts you like and don't like just the same. It is very rare for a product to be radically changed after release. Video games more than most, but still not very much.
They have also said they're going to fix it, which is more than you'd get from the overwhelming majority of games companies.
Quote:Jester, I have seen the 'Amazon refunds' claim a lot and haven't seen a single refutation, so I'd say it's probably true (on the other hand, I haven't seen any proof, either)--but it's probably simply a publicity thing by Amazon, even if it is correct. The PR gained from allowing refunds probably outweighs the cost of the few refunds they actually have to pay for.
Looking into this, it is apparently standard Amazon policy for all items. This is not unique to ME3.
Quote:It obviously doesn't have any real legal standing; I'd be very surprised to see anything resulting from it. I'd still say they have a point, though.
They have a point that the ending sucks? Or they have a point that BioWare owes them for having made an ending they didn't like? Because those are very different propositions.
-Jester