Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

No, but you never know what lies beyond the lable.

You can research recalls to see if the meat is safe.

So. A liar. Or you change you mind dramatically over the course of two minutes.

Not either. A meat can be researched safe but end up unsafe.

I had a game where exactly that happened.

In this case it is though!  There is a big difference between crisis/monopoly gouging on things you can't live without and taking people for a ride because they don't have the will to not buy a toy

Not nessisarily.

These laws I was talking about? They arn't about things you cannot live without.

For example in Canada they had to pass a law on whether or not phone providers can charge you for Spam text messages. You can live without text easily.

This law is passed because Consumers WOULDN'T stop using text options.

Then there are also laws for "Charging for non-service" because they knew that there arn't enough consumer push to change this.

We KNOW as a society that there are times when there is no monopoly and no "need" that these things happen. Not everything boils down to "you don't have to buy it".

[Criptfeind]

I had a game where exactly that happened.

That makes you a bad researcher or it means the game was a pack of lies and you should have tried for a refund.

I'm going to guess you are just a bad researcher.

[Leatra]

No, but you never know what lies beyond the lable.

You can research recalls to see if the meat is safe.

So. A liar. Or you change you mind dramatically over the course of two minutes.

Not either. A meat can be researched safe but end up unsafe.

I had a game where exactly that happened.

To be fair, I gotta agree with Neonivek on this one. It happened to me with Skyrim. Games are interactive, they are not like music or movies which you can experience like how everyone else experiences, by listening/watching it. On the other hand, games are different. It has nothing to do with being a bad researcher.

[Neonivek]

I had a game where exactly that happened.

That makes you a bad researcher or it means the game was a pack of lies and you should have tried for a refund.

I'm going to guess you are just a bad researcher.

No in this case it is because the VERY COMPANY THAT WAS SELLING THAT GAME flooded review sites with fake reviews and the product was esoteric enough that often for some sites they were the only review.

I researched it very well. Add that this is also perfectly legal as well and you can see why I am mad.

[Criptfeind]

If that was actually the case, it would fall under option two. And is sorta a issue, but not a huge one in the scheme of things.

[monk12]

For me, personal morals win out over the law every time.

Violating personal morals often leads to feelings of guilt.
Violating the law often results in anal rape.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but then I had to sig this.

As long as I'm here anyway... well apparently I actually agree with Neonivek for once.

There's a pretty big difference between gamers and moviegoers, best illustrated by Mass Effect 3.  The gamers raged so hard that the developers actually relented and made a new ending after the game had already been complete and released for months to satisfy them.  When have you ever heard of that happening with a movie?

Aliens Resurection and Pretty woman For pre-release. I am Legend for post release.

Pre-release, cutting-floor alternate endings and the like aren't the same thing.  These weren't created new as a response to vitriolic reactions by the fanbase.  I'm sure most serious movie creators would say "fuck no" to the idea of going back and making a new ending because the fans didn't like it, it's compromising their artistic vision.

Actually I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's because it would be prohibitively expensive for most of them. Additionally, I feel like one of the big differences between the film industry and the gaming industry is that the business people have much more creative influence in the games industry than their counterparts in the film industry. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the selling points of a video game are the kinds of things that can be neatly summarized on the back of a box (and so are the kinds of things the business people can tell the developer "include these or we don't give you the money to make anything at all,") compared to the selling points of films which tend to rely on the reputation of the actors and directors. That gives the content creators much more say over the final product compared to the games industry, although it also makes it much more difficult for indie film makers to reach a wide market.

Vote with your wallet.  You're standing in front of a machine that understands no language except money, and you're giving it money while telling it to charge less money.  It only recognizes one of those two gestures, can you guess which one?  You can't have your cake and eat it too, which is a silly expression I know but humorously reconfiguring it is too much work

A burnt cake can have pretty icing.

The only way to find out is to eat it.

That is absolutely and in every way false. You are sitting at a computer on the Internet. You have so many ways to find out if it's a burnt cake.

Do research into its DRM techniques. Read consumer complaints on forums, wait until weeks after release to see what problems pop up. Watch segments of Let's Plays, visit review aggregation websites, play demos. Ask people who have played - maybe on an Internet forum about gaming - and consider their complaints. Hell, if you are dead set on playing the actual game first, there is nothing preventing you but your own morals from caving and pirating the gameas a "demo."

Does the specific game not offer one or more of these things? Maybe there isn't a demo. It's too obscure so there aren't many good reviews. The fanbase is too fanatical! Take an alternate route. Complain more directly - on the game's forums, on fan forums, to the developers themselves. Write an e-mail. Ask questions, ask about business practices, even angrily. Get information somewhere.

With this many options right in front of you, I cannot see a reason to get upset about poorly spent money in the video game industry that doesn't come back to impulse buying, poor research skills and an overwhelming need for instant gratification - aka, all things that are no one's fault but your own.

I respect your hype aversion, Neonivek. I respect it a lot, even when it leads you to start arguments that can come off as entitled or pointless. It represents a certain degree of realism on your part: you realize that the same things that lead to a flood of hype also make it more difficult to find real information about how worthy something is of a $60 purchase. For someone who has that realism about them, all you need is a little extra research effort to stay satisfied with purchases.

You and me personally, yes, we have these means at our disposal to find out whether the cake is any good. The thing is, all of those methods involve asking someone who has first-hand knowledge of what the cake tastes like. SOMEBODY has to take the first bite, because if they don't then none of us will know whether the cake is shit. And if those people don't stand up and say "yo, this cake is shit-tacular" then people like me are going to wind up eating a lot of shitty cake.

I do feel there is a difference between being entitled and being spoiled. On the surface they are similar- they're both complaining about something you've received. The thing is, with the latter your cause for complaint is something trivial, while with the former your cause is serious. I consider most of the issues raised in this thread to be serious not just because of the gravity of the issues themselves, but because they are largely endemic to the games industry as a whole.

In the interests of full disclosure, I personally don't buy new video games very much. In the past it was because I lacked current-gen consoles and a decent gaming PC (still true, for the most part) but recently it has a lot to do with the fact that I am just not interested in a lot of the AAA games that are being produced. The reasons vary, but most of them have been mentioned in this thread- in some cases the gameplay itself is derivative and I've already played that game, in some cases it's due to subscription formats or P2W, in others it's because I dislike their DLC/microtransaction/content model and I'm not interested in purchasing a game that lacks all the features I expect of the genre.

I'm basically in the boat Cthulhu is advocating, and regrettably this means that not only am I not able to enjoy my hobby as I once was, but I'm also largely unable to influence the direction the industry is going. The thing about voting with my wallet is that I'm voting with a void, and it's difficult to measure how much of your base you're losing when the industry as a whole is still growing.

Sure, I have other hobbies, but I can't deny my quality of life has gone down. And that sucks.

[Criptfeind]

As long as I'm here anyway... well apparently I actually agree with Neonivek for once.

Which Neonivek? The current one? Or the one a hour ago? Because they appear to be disagreeing a lot.

[monk12]

As long as I'm here anyway... well apparently I actually agree with Neonivek for once.

Which Neonivek? The current one? Or the one a hour ago? Because they appear to be disagreeing a lot.

I'm not entirely sure where your hostility is coming from, and quite frankly I'm not sure what inconsistency you're accusing him of.

[Neonivek]

In the interests of full disclosure, I personally don't buy new video games very much.

Neither do I and when I do buy Triple-As or Double-As or even an A-title I know they are bad but I have to buy them because if I don't then I won't be able to have fun with my friends for a very long time.

Mind you I never blame a company for making a bad game. The only time I put blame on a company is when it uses a sales tactic or device that I disagree with strongly. Such as On-disc DLC or outright dishonest marketing.

Can I buy a game that had either of those and STILL feel like I have the right to complain? actually yes. Flaws are flaws even if it isn't a flaw big enough to stop me from buying it.

Just because you buy something it doesn't mean you "bought into" everything on it. I have plenty of games where I think the DLC is overpriced and underdeveloped. Do I think they should make DLC that is closer to its real value? Yeah. Why would I not just because I bought it?

This is the other way where the Entitlement arguement just falls flat. You can buy something yet still find faults, even serious ones.

The Third way is what I call "Small pool". In The Sims 3 several expansions flat out do not work on many people's machines and it isn't their fault. This pool is too small to alter the sales. Or rather "What is a problem for someone isn't a problem for everyone, yet it doesn't mean it isn't a problem".

THEN there is the idea that just because it isn't a problem for an individual person it doesn't mean that individual cannot see it as a flaw. For example a rich person can recognise when something is overpriced and say that it is a flaw. Does it being overpriced effect them? No. Does buying it invalidate their arguement? No. It isn't a fault that effects them enough to change their purchace but they are perfectly capable of rational thought.

Then there is Dishonesty. If the company is being dishonest and someone buys into that dishonesty. Are they at fault for not doing further research? No, if they are being lied to they have a justified expectation. If someone promises you a lake but gives you a glass of water, there is a failure to meet the expectations.

Five ways Entitlement arguement is invalid.

I do feel there is a difference between being entitled and being spoiled. On the surface they are similar- they're both complaining about something you've received. The thing is, with the latter your cause for complaint is something trivial, while with the former your cause is serious. I consider most of the issues raised in this thread to be serious not just because of the gravity of the issues themselves, but because they are largely endemic to the games industry as a whole

Here is kind of the thing. The Developers and producers WANT this feeling of spoilness and Entitlement. They foster it and use it to sell their games.

What makes Gamers feel more entitled then everyone else? because gamers still arn't in the popular consciousness. Everyone complains about movies and books but not everyone complains about videogames.

Yet they arn't so small as to be invisable. They are just large enough to be noticed but small enough to be abnormal. The arguements are not understood because they arn't seemingly the same as arguements made against movies and books. As well games have some aspects to them that are unique such as the EULA and On-disk DLC. Which to someone who watches movies a lot may not understand because if their movie had it they wouldn't buy it, yet it isn't a feature of a movie and the market will never change to include it.

You have to understand games as games first and what it is. You have to understand what a game does and how it is advertised before you can just claim the userbase is outright spoiled.

[Flying Dice]

For a minute I thought that this thread was in GD. I wonder what could possibly have spawned that.

[Neonivek]

For a minute I thought that this thread was in GD. I wonder what could possibly have spawned that.

The fact that the thread is sidetracked by an arguement on whether or not gamers have justified complaints about videogames.

Which is in essence whether or not this topic is even worth talking about.

[alexandertnt]

I think that game companies can make as much crappy overpriced games/DLC as they want - just don't buy it and deal with it.

But when they start manipulating ratings, reviews, and making false/misleading advertisements - then there is an issue. If a game is an overpriced pile of crap its not too hard to find out with some research and make a rational decision. But when ratings/reviews/adverts are manipulated they are undermining the ability to make a rational decision and it is deceptive and unfair.

SOMEBODY has to take the first bite, because if they don't then none of us will know whether the cake is shit. And if those people don't stand up and say "yo, this cake is shit-tacular" then people like me are going to wind up eating a lot of shitty cake.

It can be quite subjective though. Its very had to describe the flavour of a cake and someone may genuinely believe the cake they have baked is delicious. Most people may disagree and find it crap however, but without any knowledge of the cake beforehand it is a risk that the taste-testers are going to have to consciously make. The above point applies, of course. Baking a cake out of horse crap and paying out reviewers to twist their opinion is manipulating people's ability to make rational decisions and the blame rests with the chef there.

The fact that the thread is sidetracked by an arguement on whether or not gamers have justified complaints about videogames.

I dont think anyone would claim that gamers have no justified complaints, just that some complaints may not be justified.

[freeformschooler]

But when they start manipulating ratings, reviews, and making false/misleading advertisements - then there is an issue. If a game is an overpriced pile of crap its not too hard to find out with some research and make a rational decision. But when ratings/reviews/adverts are manipulated they are undermining the ability to make a rational decision and it is deceptive and unfair.

That is, I agree, a significant problem in not just the game industry but the media industry in general. Penny Arcade's authors have complained about being approached several times. And, of course:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[monk12]

God dammit, now I want to play game about dancing babies. Maybe I'll make it a forum game...

[Neonivek]

What probably hurts gamers more and more is because of how much of a casual focus the market has, when it didn't really have that before now.

There were always casual and terrible games. Yet more and more is that market the one taking over.

Here is the thing, Casual gamers don't care. All of these issues? Casual gamers do not care. They do not care because as a casual gamer they have only a casual knowledge of the medium. Terrible DRM? Casual gamers do not care. The only time casual gamers have ever been outraged is when something was done right up to their face so they HAD to know (Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 3). On Disk DLC? A casual gamer doesn't care about that or even know about it.

In fact a lot of people define casual gamers by how often they play. I think that is not the best way to group them. It is better to look at them in terms of the knowledge they have of the medium. A Casual Gamer may play Counterstrike everyday or almost never.

The fact that casual gamers make up a large percent of the market is the clincher.

Mind you it is shifting, it is shifting because the casual market is aging. I do believe over time the gaming market will improve as even the casuals will get sick of things. At the same time however things are getting much worse in terms of the rights of the consumer.