Does the base game come with Tacview and does it work?

[blond_knight_new]

So does Tacview come with the game? I assume so since its advertised with it. But Im seeing they offered a bundled version of the game with Tacview. Is this a better version? Whats the differences between the one that comes with the game?
And am I right in seeing that alot of people are having trouble with Tacview working correctly?

[boogabooga]

No, Tacview is an extra purchase, but like you have seen, you can get it for a discount in a bundle. I suspect that most of the community feels that it's not really necessary for CMO, but it can also use be used for example with DCS or Il-2, so it's up to you.

It was not working in earlier versions of the beta this summer, but it seems to have been fixed now.

[thewood1]

A recent poll on how people use Tacview with CMO

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=385669

[blond_knight_new]

Does it come with the base game? Its in the video advertisements so it better come with the base game or MG/Slitherine misrepresetted it.

[thewood1]

Does it come with the base game? Its in the video advertisements so it better come with the base game or MG/Slitherine misrepresetted it.

Because asked so nicely. From the store page features section...

"Support for real-time Tacview 3D view (NOTE: separate purchase of Tacview Advanced edition required)"

[blond_knight_new]

Ah OK thank you for pointing that out to me. Though I didnt see it labeled that way in the promo videos. In the videos it appears to be an integral part of the product.

[thewood1]

Thats why you read the entire page before making claims about the dishonesty of the devs.

[Gizzmoe]

Thats why you read the entire page before making claims about the dishonesty of the devs.

He didn't say that they are dishonest, don't be so harsh He said "In the videos it appears to be an integral part of the product", and yes, I just viewed the promo vid on Steam the first time ever, and he is not wrong. Under EU-rights that kind of "commercial" would have a problem, it leaves out details in the beginning, the fine-print, the first time it mentions that is Tacview is optional at 1:08 in the vid as a side note. Do I think the devs/the publisher try to be dishonest and deceitful? No, absolutely not, they just should have included the fine-print right at the beginning of the vid, to give the potential buyers a realistic picture of what the base game includes.

[thewood1]

Steam front page.

Screenshot 2022-08-08 183104.jpg (27.77 KiB) Viewed 1576 times

[thewood1]

"MG/Slitherine misrepresetted it"

I don't know what the definition of dishonest is where you come from, but thats pretty close to what it is in my locale.

Coming in like he did and just asking seems fine to me. Then coming back in and saying I didn't realize it and maybe it should be more prominent is along the same lines. But as soon as you say "misrepresent", there's a legal definition at play.

[Gizzmoe]

Steam front page.

Screenshot 2022-08-08 183104.jpg

Yes, that should all be very obvious for potential buyers, and it IS obvious from my pov, but that is not the point, he talked about the video.

[thewood1]

It doesn't matter to me or a US/EU legal entity. Its on the same page as the video. The basic expectation of fraud and marketing misrepresentation is that the buyer does not have access to the relevant information through actions of the seller. Even inadvertent action is generally excused if the seller responds to the buyer with a reasonable solution in a reasonable time.

And even setting that aside. Just common courtesy would have been to ask the question before using a legally loaded term.

[thewood1]

While an overreach, libel comes into play in the US. To claim a company is misrepresenting its product can be construed as defamation, if untrue. Of course here there are probably no real damages, but if you decided to go to court claiming misrepresentation of a product, the countersuit would be defamation by written word.

[Ataraxzy]

Thats why you read the entire page before making claims about the dishonesty of the devs.

You've put the onus in the wrong direction. OP's not the one profiting off of potential confusion.

What you should have said is:

That's why the Devs stringently vet every piece of media to make sure that they don't inadvertently put themselves in the position of having to explain what looks to be an incredibly dirty trick.

Clearly they didn't. Clearly they should have. Clearly it's a mistake. But equally clearly, it's causing problems that could have easily been solved with a touch more oversight.

[Gizzmoe]

While an overreach, libel comes into play in the US. To claim a company is misrepresenting its product can be construed as defamation, if untrue. Of course here there are probably no real damages, but if you decided to go to court claiming misrepresentation of a product, the countersuit would be defamation by written word.

Don't worry, there will never be any lawsuits against the devs because of that old promo video If I am wrong, I owe you a 100 beers.

[thewood1]

Not true. The storefront pages on both Steam and Matrix state Tacview is sold separately. Could it be more prominent or highlighted? Yes. But its not misrepresenting anything. Any judgment is based on a reasonable expectation that the buyer will make an effort to use the available information. The video is on a storefront page. Every judgement will look at the reasonable expectation that the buyer had to find the information. Its on both pages with a simple scroll down. You don't have to state that Tacview doesn't come with the game at every spot on the store page. Otherwise, the buyer can expect to get all the DLC included in the game. A reasonable expectation specifically on a website is that the info is on the main page or a clear link is provided with the appropriate terms.

When you look at the top of the Steam or Matrix page, do you immediately think everything is included? Is there an expectation that the buyer journey will make you scroll down? If you watch that video on steam, is there not a reasonable expectation the buyer will at least scroll down to read the information on the game before hitting the purchase button? And as a safety catch, on Steam, the buyer has two hours of game time to return the game. In almost any judgement, that is blanket reasonable accommodation.

[Gizzmoe]

That's why the Devs stringently vet every piece of media to make sure that they don't inadvertently put themselves in the position of having to explain what looks to be an incredibly dirty trick.

Incredibly dirty trick????? Come on, you are such a drama queen, it's just some vid that should have been presented a little been differently, nothing more

[Gizzmoe]

Not true.

You don't need to "sell" that to me, I am basically on your side. It's just not a Black/White story, there are greyscales.

[thewood1]

Wasn't meant for you, unless you feel left out.

Just so you don't feel left out...

"there are greyscales"

This is not a grey area. He stated quite clearly he thought the devs misrepresented the product in its promotion and store. How is that grey?

If he had come in and said, "I was a little disappointed that Tacview is a separate sale. Matrix should update their website and make a little more clear". Even threatening to not buy the game or returning it is an appropriate response. But declaring the the devs are misrepresentative with their product and promotion does more then imply deceitfulness and dishonesty.

This harkens back to the original release of CMO with Tacview support and some people complaining that it should have been part of the CMO sale.

[Gizzmoe]

Wasn't meant for you, unless you feel left out.

Nah, I am fine, thanks