Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?
- Thread starter m0rl0ck
- Start date
Oh wait, you're serious?
[video=youtube;45QgF9Ha7kE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QgF9Ha7kE[/video]
Out of curiousity...I'm excited to learn what exactly you think I wasn't being serious about?
"From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices"
Lol, seriously? There is an enormous gulf between "all modes are equal" and "all modes are equally valid choices". Did wings, CQC, or multicrew make solo mode less valid? Wings had already been released at the time of that quote, and the thread the quote is in is a dev update about CQC (a strictly multiplayer feature).
Here you go, I've snipped the parts that don't need sourcing or clarifying:
Whoa, when it's shown like that your comment looks like an irrelevant, vague, drunken rant.
And you thought you were being serious, that's the funniest part [haha]
Are you the OP's lawyer?
Hence the kerfuffle.
Smart money's on Brookes knowing what he's doing.
Oh I get you I think. You want a link to the statement? I'll ignore the rest as you being a bit of an Empire Ranker.
Bear with me, I'll go find it, as it's very interesting. Don't ask me any questions on it though. Anyone else feel free.
*Has another glass of a cheeky Chilean Pinot Noir*
Here you go.
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter
Good read. Loads of accompanying stuff too, but you can Google all that as I'm not really motivated to do anything for you...you know? Read what Ride and I were talking about earlier in this thread for context, otherwise you might miss it.
Fund's worth $1.7 TRILLION, might be worth Googling Larry Fink too. Worth taking it on board if you run a large business which requires funding, I'm sure you'd agree.
Oh...and you're welcome
Last edited:
He was. I have pictures.
Exactly. Even if they went back and changed this statement- the original implication still applies, as it was made even before the release of the game.
People can perceive it however they wish, mock others for their discontent by saying "but it's a game!", but the fact remains its a product that the customer bought as advertised, with assurances being made by agents of the company. Changing PP may not be enough to warrant a legal case, but as I said, changing the inherent nature of a product after it's been advertised, sold and delivered would indeed make for an interesting suit. It's like a car company telling you that although you bought a pickup truck now they can exchange it for a sedan, because you signed a purchase agreement (EULA) saying they may modify your purchase at any time, for any reason. I doubt seriously that would stick in court as a rebuttal.
People using the EULA as an excuse are also apparently not seeing that if that were the case, FD could change ED into a Farming Simulator at their own whim- which I'm quite sure they would equally support, yes? I don't think so. The reality here is there are limitations, whether you "like" them or not as to what a company may do with a product after it's been sold and delivered as advertised. Just because it doesn't suit your argument doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it.
Last edited:
We have an agreement...you promised.
Awa an dry yer eyes princess.
There's a lot in that Larry Fink statement that's relevant to all that too, Sylveria. Worth a look if you haven't seen it already. It's certainly going to be a trend if those guys are on the charge now.
Would +1 but the systems broken
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous post i’ve read this year.......and a very public defamatory statement to boot. Hopefully there are no lawyers reading it or they might sense blood in the water.
.......or is it just a bit of fun guys?
Last edited:
Think of it as a collection, of simple "suggestions".
Last edited:
To help calm your worries..
Not to worry- already covered in my prior response to Fre(t)nox. Apparently some choose to cherry-pick their arguments and statements, instead of being informed throughout all of the issues.
I doubt we'll see a "confirmation" in any of his YouTube videos, however- it doesn't suit his argument therefore he'll ignore it and continue with propaganda instead.
You need to re-read his quote because "I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...(23-07-2015)?p=2581431&viewfull=1#post2581431
Specifically all play modes are equally valid choices the thing which is equal in this statement is the validity of the choice - or in other words that if one player chooses open and another chooses solo their choices are equally valid (as in, neither of them are elite'ing wrong).
Like I've said before, I trust Sandro's "word" about as much as I expect Trump to make all US borders completely open.
Yet, some modes are given exclusivity in features over others? That's not the definition of "equal", perhaps you need to consult a dictionary. (unless you want to rely on movie quotes as a "source" citation)
Last edited:
I can't help you here.
He didn't say the modes were equal.. he said the choice was equally valid.. you can see that right?