Abulurd Boniface
Gallente
Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration
   |
Posted - 2008.12.26 15:02:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Abulurd Boniface on 26/12/2008 15:04:40
 Originally by: Nik W
How was what they did not classified as a crime? It's pretty clear in the EULA that broken game mechanics - "exploits" - are not to be used.
CCP should have fixed it, absolutely. But just because it works doesn't mean you aren't blatantly cheating. The fact they petitioned it shows they knew it shouldn't do that, but it did..
I do not accept that this is an exploit. If CCP were indeed aware of how this functionality works and did nothing then it acquires the status of 'feature'. Obviously it has a very disruptive character, but CCP decided to ignore the issue. A major lapse of common sense.
The EULA statement that broken game mechanics are not to be used brings a warm smile to my face. It's the user now who has to be an expert on what constitutes broken game mechanics? I don't think so. It is the designer's product and their sole responsibility. The user has many things going on in their life: the kids are yelling, the wife is kvetching, the boss is nagging and 500 emails need urgent responses. The tax man wants part of your liver, the car dealer needs the last payment, mother-in-law is visiting for 2 weeks and the dog just emptied its entire gastro-intestinal tract on the new carpet. And oh yeah, about that online game thing you were playing? Please acquire expert knowledge of game mechanics so that when you find something that doesn't work as we intended [but we're not telling you how it is supposed to work in the first place], you can refrain from using it and report it to us so we can ignore it for 4 years.
No, my dear friends. CCP can scarcely be bothered to explain how the very basics of its game works and offers a laughable help system that does not address most of the questions the user has about how the environment works. Now an obscure feature in the game apparently malfunctions and the user who, after reporting it only to find their petition ignored, finds the functionality to keep working the way they found it to be working for YEARS ON END, can only conclude that this is in fact how the functionality was intended to work.
Thus, working within the limits of what the game allows, after having reported it and found their petition answered with deafening silence, it is the paying customer who bears the brunt of the belated wrath of the constructor for using functionality the constructor introduced and did not bother to adjust after having been notified of an apparent anomaly.
Tell me, in terms a lay men can understand, how it is the paying customer who has to suffer the consequence of the incompetence of the constructor's manufacturing process.
If this was, as it appears to be, a bug it is CCP's responsibility to fix it. They should restore the POS installations to their owners and reinstate the accounts deleted for using the system. If they knew about the problem and did not choose to address it, holding the customer responsible for manufacturing faults is a feat of astounding callousness.
Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO
For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease. |