🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bill Huffman" <bhuffma1@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hB9Vb.10078$Sv1.9600@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Darrylbar" <darrylbar@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040207085727.21861.00001363@mb-m14.aol.com...
> > Hello
> >
> >       So let me get this straight.  If one actually buys UC at $19.99
and has
> a
> > problem and tries to get tech support it will be denied (just beacuse of
the
> > price they paid).  Is this correct???
> >
> >        Now to be honest I haven't considered buying a BC game since I
got
> stuck
> > with the first one in the very beginning (store said "you opened it,
your
> stuck
> > with it" (and I will not even mention what the TAKE-2 tech reps said
before I
> > tried to take it back)).
> >
> >        So after all this time, I figured on giving UC a try, but if this
is
> > what I have to look forward too, I guess its a no go.  On the other
hand, have
> > I made an incorrect assumption from what you folks out there have
written?
>
> Mr. Smart has said that he will support the game. However, he's said that
his
> ability to support the game will be less because of financial constraints
caused
> by the budget price. One direct outcome of this that he's already
announced is
> that the patches for UC will contain bug fixes only. No improvements to
game
> play will be included in any patches for the game. This would be fine with
> everyone until you think back what Derek has denied are bugs. For example
it was
> a feature that allied ships would keep running into you and causing
damage. It
> showed the advanced AI of the game.
>


Heheh AI running into each other.  I wonder if that's what the testers found
amusing.

http://www.3000ad.com/soapbox/dc/AFFIDAVIT_OF_ROBERT_STEVENSON.PDF

Scroll down to #18.