Now what is an objective interpretation of “gamebreaking?”
One could safely assume that “gamebreaking” would mean the lack of an ability to do a basic advertised function of the product provided, no?
All bugs aside, all little intricate discrepancies and igglings that people might find troubling or problematic, does the core features of the game work in a fundamentally advertised way?
As it stands, on the playstation 4, no they do not.
So why are the issues that stand in the way of the basic core functions of the game not being addressed immediately? The developers add a patch that breaks the core,advertised and sold as such, function of the game. Yet nothing is being done about it. No acknowledgment what so ever.
Are these issolated instances, rare happen stances pr chances specific to a certain element of the games kinks? No. This is a core aspect of the game that was advertised and sold that does not function at all.
Is this blatant gamebreaking issue not addressed because there is an ability for hard copies of the game to forgoe gamebreaking patches and because the core functions of the game “work” out of the box, the developers/publishers can still sell the product as advertised?
All the issues aside, all of them. As it stands right now, i am unable to use this product the way it was advertised because of a “patch” that was implemented.
Okay, so where is my ability to “roll back” this patch and continue to use the product that was advertised to me? There isn’t, at least not for a digital purchase. My copy of the product is downloaded as a whole, patches included. Does this not mean that the product is expected to function as advertised? Apparently not, according to Sony Entertainment America, Funcom, and the developers of this product.
Apparently because of some disclaimer made acknowledged after purchase, false advertisement is well and okay. This product is sold without disclaimer of its game breaking dysfunctions right now on the playstation store, on sale to boot!
How is this not false advertisement? How is this not criminal trespass onto another persons? I do not know the technical term for taking advantage of other persons in the market setting, if there is another term used other than false advertisement,
but one could reasonably assume that the advertised product needs to be maintained as such, otherwise it would be labeled a crime of FALSE ADVERTISEMENT,
Now here is the thing. In all intellectual property disclaimers there is something always written along the lines of “not responsible for any and all past, present, and future “problems” that might occur through usage of this product, and as such, will not be held accountable any and all entities that made the product as such.”
Right and true, and as such needs to be done to withhold legal ramifications from the inevitable mistakes of computer coding, but…
THIS PRODUCT IS BEING SOLD WITHOUT PROVIDING THE ADVERTISED FUNCTION OF THE PRODUCT!
Within reason, right?
Roll back the game breaking patch, the one that prevents me from using the product as advertised.