Originally Posted by gibxxi
To Luthier & Oleg et al;
Sorry to say this after you've produced what looks to be the most exciting development in flight sim gaming for some time, but you've made a BAD mistake implementing this filter, and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, the whole issue has "knee-jerk reaction" written all over it. Due to one isolated case of photo-sensitive epilepsy, you've now neutered a game for 3/4 of the worlds potential players over a perceived risk that will, at-best affect 0.01% of that same population. And even if such cases do arise, which undoubtedly they will, will be very unlikely to result in serious injury or death in all but the most unusual or freakish of situations. And I can't see any judge awarding in favour of a plaintiff who disregarded or ignored suitable warnings.
I understand why you've done it. With the discovery coming so close to release date, you've implemented this quick fix (which I'd prefer to call a nasty hack), but your time over the last month would of been much better spent contacting Ubisoft's legal department to see how the laws stand in countries where the game is to be released.
Also, being Russian, and therefore not used to European / American / Western laws, I can also see how the fear of being sued into oblivion would prompt you to take some action. However the notion you provide that this filter cannot be made optional due to the risk of being sued is fundamentally flawed.
In the UK, AFAIK, the ONLY requirement for any product that may induce photo-sensitive epilepsy is that a disclaimer notifying users of the potential dangers is prominently displayed. Be it either in the packaging, or within the program. There are no lawful provisions in this country (yet) that make such a filter a mandatory requirement. Nor can i envisage a situation where any such law would be passed.
As to the poster who commented about the possibility of their child wandering into the room and suffering an attack by accident; that is scaremongering at best, and clutching at straws at worst. As a responsible adult and a parent, it is my responsibility to be aware of the risks to my child and therefore protect him from them. For example, keeping chemicals & medicines out of his reach are two prime examples. The law does not mandate that I must not or cannot use said medicines or chemicals because I have children. To do so would be health & safety gone mad. Being a safety rep at my place of work I'm well aware of how health & safety law applies in the workplace as well as in the home.
Take another point which I've often used to argue that these companies that offer "no-win-no-fee" cases to people ought to be themselves outlawed; If I'm walking along the high street and trip on a uneven flagstone, I should not be able to then sue my local council for damages because I was too inept / blind / stupid to be looking where I was walking in the first place. As long as the council at least followed the laws of the land to ensure my reasonable safety, the rest of the responsibility lies with me as a somewhat mature, rational, responsible adult.
Claims culture is a method of greed by people to obtain money under false pretences for injuries to which they were too ignorant to take the risks into account for themselves. The majority of sane, responsible adults should not be made to pay for the idiotic actions of those who are determined to injure themselves despite warnings and precautions put in place to protect them.
All that would be required if this issue did present any significant risk, would be to up the age restriction to 18's and over and as I've already said provide a disclaimer, and as some companies do, list measures how such risks of seizure can be avoided WITHOUT neutering the game from the get go.
I can tell you one law that will hurt you more than any perceived damage from Epilepsy. It's called the Sale of Goods Act. The product has to be fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and must be able to run according to the specifications that are published along with it. If I were Maddox games I'd be more worried by people suing me over the reduction in performance this filter brings with it, rather than the minuscule chance of an adverse epileptic reaction. It doesn't matter if patches are later released to "address" this issue. If the game is released on the 31st across the West, unable to be run on the specifications you as developers, and Ubisoft as publishers have mandated, you'll lose a hell of a lot more money in returns, cancellations and court cases than all the seizure court cases that would ever likely to be brought against you.
I don't see Call of Duty shipping with a mandatory filter. The only differences i can see aside from one being simulator and one FPS, is that one is at ground-level so there are less strikingly contrasting colours suddenly appearing, even when there are flashes and such like. White muzzle flashes, prop discs, debris are of course going to be more noticeable on a flight sim at 20,000ft, it goes without saying. And anyone with half a brain in their head will realize this too, however that does not excuse neutering or removing features because of it.
Kudos to Luthier for having the balls to confess to the origin and nature of such a filter. I do wonder if he would of been so forthcoming with the information had it not surfaced on the Russian forums first though. But either way you look at it, this is a rushed hack job that was shoe-horned in to keep the release on schedule. But the only mistake was not allowing responsible adult gamers the ability to CHOOSE for themselves what risks they wish to subject them or their immediate family to. You dropped the ball here guys.
It won't tempt me to cancel my pre-order, but be prepared for some very long-lasting negative feedback around the globe if this decision isn't rectified / reversed quickly. A scandal is what it will very likely turn into otherwise.
|
03-26-2011, 05:53 AM
Linear Mode
