TheMightyEthan

Must be, or someone researching for the channel reading joke names from twitter or some shit and not realizing it's a joke. That happens more than you'd think.

Okay, but you keep saying shit like "no expectation for Apple to cater for you, to provide support, or guarantee their services and software will fully work with your device". We're not talking about Apple catering to them, or guaranteeing anything will work. Why do you keep insisting we are? And what are you even talking about with "there's nothing saying they have to specifically mark it as such"? I'm saying that I believe that fucking consumer protection advertising laws might require that. So yes, there is something. You can't go advertising saying "this will work with all X products" when you know for a fact it won't and in fact designed it not to. They said it's compatible with certain models of phones, so if there's an exception to that they need to say what the exception is. Your comparison to Batman is just completely asinine. The only expectation is that the game as sold will work, but you are modifying the game. The only expectation is that the game code they provide you will work on the systems they say it will work on. In the case of this game they said it will work on certain phones WHEN IT WILL NOT. They lied. That is an entirely different situation.

I think the only time you're entitled to your money back from a KS is if it's like a scam, where they just took the money and ran. And even then, you only get it back if they can get it back from the people, KS isn't going to eat the loss. I have no idea what Steams policy is with Greenlight.

I agree backing a KS isn't a preorder, but they're not just straight investors either. Like HH said, it's a weird middle ground between the two.

Are you getting me and dean confused? Because I'm agreeing with you. I was responding to dean, but you and Jack got in between dean's post and mine (for some reason the forum didn't tell me that had happened).

I think it's more like a customer in terms of what they're expecting back. I would wager most people who back a game on KS back it because they want that game, whereas investors (typically) just want some kind of monetary return. Investors don't care how good the game is as long as it sells, while backers are going to want to get a game they enjoy.

@Dean: That is NOT the expectation, unless that is the norm. Atm the norm is that things work fine. As I have said IN EVERY POST I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD SO FAR: if the game just doesn't work because of a bug or something on jailbroken devices then yeah, you're SOL. But in this case THEY SPECIFICALLY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE IT NOT WORK. I'm not saying they have to mark every app that may or may not work, I'm saying they need to mark it IF THEY SPECIFICALLY DESIGN IT NOT TO WORK. ffs you love straw man arguments.

Because they know that people do use jailbroken devices on the store. To take a more extreme example, I'm pretty sure Apple could not get away with intentionally releasing an app that would brick any jailbroken phone it was installed on, no matter what their TOS says. Again, just because their TOS says something does not mean it's true, and, as I keep saying, there's a big (and I believe legally significant) difference between simply not guaranteeing that something will work on a jailbroken phone and actually making the thing not work without warning.

But Apple's TOS is not the be all and end all of what is legal for them to do. There are restrictions, no matter what the TOS says.

"People standing behind you" has always cracked me up in that warning.

It makes perfect sense: They stated on the KS that the scope of the project would be expanded (no matter how much you want to say they said it would just be more VA/music/translations, they did say the project would get better and better the more money they got), so it makes sense to expand the scope to use the funding that was given to them to use on the game. Going over budget, however, and risking the possibility that the project might not get finished or might have to be left with obvious holes for planned content that didn't make it is irresponsible. Why is that a weird outlook?

That would be Apple's position, yes, and I'm not saying that's not how it would come out, I'm just saying that until someone sues them over it (which is almost certainly not going to happen) I don't think it's so clear-cut that that's the result that would come about in court. Apple/Square/Eidos provided a product, for money, to a consumer, stating it works on certain devices, knowing that it was designed not to work on a subset of those devices, but with no warning that those devices were disabled from playing it.

But again, there's a difference between just not providing support, and it either works or it doesn't, take your chances, and this where they specifically went out of their way to make it not work. The former is fine, the latter is where they need the warning. And yes, they would refer to it as such: *Edit* - I'm guessing it's like you said and the devs just assumed that anyone on a jailbroken device would have pirated it, it didn't occur to them that anyone would buy it through the store on such a device, so they didn't think to put a warning on the store. It also wouldn't surprise me if Apple didn't know about the anti-piracy "feature" initially.

Oh right, I wasn't trying to defend our healthcare system at all.

Well and again, I'm not saying they'd be required to support the devices, just if they say it works on a given device it needs to specify that it does not work on jailbroken ones.

Why do you insist on arguing with lawyers about what the law is? Especially in a country you don't live in? Again, we're not talking about a bug on jailbroken devices, we're talking about specifically disabling it for jailbroken devices with no warning. They say it will work with iPhone 5, and I have an iPhone 5, but it doesn't work, because they designed it not to work. Which means they lied. If they make a statement, and there is an intentional exception to that statement, but they don't tell you about the exception, that is false advertising. You can't make a general statement, knowing it's not true in all cases, and then say "well we didn't say it would work in that specific case." *Edit* - Essentially my point is that there's a difference between simply refusing to go out of your way to support jailbroken devices and explicitly going out of your way to make things not work, when talking about "supporting" them. I would agree they're not required to ensure that everything that claims to be compatible with iPhone 5 works on a jailbroken iPhone 5, but if they know that it doesn't because they designed it not to then they damn well better put a caveat. All they had to do (and now have done) was

From what I've read (and no, I can't cite sources), studies have found that US healthcare really is the best in the world for those who can afford to pay, see specialists, etc, but for those who can't it's really horrible compared to the rest of the developed world. It also costs way more for a given level of care.

I disagree with you that it's legally valid. Or at least that it's so clear-cut that it's legally valid. They still can't lie in their advertising, so if they say it's compatible with certain kinds of iOS devices, and it is NOT compatible with those devices once jailbroken, and that lack of compatibility is due to a specific design decision, then they have lied in their advertising.

Right, but they were selling the product, listing it as running on certain devices, without a warning that they have specifically disabled it on jailbroken devices. If they'd had (as they do now) a warning that it doesn't run on jailbroken devices then I'd agree with you, or if it were just a glitch and they weren't offering tech support again I'd agree with you, but this was specifically designed not to run on them.

Yeah, anything like 80% off or more I won't bother waiting for a daily deal or flash sale.

Yeah, like I said, unlikely to be successful. Though I feel like they're asking for trouble given that 1) jailbroken devices are legal in the US and 2) there was originally no warning that it didn't work on them (though there is one now).

Bioshock 1 has probably the worst gunplay of any FPS that has been generally praised (I'm willing to concede that there are probably games with worse gunplay that were acknowledged as bad). You can't even turn off mouse acceleration without ini editing! Still a good game though and I totally recommend it. *Edit* - To be clear, I'm not just talking about the PC version either, I tried it on 360 back when it first came out and had to stop after half an hour because the aiming controls just felt so awful. PC with a mouse and editing the ini files to make it move reasonably is the only way to play it, and even then I never found the combat fun.

I just know that if I'd bought that game and that happened to me I would never buy another of their games ever again. I'd try to get a refund through customer support, but I don't think it's horribly likely that would be successful.

Deus Ex: The Fall doesn't allow shooting on jailbroken iOS devices. That's some bullshit right there. I don't mind it when devs do stuff like that to pirated versions of the game (like the cape thing on Arkham Asylum), but to do it to a purchased game just because the platform is unlocked is completely ridiculous.