I was hoping that both would be really good. I was looking for something better than Fallen Skies but...

With the news that the Game and the Show are going their own seperate ways with minimal crossover I do not have much hope of either being good for long if at all. I played all the betas and bought the PC version and got to see most of the first episode and everything just does not fit together. The holes in the game, mainly the story, are deeper in the show but the show is in St Louis with little to no impact on the Game set in San Fran. Bummer. 

This game has proven to be a bit too much for Trion to handle with consoles and PC and the Show itself. They have had to take to path of least resistance so unless Trion pulls out a ace in the hole they are in trouble. I don't see Syfy holding on to this show for longer than 2 seasons. 

Holodecks

or more like converting a room into a 3D environment with a console that has holographic projections and also has wires to hook up to your body for that extra special getting shot effect.

BTW: most of the tech exists so it is just a point about costs. In 50yrs we may even pass that technology.

[QUOTE="Synlore59"]

Yeah good points. I was partially thinking in general terms but everyone raises good points too.

For the time duration this is a big one because like you say, games can be beaten in such short time frames that returns would be viewed rightfully as free rentals. If the policy was say 10hrs from receipt time then maybe that could work to compensate.

Generally once a game is opened it is considered "used" even if it was not used which is a bogus loophole that retailers love to exploit. They do this because they have a cost of wrapping and inventoring that they don't want to have to do again. They used to do this up until about 92 when they realized they could just screw the consumer instead and then changed policies.

But the arguement is for the people that do not do research (or as deep of research as we do and even then it is a gamble...) when they purchase a great new game becuase it is in the ad of Target or on as a TV commercial 50 times a day (ahem SWFU2!). These are the mass market, the parents, the general consumer, or someone that is just buying a game for another person. If the game was not so good and you knew after 10min that this was not what you wanted to pay for then some kind of compensation should be available. Store credit would be good. I think this is one of only a few ways that the industry as a whole will listen to the demands and expectations of its consumer base.

Tropictrain

I understand what you're saying, but there's just no way for the store to know if the game has been played or not. Or how long it's been played. In an ideal world where customers can be trusted, then the scenario you proposed would work great. But customers lie. They lie a lot. So it sucks for those of us that are honest, but I don't blame the stores for doing what they do. I would do the same.

Yes but that is where the Publishers come into play also. The Publishers tell the Retailer what they will accept back or not (for returns and overstock). The retailer then can choose to create thier own return method for software. The problem is that the Publisher will only accept back overstock or faulty product (sometimes!). The Pubs do not accept unhappy customer satisfaction returns for any reason and mostly because they know what they sold you in the first place (they dont want it either!) and are too busy hitting the profit margin to care about me or anyone else. So the retailer gets stuck with an opened item. Back in the day a smart retailer could just repackage and resell but with the complications of item identifiers (Product codes, registration, etc) they do not have a way to bypass this. Publishers make deals with retailers every couple months to get new games to market and that includes reabsorbing the recent leftover crap from before(all the rest turns into those nice $5-$15 bargin bins: note you never see Final Fantasy/GTA/GoW/Star Wars?etc for $10 in there!). It's not like Publishers couldn't take back the games from unhappy customers its just that they won't because they know the truth from day 0. They had a QA team tell them exactly what the expectations would be for game X. They already know that the game will take 4.5hrs to beat. :)

Sure there are cheaters out there and that was a real big deal that led to the no return/refund policy but Retailers could have just did a better job at returns in the first place rather than bending over to the Publisher who created the game in the first place.

Yeah good points. I was partially thinking in general terms but everyone raises good points too.

For the time duration this is a big one because like you say, games can be beaten in such short time frames that returns would be viewed rightfully as free rentals. If the policy was say 10hrs from receipt time then maybe that could work to compensate.

Generally once a game is opened it is considered "used" even if it was not used which is a bogus loophole that retailers love to exploit. They do this because they have a cost of wrapping and inventoring that they don't want to have to do again. They used to do this up until about 92 when they realized they could just screw the consumer instead and then changed policies.

But the arguement is for the people that do not do research (or as deep of research as we do and even then it is a gamble...) when they purchase a great new game becuase it is in the ad of Target or on as a TV commercial 50 times a day (ahem SWFU2!). These are the mass market, the parents, the general consumer, or someone that is just buying a game for another person. If the game was not so good and you knew after 10min that this was not what you wanted to pay for then some kind of compensation should be available. Store credit would be good. I think this is one of only a few ways that the industry as a whole will listen to the demands and expectations of its consumer base.

The thread on returning the Kinect raised a great issue - What do you as consumers think about not being able to return a game for a refund? Even if there was a time limit like 5 days or something.

One thing that always gets me going is that if I buy a game that ends up being not so good for $49.99 then I want to return it. I don't want to own some crap and shouldn't be forced to hawk it up on Amazon to get rid of it. I just find it insulting that Game Publishers and Retailers refuse to own up to their product standards by refusing to take back the POS they sell us. Granted not all games are bad but if they suck and someone buys it then they should have the right to return it.

What does anyone else think?

We can only hope that World of Darkness will be the reincarnation of Vampire TM.