RaivoKulli

Redemption arc would mean from bad to good. Not dogshit to slightly less dogshit. Maybe if they had given the DLC for free as an apology or something, but just fixing some of the issues years later isn't a redemption arc.

They obviously have responsibility for their part... 🤦‍♂️

You are moving the bar

You previously replied to me asking if they have no part and said "that is the only logical conclusion"... If you didn't get what I meant you should've probably mentioned this moving the bar then and not after you gave a silly answer to the question. Better look if nothing else.

I just talked about responsibility. It by default is a wider thing than just legal responsibility.

And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever.

That's fucking grim.

what public opinion will tolerate

What is that public opinion based on if not in part on moral judgement?

Not sure what part of my comment makes you unsure on what I think. Yes they have some responsibility.

It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river

I think that might've hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn't necessarily a simple case of "should've stopped if he couldn't see" either.

In any case, even though the "issue" is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I'm just saying that (imo obviously) there's other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn't happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don't know the specifics it's impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I'd say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.

Not really. I think they have a part of the responsibility but as with previous similar cases, I don't think they'll see any legal consequences.

You think it's logical to say someone giving directions had no part in what happened? Zero part, had nothing to do it?

Right... Logical.

I'd say municipality/landowners, Google and the driver themself.

Municipality, land owners for not marking it, fixing it, making sure nobody mistakenly drives there. Google for routing him over it. Also the driver too for their part. Though not knowing the specifics it's hard to say how much responsibility everyone has exactly but I'd say most of it lies on the municipality/landowners. Depending on who is supposed to mark those things over there.

It's not a redemption arc to get (years later) fixes to stuff that should've worked at launch and game systens that were advertised to be there from the get-go.

Idk if I just hold those companies to higher standard but this doesn't redeem them in my eyes. This just means they weren't as dogshit as they could've been if they just bailed. But they still lied and released a shit product. That shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Sure am. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone giving someone directions would have zero part in the eventual accident when those directions were faulty.

You can't just guide someone off a cliff and say "hey, I said I wasn't sure if that's the route, so I have zero responsibility". The idea that that terms of service absolve them of any part in it is just lol