CAD's argument is a simple one of economics: you were willing to pay the price requested for the good offered. If you hadn't been, you wouldn't have made the purchase. The information required to make an informed purchase was available; if you didn't avail yourself of it, well, that's your problem.
You don't really have a leg to stand on if you're going to complain about your purchase when it delivered on everything it said it would deliver. You can describe how it could have been better, but what does that accomplish, really?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
OTOH one could argue that when you purchase a common product, there are certain things which you can *expect* the product to have, without having to check every single time from third-party sources that it indeed has all the relevant parts.
If I, for example, buy a movie DVD, I can certainly expect that it has, for instance, the *entire* movie. I don't *have* to check third-party sources to see if the entire movie is in there. I can perfectly assume.
If then I begin watching the movie and notice that 5 minutes of the ending are missing, I have the right to complain. Even if the DVD case had some small print which warned about this, and even if the internet was full of reviews warning about this, I would still have a perfectly good reason to complain. The product did not deliver everything that can commonly be expected for such a product.
Yes, but then the question becomes whether or not you will sell it back. If you do, you are properly expressing your dislike for the product by (usually) re-obtaining a fair portion of the money which you paid for it, thus, you "rented" it for less than the full price, and made an economic statement.
If you are unwilling to sell the product back (Perhaps the rest of the movie was really good?), then you have no right to complain, because you are essentially satisfied with your purchase, even if you think you aren't. Poor baby?
These kinds of lists (top 100) tend to spawn flame wars since they're based on opinions built around personal experience. You need to basically look at it as [the reviewer's idea of what] The Top 100 games of all time is.
I grew up playing text adventures, point and click adventures and consoles like Atari, NES, ColecoVision, SNES .. etc, so if I were to compile a list, a lot of titles from those genres/systems would rank higher.
If someone never played any games for a Nintendo console, would they be wrong to not include any Megaman, Final Fantasy or Zelda games (I'd say yes, but that's my opinion :P)
Maybe my problem hasn't anything to do with money, but I just feel insulted by the developers? Selling it back takes time and it doesn't get me the ending I want, just some money.