Consumerism, self-control, boycotts and the Gamer. A sort of mini-rant.

[Something Amyss]

We can't be to picky with what we want or don't want.

Actually, we can. That's kind of the marvel of luxury items.

Just because I despise Mass Effect 3's ending doesn't mean I have to stop myself from buying the game.

You don't have to do anything, but maybe you should. Because in purchasing, you're sending the message that the ending is acceptable. Along with on-disc content and day-1 DLC. Simply giving feedback rarely works. I mean, DRM has had quite a lot of feedback, but it hasn't gone away. Not even always-on DRM.

 

[Hal10k]

If having DRM at all is a deal breaker for you, then it would make sense to avoid most of their games. However, given the fact that the vast majority of AAA games released nowadays have some form of DRM, that policy would be limiting your choices somewhat. If the negative consequences of DRM are your main objection, then it would make sense to purchase products that implemented their DRM in a relatively harmless fashion. I'm given to understand that you youngsters are fond of Steam, for example.

I should rephrase that, I don't like their DRM.

I don't mind steam as it is a mostly competent product but I will not use a product that has limited installs, forces me to use origin or is online only.

Most of EA's games have 2/3 of those issues. I only own a very small number of products (<5) that have install limits and 2 of them are borderlands DLC I got on sale and the install can be removed thankfully.

Most, but not all. For example, Kingdoms of Amalur, co-published by EA, is available on Steam with no restrictions as far as I can see. My point is that we should judge products on a case-by-case basis, since the universal pronouncement of "It's EA so it must be evil" won't do much to motivate their decisions.

 

[Lilani]

That's what I am doing with EA.

I just don't know when to stop. Do I buy an EA game once it has no DRM in it or do I just wait until they say "no more DRM, ever!" which will never happen.

I think the idea is keep at it until they change. I still haven't bought ME3, partially out of a lack of interest or desperate need to play it, and partially out of not wanting to contribute to EA's pile of money. I imagine I'd be thinking a lot harder if it were a game I was really interesting.

The problem with games is with anything that are so digitally integrated, like having to register EA games through Origin, you really have no option but to cross into that company's waters. It's not like boycotting a brand of peanut butter by buying another brand of peanut butter. It's more like boycotting a brand of peanut butter when literally nobody else in the world makes peanut butter. So yeah, it is harder, but that is why EA keeps carrying on like they do. Because they've got us by the nose, and they know it. And we let them. We can't bring ourselves to swear off peanut butter. And that ultimately shows them we value the peanut butter more than we value legitimate business practices.

 

[Wild_Marker]

stuff

But what about DRM issues? Like, the people who pirated Assassin's Creed 2 because the game was good, but the DRM would make it into a worse game than the pirate version. How would you qualify that sort of thing. It's not an economic reason...

It's not about the actual reason for doing it, it's about what the companies will see as the reason for doing it. If you boycott a game and pirate it, the company sees that you wanted the game, but didn't want to pay.

Also, there's the issue that they might take the fact that people are pirating it as a reason to introduce more DRM, even if that DRM is going to eventually be cracked.

Playing the game despite boycotting it undermines that message a bit.

Yes, but don't you think pirating a game because your problem is not with the game, but with the DRM itself, sends the message "We want the game, but we don't like how you sell it"?

If they introduce DRM and the pirate numbers go up while sales go down... well they have to be pretty damm stupid to no notice it

"Hey, what changed between our last game and this?"
"We put more DRM"
"And we sold less and got more pirates out of it?"
"Yes"
"Well, then it's probably not the DRM"

If that dialog did in fact go down in Ubi's office (like many believe it did, if you see all that happened last year) then I don't think anything we do will send the desired message to these people.

I mean, a boycott is one thing. But if "vote with your wallet" means "make specific and arbitrary desicions because otherwise that's the way the people who greenlight this sort of stuff get the message" then... we probably need to change how those people are geting their info, methinks. Though that be quite hard...

 

[Wolfram23]

Bear in mind that gaming has expanded to very different social circles. The classic gamer/nerd/geek might still be gaming away and only purchasing select games that deserve it/are worth it, but there's for example the so-called "jock" crowd of CoD or similar combat or sports oriented multiplayer games and they will always buy the next version even if it is the exact same game with new levels. And that crowd is huge.

Also, a straight boycott isn't going to change things for the better. Feedback is required. If you don't like what EA is doing, perhaps you should start a petition or be an active member on their forums and voice your opinions. I don't know how much of it would get through to the execs, but I'm sure if people become loud enough about an issue, changes will be made. We've seen it before. It's not often, but it can happen. Sadly, some of the changes "the people" have made happen have been for the worse, but... oh well. At least Demon's/Dark Souls have done well enough that devs/pubs should know there are still people who want to be challenged

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Discussion! What do you think you can do to affect a positive change in the industry? What positive changes do you want to see?

I wouldn´t buy games with DRM or any kind of so called service (since i´m a console user this isn`t a problem yet).
Now i don`t buy games with on disk DLC (at least not new and not on day one), i try to avoid DLC were i have the feeling it`s cutted out from the core game (to me the DLC of GTA4 and RDR are prime examples how "good" DLC should look like), i try to avoid the "cutted" games itself or wait for cheap sales with all DLC included. DLC with a forced timescale is another no go to me. The same goes for games with online passes, i just don`t buy them first day and wait for a massive price drop or i don`t buy them at all.

I`m currently waiting for a price drop on Dragon`s Dogma or maybe i´ll buy it used (can`t say anything about the DLC, i only heard it`s the usual 100+ fetch quests and stuff like armor and new haircuts). I`m not 12 anymore, i can wait (most times, Max Payne3 starts screaming liar in the background).

While i understand that publishers/developers feel pushed out by the used sales, i`ve enough. I`m sick of feeling like a guinea pig for sales strategies. I`m a paying customer and i still decide what i buy.
The only thing those publishers have achieved is that i`m way more carefull now than i used to be.

Positive changes are taking a few steps towards the customer. CD project is good at this and i like to mention Monolyth. Gotham City Impostors has a gotten a free map (or now maybe 2 i`m out of the loop atm) and other free stuff. With those little steps i`m actually more in the mood to pay for a next mappack as long as i don`t feel it`s to much of a price. These things gain trust as long as those developers don`t get funny ideas they get support and it`s a win/win situation for both sides.

I know i sound like a pretty cheap bastard now but it`s all from the former feeling of having paid to much + getting f....d with.

 

[TrevHead]

I dont have any Origin games but if I did the last thing i'd do is post on EA's forums where if they don't like the look of you they can ban your account and lose your games.

But yeah Amalur on steam should be excluded from folks shit lists as it's 3rd party not EA who are handling it.

I think there should be some distiction between games that are owned by big publishers and those that are just published with the devs a seperate entity.

For example some doujin shmups are coming out soon on Steam, however it has Crapcom as publisher, even though these games are as much indine / doujin fangame as the great Cave Story only it has Nyu Media localising to the west (along with their own distro) with Capcom handling publishing on steam and their own store.

Ppl will just see the name Capcom and wont give those games a 2nd thought which is a shame

 

[Altorin]

I assume, that when people buy a game, they're probably banking on enjoying the game.

And if they do, even if they hate the publisher, or hate an aspect of the game, who are you to berate them? It's not a matter of "self-control", or it wouldn't be if haters like you didn't make people guilty for buying and playing games that they have been waiting for.

It's all fine for YOU to not buy a game because YOU disagree with it for whatever reason, but don't start thinking that just because YOU think the game shouldn't be made, or shouldn't have gotten anyone's money, that that's some universal truth that the brainless masses are just too stupid or impulsive to realize.

The funny thing is, you're actually preaching a very anti-consumerist message in the guise of some consumerism manifesto. The truth of the matter is, people will buy games that they want to buy. They may enjoy them. They may not. If they don't, they have every right to complain. If they do enjoy them, then stfu and let them play their damn game that they figured was worth their money to buy.

The big bad publishers feed the gaming industry as a whole, and if the whole wants something, even if you disagree with it, they'll make it, because there is money there to be made. And more power to them - if they can make a call of duty clone every year and sell 6-8million copies, I say bravo. I don't buy those games, because competitive online multiplayer puts a bad taste in my mouth, but that's me. I certainly wouldn't think less of the people that want to play them, and try to keep up to date with the newest game. For the most part, those people are happy.

To quote an old axiom, don't hate the player, hate the game. And if you personally hate the game, then don't buy it. But don't just assume that everyone else is too stupid or weak to get "real change in the industry". The industry will change when it's good and ready. Until then, play the games that you want, and I won't look down on you for it.

 

[Andrewtheeviscerator]

I just play good games. I don't care whether its made by EA, Ubisoft, Activision, or a indie dev; if it looks good I'm going to buy it.

I also don't care about DRM since its never negatively affected me, or online passes since I can get over having to type in 25 characters which takes me a whole 30 seconds to do.

As for the industry changing, I think that it is stagnant but that's because we've hit the end of this generations life cycle so people really stop taking risks. I think in two years or so we're going to start seeing some really amazing stuff

 

[Cranky]

If I truly enjoy the game, and the price is reasonable, I'd buy it no matter what the company is. But the problem with people still buying the cookie-cutter games is all the dedicated drones to games like CoD (forgive me for using this example), they are not aware of the gaming medium as a whole and only concentrate on the game they like to play.

Captcha: bad egg (that's you CoD players who over react)

 

[Dryk]

The problem I have with this whole system is that it only works if a game is good or bad.

If, hypothetically, EA released a game new at $50, bringing the content up to twice as much as launch with patches etc, and had revolutionary features nobody thought possible. If this game also has always online DRM that boots you out of the game without saving at the slightiest hiccup in your connection, what do you do?

If you buy it, intending to encourage them to make more amazing games, they can just interpret it as "These kids love our DRM" and put it in all their other, worse games where it doesn't offset the greatness of the game. If you boycott it because of the DRM, they can just interpret the game being a failure, and continue to implement DRM and not the wonderful mechanics.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that games are FAR too complicated for buy it/don't buy it to be a decent feedback mechanism. Even if games were only ever perfect or horrible it still wouldn't be a fine enough scale.

 

[Elate]

That's what I am doing with EA.

I just don't know when to stop. Do I buy an EA game once it has no DRM in it or do I just wait until they say "no more DRM, ever!" which will never happen.

I buy them second hand without an online pass, if I really want it that is.

I'm doing so to EA and a few others.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Too bad we can't go back in time and boycott ME3.

I;m still doing it. Serves you right for not learning from previous encounters.

 

[SugarSkulls]

We could just write short emails about why we bought/didn't buy a game. Like, "I didn't buy -blank- because $50 is too expensive for me to afford. I would have bought -blank- for $30."

No cursing, no exclamation points. Just a straightforward statement. If we did that for every new game we bought or didn't buy, plus used ones, it would be a simple way to inform the publishers. Whether they would use this feedback to improve their stuff or some guy in a dark hooded cloak would whisper into a CEO's ear, "They're lying, they want to pay more for these games and they love being banned for questioning your un-erable wisdom." is not for me to know, yet.

 

[SugarSkulls]

By the way, I'm a pc fan and old game player. I think the last games I bought release date or close new were Fable The Lost Chapters and Resident Evil 4 (which were totally worth it from how much I played them) I'm currently going through the PS2 library and not a lot of my money goes into current gen games or new games. So I'm not sure how helpful I am.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Fact is, I'm gettign annoyed by these "faceless corporation evil syndicate" personalities for gaming companies like EA. For example, in an inaccurate analogy I just came up with, would you get pissed at the small group al-qaida for terrorising innocent people, or decide to hate the whole middle east? It's completely thickheaded to blame a group of people, of whom most people are innocent workers, trying to get to their next paycheck, while a simple look at a game's credits, followed by a little research, can give you the exact names and occupations of the flawed people within the company.

For example, you check a game's credits, and you write 2 names down.

Person A, we shall call mister Nicely Friendlington, a cool bloke who's biggest dream, making his own videogame, finally came true thanks to "evil syndicate game developer #246." He made many friends within the development team, and thanks to the salary from his job, finally made enough money to marry his loved one. But then, some evil rioters decided to boycott many of "evil syndicate game game developer #246" games. Thanks to this, the sequel planned for Friendlington's game became a copy-paste stereotype, with extra brown and tough manbabies added for good measure, and a big part of the developing staff, including poor Nicely Friendlington, got fired to save money. A few months, a divorce and 5 failed jobs later, he jumped of a bridge. Sadly, he survived, and was paralyzed to the lower body thanks to failed spinal surgery.


Person B: Mr. greedson Mchoribblending, an evil gnome working for the same company, sucking the life and money out of poor customers from their sophagus. Then one day, the holy saint of gaming, lord boycottus came and threw some holy water on him. He melted, and all was well in the world once more. And then they invented On disk DLC. End.



As you can see, looking at the whole boycotting and refusing to buy games hoping a company will go bankrupt, or change, is a double edged sword. One should not punish everyone in a group for something that one knob of a person did. It is a flawed, immoral system. To punish one fiend, 10 innocents should not have to suffer. Please consider looking at a problem from multiple angles, because turning around the "good side" and the "bad side" is always easier then it looks. In these sorts of situations, there isn't any way to "win", just a way to make everything comfortable for as many people as possible.