Anyone else wish Valve would have remained silent?

[koopa]

Originally posted by OFFMason
According to judicial system they sure as hell are responsible. Release date doesn't mean, "We think it might be released this day"

No, they aren't responsible, and yes, that's exactly what a release date means. Everybody keeps trying to tell you that you're incorrect but you just keep repeating the same tired 'facts' over and over again.

They're not legally responsible, ok!

koopa dies :x

 

[Pjotr]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Gabe: no

Seriously, you want me to beleive this? You want me to beleive $6+ million USD is paid by ATI to include the game with shipping graphics cards only to know it's not going to ship for ages? BS. ATI thought this, for $6 million they would have known if it was late. It wasn't late, it got late due to the source theft and Valve is still keeping quiet about it and denying that was the cause because they will be liable to lawsuit if they admit it.

 

[mrchimp]

Originally posted by OFFMason
I believe that a majority of the people that will buy this game are die hard fans as myself.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[mrchimp]

Originally posted by Pjotr
Seriously, you want me to beleive this? You want me to beleive $6+ million USD is paid by ATI to include the game with shipping graphics cards only to know it's not going to ship for ages? BS. ATI thought this, for $6 million they would have known if it was late. It wasn't late, it got late due to the source theft and Valve is still keeping quiet about it and denying that was the cause because they will be liable to lawsuit if they admit it.

Wouldn't they be liable anyway?

ATi arn't going to sue there best marketing tool even if they could, they will still be able to package there cards with the game when it comes out.

Valve won't have sighned a document that would make them liable if they had too delay the game.

 

[Pjotr]

Originally posted by mrchimp
Wouldn't they be liable anyway?

ATi arn't going to sue there best marketing tool even if they could, they will still be able to package there cards with the game when it comes out.

Valve won't have sighned a document that would make them liable if they had too delay the game.

Well, someone has to prove it then. I mean, it's like being accused in court and admit the crime instead of having the prosecutor prove it.

 

[mrchimp]

I don't think it's going to be proven either way, becuase nobody is going to sue them for not releasing the game on time.

 

[OFFMason]

I'm 100% sure no one will sue damnit, I'm just giving you a view of how serious the situation is. They are ruining consumer confidence and that is a huge deal with this Presidential administration. No Release Date doesn't mean a maybe, its a company's official statement. Don't be a moron and try to say otherwise because when it comes down to it, Release Date is an official date announcement and official means its binding. Just because some people know that companies usually don't stick to their official release date, doesn't mean the definition of release date means "possible date of release", and its not ethical.

Once you make an official release date, a company is obligated to stick by it, because official also makes it a binding advertisment that the company must uphold. And once you provide otherwise, don't tell me your stupid hunches, give me some facts damnit. Don't tell me what everyone else thinks, because what matters here is the small minority that relied on Valve's official statement. Someone could've sold stock, bought a PC, and lost money in the stock market due to some influx of money. What if someone is a newbie gamer and had no idea that companies like Valve are "allowed" to break their release date annoucements when ever they please?

You all know what this does to Valve, people tried so hard to stay away from that very juicy beta to show Valve a sense of consumer loyalty. I really think they've lost the ability to ask us favors and I personally wouldn't mind if people download until their eyes pop. I wouldn't be surprised if a huge amount of gamers download the finished product. Why pay for such treatment?

 

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by OFFMason
Release Date is an official date announcement and official means its binding.......Once you make an official release date, a company is obligated to stick by it, because official also makes it a binding advertisment that the company must uphold......

companies like Valve are allowed to break their release date annoucements when ever they please......

I'm 100% sure no one will sue........

Waaait a minute. If an official release date is a binding date that a company is obligated to stick by and uphold, then why do you say they are allowed to break their release date whenever the please, and why are you 100% sure that no one will sue?

In case you missed it, my point is that it is not a binding statement and the comany is under no obligation to uphold it. Sure they might lose sales and hurt their fanbase, but there will not be any major consequences or legal problems resulting from it.

 

[OFFMason]

I'm 100% sure no one will sue, because you'll lose more money then you will gain by suing. I never said they were allowed to do anything, refer to the quotes around the word "allowed".


INCASE YOU MISSED IT, OFFICIAL = Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission. That means its fricken binding, as I suggested before, don't try to argue the law side of it with me until you have some facts.

Now get off the law side of it for a little, this isn't all about law. Law is just one side of it. The other side of it is that Valve is treating us like shit and acting very unprofessionally. The company can be hurt in both ways, by legal procedure and monetary lose, and by users downloading their product without paying due to their lacking consumer confidence.

 

[Neutrino]

Sorry about the quotes, I think I quoted you before you edited. I didn't take them out or anything.

Anyway, it just seemed like you were saying that a release date is a binding contract, when it is not.

 

[OFFMason]

It sure as hell is a binding statement and if people rely on that statement, they sure as hell are responsible for what ever you did in reliance.

 

[Neutrino]

I tend to disagree. A binding statement would imply some form of legal ramifications if broken. That is not the case however, so I don't see how it can be considered legally binding.

 

[OFFMason]

Its legally binding because its an official statement. As I said, there doesn't need to be a contract for a company to be held responsible for a reliance.

 

[Neutrino]

I don't wish to beat a dead horse, but....

Originally posted by OFFMason
Its legally binding because its an official statement.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a statement being official automatically dictates that it must be legally binding. If you have factual evidence to the contrary, then my apologies.

Originally posted by OFFMason
As I said, there doesn't need to be a contract for a company to be held responsible for a reliance.

I would tend to argue that there does need to be a contract. Granted, I'm not completely up to date on all the legal nuances involved in such a case, but I fail to see how a company can be held responsible for an action, or in-action, which was never part of a legal contract.

Perhaps, if there was actual physical harm resulting from the company's action or in-action then maybe a court would find them negligent. But, since there is no danger to public from a missed release date, I highly doubt a court would find valve guilty of any wrongdoing.

 

[OFFMason]

There is no danger physically only monetarily. Well I know all of these "legal" nuances, I've read my sister's law texts, she's a lawyer. She says its totally possible.

An official statement on behalf of an organization to a communtity is a binding statement. They could've kept their mouth shut, but they chose not to and rather entered an official written statement saying Sept 30. was the date to expect Half-Life. They never gave a braud date, they gave a specific date and they pushed the date up to a week before they said, "No we can't make it". Thats a very negligent action that both could've caused monetary damage and damage on consumer confidence which is a very big deal to President Bush.

 

[Neutrino]

Your up on all the "legal" nuances from reading some law texts? Where do you find the time to study so much law? That's pretty impressive. I'm very interested in what they have to say on the subject, so if you could possibly post what they have to say about it I would be much obliged.

(I was just wondering, why the quotes? I'm talking about whether something is legal. Not whether is is semi-legal or just kind of legal.)

I still haven't read anything to make me change my mind on the subject. Sure you can speculate all you want about the legality of it, but the fact that I have never heard of a single game company being held responsible for missing a release date, leads me to believe that they cannont in fact be held responsible.

If you can point to a specific case in which a gaming company was, in fact, held accountable for missing a release date, or if you can quote a legal text pertaining to the subject which supports your argument, then I will be perfectly happy to agree with you. But until then I maintain that the current evidence shows that a release date is not legally binding.

 

[OFFMason]

There is no precedent. But its definitly plausible. As I said in previous posts, I don't have the balls nor financial support to sue a gaming company, neither does anyone here. I suggest you read up on Promisary Estoppel. As I said, this isn't only a legal subject. This is also a market subject, they've influenced consumer confidence in a very negative way and President Bush doesn't take that lightly. He just isn't aware of the bullshit these companies dish out and what influence it has on our country. The gaming industry is a mult-billion dollar industry and this is a horrible **** up.

 

[Neutrino]

I still don't see any evidence or argument that shows that a release date is a legally binding contract. You say that this isn't only a legal subject. Ok, I agree, but I'm only concerned with the legality of it. I don't care about market issues or ethical issues. My argument is only about the legal issues. Ok, here's a way you can show me how Valve commited a legal wrong. Tell me exactly how you or others were direcly harmed by Valve delaying the game. I personally think that any harm to a person resulting from this is that person's responsiblitly, both morally and legalily. Though I still can't see how anyone could come to harm from this. Oh, and unless you have President Bush on the other line, I wouldn't let him argue for you. I doubt he gives a shit about some video game. He has a lot bigger fish to fry.

 

[OFFMason]

Not in the eyes of law. You sure you want to talk about the legality of this with me?

There is definitely an argument! Valve made an official Release Date, meaning they announced the time their product would be released, which is in fact the same as announcing that a contract will become available to your possible acceptance on a certain date. To fulfil the requirements of obtaining such a contract on this date, you need 2 things, money and a good computer. If you can prove that you bought a computer and saved money in a certain way because of the official release date, you have a great chance of winning the case.

Promisary Estoppel established that if a company promises to do something, which is what an official release date is, a promise to release a product om a certain date, then if you rely on that statement in a certain way, the company is liable for damages.

In law, a receipt after a purchase is a contract. So think of that for a second, now... if Valve says that you can obtain that contract on Sept. 30 and you've been preparing to meet that contract's guidelines up until that date, and that contract doesn't come on Sept. 30, they are completely responsible for what you did in preperation.

 

[Champ]

I fail to see any logic in this... You know how hard it would be to give an accurate release date? There's publishing delays, development delays, heck I think a certain company was even involved in a hacking delay, can you believe it?... Anyways, it's always sad when the release dates aren't met, but you need to look on the bright side.. If the developers/publishers were bound to some strict date, they wouldn't post it unless they were absolutely positive, which means they'd wait until they got a call from EBgames (or another shop) saying that the game had arrived. Only then could and would they make a statement. I think the current release dates/estimations are more than welcome although most of them turn out not to be true.

 

[OFFMason]

I'm totally fine with that. I rather have a positive date than to have my chain pulled. They don't turn out to be true because there aren't any consequences, no one is going to sue. IF THEY CAN'T GIVE ACCURATE RELEASE DATES, DON'T GIVE THEM.

 

[Champ]

I don't agree with you. It'll only cause unnecessary hassle... As I said before, I'm fine with the companys more or less guessing. To say that they should be sued because they don't meet their release date just stinks of that americanish "sue everything that can be sued" thing. Afterall they didn't do you any harm. Simply an information "error".

 

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by OFFMason
You sure you want to talk about the legality of this with me?

As scary as the concept is, I think I can muster the courage.

To fulfil the requirements of obtaining such a contract on this date, you need 2 things, money and a good computer. If you can prove that you bought a computer and saved money in a certain way because of the official release date, you have a great chance of winning the case.....

....Promisary Estoppel established that if a company promises to do something, which is what an official release date is, a promise to release a product om a certain date, then if you rely on that statement in a certain way, the company is liable for damages.......

.....they are completely responsible for what you did in preperation.

First, you say that if you can prove that you saved money in a certain way because of the release date you have a chance of winning the case. WHAT!? Your saying that you can hold a company responsible for causing you to save money? I'm not even going to comment on that one.

But you are still avoiding my question. What exact damages has anyone incurred as a direct result of Valve not meeting the release date? In order for there to be legal grievances, there must be some damages. So I ask again: Who has been hurt by this and what are the damages? You also mention the Promisary Estoppel and say the company is liable for damages. Again this just begs the question, what damages? Last, you talk about what you did in preperation. What did you do in preperation that injured you either monitarily or physcially?

For all your boasting of such a great legal knowledge I have yet to see a truly valid argument in support of your opinion that a release date is a legally binding contract, implying that the company can be held legalily responsible for failure to meet said release date.

 

[OFFMason]

Obviously you haven't read anything I've said, so I won't say anything further. Thats the problem with internet discussions, people think they can jump in half-assed into a discussion and expect to be admitted. I never said a release date is a binding contract you fool, I said the exact opposite, read up. Telling me my argument isn't valid when you haven't read my argument clearly is an ignorant thing to do. I've said how people can lose money, read up.

 

[OFFMason]

Champ you also haven't read anything I've said before. It is ethical to give a braud guess, not an exact date. Q1 2004 is a proper guess, not an exact date.

 

[Apos]

I sure wish they hadn't told us with such certainty that it was going to be Sept. 30, been so forthcoming and talkative about the game, and then after that fell through, they just pretty much vanished. I really felt like they were developing a great new relationship with fans, but it pretty much fell apart. I'm sure half of that is because after Sept. 30 fell through, they started getting tons of hate mail. They might also distrust fans that so eagerly and widely pirated their code.

But you know, it really sucks. Things were going so great, and I wish that, even after the delay fiasco (which, again, was a fiasco not because of the delay, but because they kept us in the dark about it for months), things had continued on apace, with friendly interchanges and discussions about source and all the cool stuff they were so excited about. I hope they're still excited. I'm crestfallen about the delay, and sad that I bought a whole new rig for a game that wont be out for much longer than I thought, but I'm still excited.

 

[OFFMason]

Apos is an example. Nice post Apos. Apos innocently thought Valve will stick to its date and he bought a new rig. Someone could've sold their stock to buy that rig, and who knows, maybe that stock went up and they could've gained a whole lot of money! Thats one example.

 

[Tamer17]

What confidence Valve will loose ? They dealyed the game that's all, every company delays thier games. Look and DNF , the should have been no comunity about the game , but there is after all the crap they have been getting.

Valve won't lose any buyer . HL1 was delayed for a year and it din't affect anything.


The only reaction that was created was upset , that is now dissapearing . However , there are still people (like you) that are extremly upset for no good or logical reasons.

 

[Apos]

Sorry OFFMason, but there is no legal case to be had at all. A public promise does not create any liability, even if you do things in anticipation of it, especially if they've never even heard of you or talked you personally about what you have to do to "fulfill" a contract that doesn't even exist yet. We're just plain out of luck.

 

[OFFMason]

Jeeze people. If you have no legal background don't attempt arguing. Look up Promissory Estoppel for gawd sakes.

PROMISORY ESTOPPEL - Promisory Estoppel
The doctrine allowing recovery on a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promisee relied to his or her detriment.

 

[MultiVaC]

Originally posted by OFFMason
Apos is an example. Nice post Apos. Apos innocently thought Valve will stick to its date and he bought a new rig. Someone could've sold their stock to buy that rig, and who knows, maybe that stock went up and they could've gained a whole lot of money! Thats one example.

You can't blame Valve for that. People who bought a new system didn't get ripped off or anything of the sort. They got what they paid for. It's not like the rig requires HL2 to run. There no way you can claim financial damages for something you bought.

 

[The Dark Elf]

keep on topic or take this to private, thanks.

 

[Neutrino]

Originally posted by OFFMason
Obviously you haven't read anything I've said, so I won't say anything further. Thats the problem with internet discussions, people think they can jump in half-assed into a discussion and expect to be admitted. I never said a release date is a binding contract you fool, I said the exact opposite, read up. Telling me my argument isn't valid when you haven't read my argument clearly is an ignorant thing to do. I've said how people can lose money, read up.

Yes, that's very mature of you.

Ok, I'll begin with your statement that, "I never said a release date is a binding contract you fool." Here's a few quotes to refresh your memory:

Originally posted by OFFMason
Once you make an official release date, a company is obligated to stick by it, because official also makes it a binding advertisment that the company must uphold......

....INCASE YOU MISSED IT, OFFICIAL = Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission. That means its fricken binding....

....It sure as hell is a binding statement....

....Its legally binding because its an official statement......

....An official statement on behalf of an organization to a communtity is a binding statement......

....Valve made an official Release Date, meaning they announced the time their product would be released, which is in fact the same as announcing that a contract will become available to your possible acceptance on a certain date......

Now, let move on to, "I've said how people can lose money, read up." Here's what you said on this subject:

Originally posted by OFFMason
1) I'm sure there were a few people who might not have known that these dumb companies usually go over the release date, bought some new PCs in preperations for the game and lost money....

2) The release date is in actuality a date in which a company will present an offeree with an offering, contract or product and its almost like giving an offeree the opportunity to accept a contract by buying the game, and to some people they must prepare in advance be it financial reasons or otherwise. If this were to go to court, Valve would be fully responsible for the reliance issue.....

3) And if someone buys a new computer so that they can be ready to play on that date, and the game isn't released due to a very unprofessional late notice by the company, the company is responsible.....

4) Someone could've sold stock, bought a PC, and lost money in the stock market due to some influx of money.....

5) Someone could've sold their stock to buy that rig, and who knows, maybe that stock went up and they could've gained a whole lot of money!....

1) How is this person losing money? They receive a brand new PC in exchange for their funds.
2) Some people must prepare in advance, financially? How is this damaging them?
3) Again how is receiving a new computer for your money considered damaging.
4) This one has a slight amount of merit to it. But the only loss of money would occur IF the stock would have risen at a later date. But how do you prove, in a court of law, that Valve is directly responsible for this person selling their stock? What if the stock drops right after they sell it to buy a computer. Then Valve would be responsbible for saving them money.
5) Same argument as number 4.

To conclude:

Originally posted by OFFMason
I'm no lawyer, so I can't argue whether or not Vavle is guilty of false advertisement and so on....

Exactly.

Before you start insulting me more, take notice that I was attempting to have a logical argument about an interesting subject. If you feel that you have a valid opposing argument, then by all means tell me how I'm wrong using a logical analysis and facts. I'm more than happy to listen. But if you just wish to call me a fool and say I am ignorant, then feel free to keep it to yourself.

Edit: Sorry Fenric, you posted that while I was typing mine. I would appreciate you leaving it though since I think it is an interesting subject non-the-less, and I think I should be able to defend myself.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Edit: Sorry Fenric, you posted that while I was typing mine. I would appreciate you leaving it though since I think it is an interesting subject non-the-less, and I think I should be able to defend myself. [/B]

Well, since its christmas and I'm in a strangely good mood I'll leave it be. I wont close the thread yet unless it keeps on like this. I want to see this thread get back on track now, you've both had a chance to have your say so in the interests of others its best to leave it now, shake hands and be friends again or take it to private.

 

[mrchimp]

Originally posted by OFFMason
They are ruining consumer confidence and that is a huge deal with this Presidential administration.

Dude you are on crack.

 

[Neutrino]

Hey Fenric, you need to clean out your PM inbox. It's getting too crowded and won't receive. =)

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Hey Fenric, you need to clean out your PM inbox. It's getting too crowded and won't receive. =)

heh yeah just got the email about it, cleaned it up now try sending again, sorry about that.

 

[iamaelephant]

OFFManson shut the hell up. Someone had to say it. Just shut the absolute fuck up.

 

[OFFMason]

And in those quotes I never said a Release date is a contract, put on some glasses. Please look further into my "quotes" to find the answers to your questions for I will not go on to repeat the examples I already gave.

You can not give a release date unless you are sure its being released, or you give a reasonable amount of time before you delay. Its very unprofessional and ethical and thats what it comes down to. This is a huge PR **** up, and **** ups deserve punishment.

 

[OFFMason]

iamaelephant, lol

Just because I'm right doesn't mean it should ruin your day. Be gone.