Originally Posted by
Symphony
Unlikely...the goalposts would simply move again, in all likelyhood.
See, you're spawning up all sorts of interesting things to discuss, in terms of entertainment industry standards. Are movies and games an apples-to-apples comparison? Is making a movie that will run beginning to end without hitches or performance issues a fair comparison, given that movie projection equipment is fairly standard, and PC game developers are developing for decidedly non-standard equipment and software? You're trying to portray them as if they self-obviously ARE equivalent, because it helps make your argument, but are they really? Console developers have far fewer potential platforms to consider....should they have yet a different standard? What exactly defines a "performance issue" in either medium? Is the process of making a game that will run (not considering quality of entertainment, just plain RUN) simply harder than making a movie, given that one is interactive and the other isn't? Should it matter when defining consumer protection standards? Does the different amount of content matter (most modern games have far more content than modern movies)?
I've had movies "break" in the theater...the sound gets messed up, the focus is off or falls off during the showing, etc. Now, these were all clearly problems with the theater, and had nothing to do with the film...I'm certain those films ran fine in other theaters. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this; how does a standards-enforcing agency define the line between local hardware (or software) responsibility and the filmmaker/developer? How and when do you investigate (and who pays for the investigation) into whether a game performance issue truly is a code issue (many are), or a certain local hardware or driver (or combination) issue (which many also are)?
How do you translate bugs like the siege AI hanging up? Technically, the game still runs, and you can let the timer run out to end the battle and keep playing, but that seriously impairs the entertainment experience. Does that translate to a movie just stopping, or is that more equivalent to a special effect that simply looks horrible and ruins the experience for a time, or an actor giving a really horrible performance in one scene?
Those are all things a governing body would have to consider when setting standards, and there's a lot of room for opinion, movement, and discussion in those questions. It'd make for a fairly interesting discussion here (at least, interesting to me....this is where I was going when i even questioned the point in the first place).
But, you've set a completely arbitrary (and variable) entrance criteria on "having a serious discussion" on any of those things...I suppose because artificially containing the discussion makes it easier for you to feel like you're winning (even though it's not really a win/lose discussion)? I don't know....just speculation. In any case, I have zero interest in trying to meet your arbitrary criteria....you already moved the posts once, I choose not to play that game. Hopefully, somebody else wants to pick up some of those questions, and there'll be an interesting discussion.