|
kolpo
|
|
If the game doesn't work like it should after release or contains bugs. Then should the player be NOT thankful that the makers fixes it! He should demand it and if the makers don't fix them then should he NEVER again buy a game of the crapy, amateuristic company that would most likely go bankrupt soon. If they didn't released patched after SMAC wouldn't I buy civ3.
Even if there where no laws regarding car safety would they still test it! There are no laws that force companies to make golf sticks that don't break after first use. But all golf sticks are test so that that wouldn't happen. And this is because reputation is the most crutial thing for a company(the most important reason why we buy civ3 is the good reputation created by civ1 and civ2): very bad reputation=bankrupcy. One of the reasons why merceds can sell at higher prices then deawoo is because there cars have a much better reoputation(because of better testing, materials, engines,marketing,...).
And in fact can a program that doesn't work like proposed(like virus scan) in some instances be much more dangerous than a car that doesn't work. So I think there will soon(at least in EU where consumers rights are an isue) be laws that force companies to release quite bug free. I think there should be atleast rules like that.
If the client plays it smart is he the stronges part of the capitalistic economy. But if you start with the intention that you should be happy if they fix what they have done wrong then will the company be the most powerful side. Companies can't survive without clienst because of that should clients be more angry when companies do something wrong, they must unite themself and boycot the company until it does what they want, on this way can the client become the stronges part in a capitalistic economy. So again: if you don't like something about a product: complain about it and do it loud!
|
09-08-2001 15:38
|
|