My Activision Boycott/Starcraft II Dilemma

Recommended Videos

TiefBlau

New member
Apr 16, 2009
904
0
0
crotalidian said:
OK I think it has been established that Starcraft II is a good (fantastic?) game. As such I want to play SCII.

My dilemma comes in the fact that I am currently refusing to purchase anything that Activision has a stake in as their practices are so anti-consumer.

I also refuse to pay premium game prices only to be forced to be online (or jump through asinine arbitrary hoops) in order to be able to play the content I have paid for. Obviously that is single player and mutli by definition is an online game.

I'm hoping the Escapist community can help me out with this so I can make a decision based on facts and opinions of educated gamers.

so convince me either way....NOW. I COMMAND IT!
A boycott does nothing. It doesn't offer incentive, just the idea that companies should bend to your beck and call. What you need to do is let them know that good games sell and boring, repetitive shit doesn't. And if you think Starcraft 2 is good, you buy it, Activision or not (I still hold Blizzard to be a radically different company). That is the consumer voice.
 

Spencer Petersen

New member
Apr 3, 2010
598
0
0
In my opinion the only way that the boycott would work is if a drop in Activisions profits was accompanied by an increase in that of another studio to set an example of the power of the consumer. A drop in sales alone can be easily mistaken for other factors, but when there is a substantial shift of power in the market driven by the consumers it can send a message to Activision about how consumers wish to be treated.

To sum it up: Buy from studios who demonstrate respect and commitment to its consumers. Boycott games for which Activision is taking primary responsibility. If you think Blizzards business practices are pro-consumer, buy it. If not, then pass
 

crotalidian

and Now My Watch Begins
Sep 8, 2009
676
0
0
TiefBlau said:
A boycott does nothing. It doesn't offer incentive, just the idea that companies should bend to your beck and call. What you need to do is let them know that good games sell and boring, repetitive shit doesn't. And if you think Starcraft 2 is good, you buy it, Activision or not (I still hold Blizzard to be a radically different company). That is the consumer voice.
I am not boycotting due to bad game design. I borrowed Modern warfare from a friend and loved the single player campaign. I have played countless hours on other peoples Guitar hero games and love the style. I am boycotting the way Activision treats their consumer base. I am trying to say that no matter how good your games are I will not be buying them because I disagree with your practices. similar to refusing to buy produce that isnt fairtrade the produce may be as good or better but you are refusing to buy it because of the companies business practices
 

Delusibeta

Reachin' out...
Mar 7, 2010
2,594
0
0
You could spend that £10 voucher on something like Civ IV Complete, if you like something cerebal. Alternative, you can just blow stuff up in Just Cause 2 (judging from the demo, the PC code is solid), or something like Mass Effect, a STALKER game, or a classic, such as Sam & Max: Hit the Road. The world's your oyster now (as long as it's about £10).
 

Digitaldreamer7

New member
Sep 30, 2008
590
0
0
crotalidian said:
OK I think it has been established that Starcraft II is a good (fantastic?) game. As such I want to play SCII.

My dilemma comes in the fact that I am currently refusing to purchase anything that Activision has a stake in as their practices are so anti-consumer.

I also refuse to pay premium game prices only to be forced to be online (or jump through asinine arbitrary hoops) in order to be able to play the content I have paid for. Obviously that is single player and mutli by definition is an online game.

I'm hoping the Escapist community can help me out with this so I can make a decision based on facts and opinions of educated gamers.

so convince me either way....NOW. I COMMAND IT!
Activision doesn't have a say in what blizzard does. So buy it without breaking your boycott.
 

rabidmidget

New member
Apr 18, 2008
2,117
0
0
It's pointless to boycott all of their games, just don't buy games that you feel aren't worth the money due to one of Activision's decisions.
 

rabidmidget

New member
Apr 18, 2008
2,117
0
0
crotalidian said:
OK Decision made....

I bought Starcraft 1 a while back (before I decided to boycott Activision), I have since had to format my PC. I am currently trying (and so far failing) to get in touch with Blizzard customer support as my CD Key isnt working for the game.

I am going to get this re-installed, re-play the original, and see if this whole SC2 craze blows over. if not I may eventually decide to get it from an ebay seller and hope that doesnt mess my conscience up too much.

I realised that the last Activision game I actually bought new around release was TH Project 8, so i'm not much of a supporter anyway!

[/thread]

Now I just need to decide what to use my £10 amazon voucher on as unti I thought about Blizz/Ac I was going to use it on that.....Suggestions?
If you don't have the Orange box by now, get it, it's one of the best bang-for-your-buck games on the PC.
 

SultanP

New member
Mar 15, 2009
985
0
0
Wow, I'm stupefied by the amount of people in this thread who don't understand the idea of principles when it comes to something like a boycott. Myself, I'm boycotting Ubisoft for their insane DRM. And I may be the only one, but that doesn't mean I should just throw my principles out the window and go, oh well, since nobody else put their money where their mouth is, I might as well be a weak willed pushover like the rest.

Anyway, I don't think that Activision has much influence on Starcraft 2, so buying it shouldn't matter much. As I understand it Blizzard and Activision are more separate than people believe. As such, buying it would be supporting Blizzard more than not buying it would be defying Activision. Not sure about it though, but I think that's about right.
 

GoddyofAus

New member
Aug 3, 2010
384
0
0
I would be boycotting something a little more realistic if I were you, like one of Activision's "One per year" franchises (COD).

Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to achieve by boycotting a multi billion dollar company.
 

crotalidian

and Now My Watch Begins
Sep 8, 2009
676
0
0
rabidmidget said:
If you don't have the Orange box by now, get it, it's one of the best bang-for-your-buck games on the PC.
I have it for the 360 (the shame) and have portal on PC, any valve stuff I would get through steam anyway so I'm really looking for a title that I want a box for

GoddyofAus said:
I would be boycotting something a little more realistic if I were you, like one of Activision's "One per year" franchises (COD).

Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to achieve by boycotting a multi billion dollar company.
I'm boycotting ANYTHING activision is involved in including CoD (dont care about the game anyway) and the '... Hero' series as I will not pay the prices for their plastic guitars. So I'm already refusing to buy most of their products. Also for next few years they will be regularly releasing SCII iterations anyway!
 

Kurokami

New member
Feb 23, 2009
2,352
0
0
crotalidian said:
OK I think it has been established that Starcraft II is a good (fantastic?) game. As such I want to play SCII.

My dilemma comes in the fact that I am currently refusing to purchase anything that Activision has a stake in as their practices are so anti-consumer.

I also refuse to pay premium game prices only to be forced to be online (or jump through asinine arbitrary hoops) in order to be able to play the content I have paid for. Obviously that is single player and mutli by definition is an online game.

I'm hoping the Escapist community can help me out with this so I can make a decision based on facts and opinions of educated gamers.

so convince me either way....NOW. I COMMAND IT!
There are ways of avoiding the required internet access for singleplayer, these are of course used by pirates along with eyepatches and wooden legs.
 

GoddyofAus

New member
Aug 3, 2010
384
0
0
crotalidian said:
rabidmidget said:
If you don't have the Orange box by now, get it, it's one of the best bang-for-your-buck games on the PC.
I have it for the 360 (the shame) and have portal on PC, any valve stuff I would get through steam anyway so I'm really looking for a title that I want a box for

GoddyofAus said:
I would be boycotting something a little more realistic if I were you, like one of Activision's "One per year" franchises (COD).

Otherwise, I don't see what you hope to achieve by boycotting a multi billion dollar company.
I'm boycotting ANYTHING activision is involved in including CoD (dont care about the game anyway) and the '... Hero' series as I will not pay the prices for their plastic guitars. So I'm already refusing to buy most of their products. Also for next few years they will be regularly releasing SCII iterations anyway!
What's this term THEY? Activision reap no rewards from Blizzards releases. The Activision logo doesn't even show up when you start up SCII.

I seriously doubt you're losing your honor by buying a BLIZZARD product.
 

SultanP

New member
Mar 15, 2009
985
0
0
Zeithri said:
Activision makes stupid decisions, but don't forget that by making WoW, Blizzard turned away from the original fans in order to please the mainstreem by Fucking up their games. As far as I'm concerned, SC2 is WoW in disguise.
Wow, that might just be one of the most unintelligent things I have read so far this week. Maybe even win the weekly award.

But no, you're totally right. Once someone starts making a line of finished products that are complete on their own but contribute to an overall story, which people purchase and enjoy, they totally have a commitment to not chance anything if they make anything even remotely related to the series. I mean, who are they to decide which direction they want to take their franchise in? It's not like people who don't enjoy the new direction can't, I don't know..... not buy the latest addition to a series and just be happy that they got so much enjoyment out of it thus far. Oh no, can't have that. It's like people say about the Indiana Jones movies, the fourth one really ruined the series, when it came out it magically made the previous three less good. Just like making World of Warcraft magically makes everything else of Blizzard's totally suck.

Also, entertaining thousands of people is totally more important than entertaining millions, and it's not like Blizzard is a company whose overall goal is to make money, but who make some quality games that people love in the process.

Also, I totally see what you mean when you say that Starcraft 2 is World of Warcraft in disguise. I mean, everyone is playing in one big world where they only play together when they load up a map and play together a few people at a time. And the way you control your builders, collect resources, build a base, make an army, and use it to defeat an opponent is exactly the same as controlling one single character from a third person perspective in a game where you level up and earn gear, which can last for days or months as opposed to hours at best.

I see how you could confuse a Real Time Strategy game with a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, I really can[footnote]I really can't, but as you may have guessed by now, everything after the word "award" was sarcastic. Also, if your own post by any chance wasn't meant to be taken seriously, well done, you got me, and my own post would be supporting your opinion. If however your post was meant to be taken seriously, my post is to be taken as a jab against your statement and statements with a similar sentiment. This is not a personal attack, but an attack against your statement.[/footnote].
 

Funkysandwich

Contra Bassoon
Jan 15, 2010
759
0
0
Kurokami said:
crotalidian said:
OK I think it has been established that Starcraft II is a good (fantastic?) game. As such I want to play SCII.

My dilemma comes in the fact that I am currently refusing to purchase anything that Activision has a stake in as their practices are so anti-consumer.

I also refuse to pay premium game prices only to be forced to be online (or jump through asinine arbitrary hoops) in order to be able to play the content I have paid for. Obviously that is single player and mutli by definition is an online game.

I'm hoping the Escapist community can help me out with this so I can make a decision based on facts and opinions of educated gamers.

so convince me either way....NOW. I COMMAND IT!
There are ways of avoiding the required internet access for singleplayer, these are of course used by pirates along with eyepatches and wooden legs.

Yarrrrrr!
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Xzi said:
Terramax said:
Xzi said:
Boycotts don't work. L4D2 and MW2 proved that. There, do what you want.
Boycotts work only if you believe in them.
I agree. Furthermore, Boycotts aren't just about damaging the said company, but a peace of mind for the individual consumer as they haven't wasted their money on a product they wouldn't be able to enjoy to the fullest.
So there really is no point then, eh? Since at best, you're hurting nobody, and at worst, you're hurting yourself by depriving yourself of an enjoyable game.

Seems like a dated and ineffective idealistic thought process to me.
1.) Hurting no-one would be better than paying someone to hurt you.
2.) You're not giving £30 odd to the said company. May seem like very little to them, but plenty of people do it, the money adds up.
3.) Oh, and if you think not buying the product doesn't harm sales, one word - 'Spore'.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Neuromaster said:
Almost everything can be traced back to something that's evil...

When your argument revolves around living in a hippie commune without telephones or dishwashers, it might be time to rethink things.

Either move to said hippie commune, poop in buckets, and feel smugly superior to everyone else. Or support the good guys where you can find them. When you buy Starcraft II and leave Transformers: Revenge of the Subtitle on the shelf, you're sending a message to Activision.
What? When did I imply not owning a dishwasher backdates your living standards 100 years? Where in my post did I say those not owning a dishwasher felt 'smugly superior'?

Spuddaemon's original point states not everyone can't live without a cell phone just because you're life may be greatly inconvenient and impractical if you don't. My post was backing this up with an example.

And boycotting SC2 is not a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario such as the congo situation.

Not buying SC2, whether one person or a great majority (or everyone) is not going to carry a heavy burden for the consumer. The worst that would happen is that Activision would suffer sales and people would be laid off. But that wouldn't be the fault of the consumer. That would be the fault of Activision exploiting and forcing a grip on PC gamers, and any workers laid off will be ok because it's perfectly possible to get another jobs where they live (game industry related or not).

From what I understand the problem with Congo is that the people working within that industry suffer terrible work conditions, but have no choice but to work as there's no other jobs or security available. And if the industry fails, they could potentially starve to death. Big difference.

If you don't participate, they hear nothing at all.
As I mentioned to someone else just now, one word - 'Spore'.

Did EA not react when finding out 500,000 were pirating rather than buying? When reviews were detering potential buyers?

wikipedia said:
By September 14, 2008 (ten days after the game's initial Australian release), 2,016 of 2,216 ratings on Amazon.com gave the game one out of five stars, most citing EA's implementation of DRM for the low ratings.
EA still got 1 million sales from Spore. But they were aware had their DRM been more lax, they would've sold much, much more. So, yes, they DO hear something.
 

migo

New member
Jun 27, 2010
2,698
0
0
Jaded Scribe said:
This is a load of bull. Stealing is not noble. You aren't Robin Hood. You're a common petty crook. Piracy hurts the companies, making it harder for them to pay for prime talent and make the games you love so much.
You've obviously never heard of shareware games. It hardly exists anymore, but it used to be a way to try the full version of a game, distributing it however you like, and then purchasing it if you liked it. It worked quite well, but at some point big publishing companies got in the way.

There are better, law-abiding, ways to do this. Like, just don't buy PC games with crazy DRMs. If you don't pay for it, whether it's through a publisher or not, you don't get to play it, plain and simple.
If people weren't pirating music, online music services like iTunes would have never happened. Being able to buy a single song that you like for $1 is a far better option than buying an album. Services like Jamendo would have also not come about. It's a necessary driver of evolution, because the big record companies wouldn't give up the vice grip they had on the industry. They're obsolete and deserve to go out of business, as musicians and consumers don't need them anymore.

And you're ignoring what publisher's do, especially for smaller companies. They can bring better marketing to bear, have brand-recognition, and better selling contracts.
The fact is they're not needed at all. Musicians, authors, game designers, they're all being discovered by means other than advertising. The marketing isn't necessary, all that's needed is word of mouth.

Yeah, you can publish games yourself. And you can hope you get noticed in the sea of games we have.
Which is the way it should be, rather than having crappy games pushed forward by marketing, all games succeed or fail on equal footing, and the best ones are the most successful, rather than the ones pushed by the large publishing companies like Activision. Piracy is necessary to drive the publishers out of business so that everything can be on equal footing and games succeed on their own merits.

I've talked with people in the industry, and smaller companies are struggling. They can make enough to get by, but big publisher's are a huge bonus.
The reason smaller companies are struggling is because the publishers are swamping the industry. The need to find a publisher is stifling. I also know people in the industry - music and writing industry in this case - and the new, publisher free, business models are far better for them.

Your arguments against piracy are faulty, and fail to look at the whole picture. Piracy is stealing, no ifs, ands or buts. Stealing hurts the publishers you are trying to "liberate", and that in turn hurts the consumer.
It's supposed to hurt the publishers that's the point. Steam and Good Old Games have already come about as a result, and they're great. Steam has the new mainstream games, Good Old Games has the old ones, and Impulse has the less popular ones. Each serves a good purpose and is far better to deal with than a mainstream publisher and a brick and mortar store.

People like you are the problem: those that don't fully understand the issues at hand before trying to play Robin Hood like an Errol Finn wannabe.
No, the publishers are the problem. They always have been. They have the money to start with, but no talent, and very, very, few artists ever end up making that kind of money. It's the people with the talent who should be making the money.

In music, all that's needed is the artists to pay a small recording studio to do the recordings, and then they can put the music up however they like, making 90% of the profits and having a small cut go to whichever website hosts their music.

In books, all that's needed is for the author to write the book, and have it up on a website like Lulu, which does print on demand, or offer it as a PDF, ePub or the like for people with eReaders. They can pick the price they like, cost of printing for a physical book goes to the PoD service, everything else goes to them.

In games, it just has to go back to the shareware model that was doing fine years ago, before CD keys on purchased games and crappy DRM came about.

The publishers need to die, they need to be forced to give up and quit so there's no middle man, and it's just game developers and gamers. If more financial backing is necessary, that's what Kickstarter is for.

I do understand what's going on, and the new model is better than the old one. Piracy is a necessary interim until everything makes the shift.
 

SultanP

New member
Mar 15, 2009
985
0
0
Zeithri said:
SultanP said:
Nah, doesn't make the older ones worse.
They're still awesome.

I love Warcraft 2 and have a semi-liking to Warcraft 3.
Starcraft is by far one of my alltime favorite RTS/Tactic games :3
Just soo many fun hours in multiplayer with friends or single player.

It's just that.. Eversince they made the first expansion to WoW, it's just gone downhill :/
I get the feeling that they don't take care of their franchises anymore y'know? That they're just in it for the money now.
But everytime I bring that up, I'm always attacked by the one argument "It's their games. They can do whatever hell they want with it", well yes they can. But I'll in that case boycott them for loosing their way. Doesn't help that it seems like I am one of the few whom actually sees this.
Well, part of why you're attacked might be the way you present your point. Like saying they released World of Warcraft and fucked the rest of their games sound a lot like the people who says that the latest release in "some series they like" ruined the series, and saying that is just bullshit. At any rate, I think that the reason Blizzard has been so slow to release the next games in their franchises (Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2) is that they were waiting for the technology to improve, meaning they can beef up the graphics without ruining people's computers. Also, since World of Warcraft does print money for them, they might have been using that to get the funds to make some proper games. It seems reasonable to me, that that is what they have been doing. They seem to be releasing "proper" games for their other franchises. And maybe they just felt Warcraft was done as an RTS series, and that has to be respected too.
 

Jaded Scribe

New member
Mar 29, 2010
711
0
0
migo said:
Jaded Scribe said:
This is a load of bull. Stealing is not noble. You aren't Robin Hood. You're a common petty crook. Piracy hurts the companies, making it harder for them to pay for prime talent and make the games you love so much.
You've obviously never heard of shareware games. It hardly exists anymore, but it used to be a way to try the full version of a game, distributing it however you like, and then purchasing it if you liked it. It worked quite well, but at some point big publishing companies got in the way.
Yeah, I remember shareware games. I also have talked to many who worked at companies that operated that way. There's a reason it doesn't exist anymore: It didn't bring in any money.

There are better, law-abiding, ways to do this. Like, just don't buy PC games with crazy DRMs. If you don't pay for it, whether it's through a publisher or not, you don't get to play it, plain and simple.
If people weren't pirating music, online music services like iTunes would have never happened. Being able to buy a single song that you like for $1 is a far better option than buying an album. Services like Jamendo would have also not come about. It's a necessary driver of evolution, because the big record companies wouldn't give up the vice grip they had on the industry. They're obsolete and deserve to go out of business, as musicians and consumers don't need them anymore.
iTunes still would have happened. And what giving up their vice grip? Most bands that actually tour and make money doing what they love to do are signed to big record companies. Go check the artist lists for companies like Capitol Records.

They also make a ton of money off concerts, for which video games don't really have a similar venue.

Artists that aren't signed have it very rough. They have to do grueling tours at small venues with the hope of making enough to break even. Word of mouth is slow, fickle, and often overlooks some very good product.

And you're ignoring what publisher's do, especially for smaller companies. They can bring better marketing to bear, have brand-recognition, and better selling contracts.
The fact is they're not needed at all. Musicians, authors, game designers, they're all being discovered by means other than advertising. The marketing isn't necessary, all that's needed is word of mouth.
I'm sorry. But I live in the real world, not a fantasy one where awesome talent gets discovered by the populace and given their fair due. Getting popular without a publisher at your back is an even longer shot than making it with one. Many of these companies who are going it alone tend to run out of money before they pick up steam in the market.

Yeah, you can publish games yourself. And you can hope you get noticed in the sea of games we have.
Which is the way it should be, rather than having crappy games pushed forward by marketing, all games succeed or fail on equal footing, and the best ones are the most successful, rather than the ones pushed by the large publishing companies like Activision. Piracy is necessary to drive the publishers out of business so that everything can be on equal footing and games succeed on their own merits.
Again, I live in the real world, not a fantasy one with rainbows and where everything works out right for the right people.

Even without the publishers, larger game houses would still be pushing crappy games with marketing. It wouldn't change anything. There would be no equal footing. Indie companies would still struggle.

The biggest difference is there would be games would decline in quality as game houses have to foot the full cost of marketing without having a parent corporation to help foot the bill.

I've talked with people in the industry, and smaller companies are struggling. They can make enough to get by, but big publisher's are a huge bonus.
The reason smaller companies are struggling is because the publishers are swamping the industry. The need to find a publisher is stifling. I also know people in the industry - music and writing industry in this case - and the new, publisher free, business models are far better for them.
Music and writing aren't the industries we're talking about. We're talking about the gaming industry. There's a big difference. But I also know writers and musicians, all of whom would give an arm and a leg for a publisher/contract.

Even without publishers, indie companies would STILL have to fight titans like Blizzard, BioWare, etc etc.

Under your magical rainbow world of no publishers, they would have no hope. No chance of being picked up by a company that could help fund them while they took off.

Your arguments against piracy are faulty, and fail to look at the whole picture. Piracy is stealing, no ifs, ands or buts. Stealing hurts the publishers you are trying to "liberate", and that in turn hurts the consumer.
It's supposed to hurt the publishers that's the point. Steam and Good Old Games have already come about as a result, and they're great. Steam has the new mainstream games, Good Old Games has the old ones, and Impulse has the less popular ones. Each serves a good purpose and is far better to deal with than a mainstream publisher and a brick and mortar store.
I meant to say it hurts the game companies that you're trying to liberate. Steam and Good Old Games would still have been developed eventually. And yes, they're great, but they aren't cutting out publishers. Publishers still take their cut. They sell the right to provide the game to Steam. I really fail to see how they're going to take down the publishers any more than iTunes has stiffled the recording industry (which it hasn't).

People like you are the problem: those that don't fully understand the issues at hand before trying to play Robin Hood like an Errol Finn wannabe.
No, the publishers are the problem. They always have been. They have the money to start with, but no talent, and very, very, few artists ever end up making that kind of money. It's the people with the talent who should be making the money.
Welcome to Capitalism. You must be new here. They provide an important and necessary service to the artists. You may find the starving artist struggle awesome and view it with a romanticized slant. But it's not. It's hell. Getting a publisher provides the company with more customers than they could get alone, and they make more money, which allows them to make better games.

In music, all that's needed is the artists to pay a small recording studio to do the recordings, and then they can put the music up however they like, making 90% of the profits and having a small cut go to whichever website hosts their music.
Right, and they make next to nothing because no one has heard of them. I'd rather have 50% of a $1,000,000 record sale than 90% of a $100,000 record sale.

In books, all that's needed is for the author to write the book, and have it up on a website like Lulu, which does print on demand, or offer it as a PDF, ePub or the like for people with eReaders. They can pick the price they like, cost of printing for a physical book goes to the PoD service, everything else goes to them.
And again, very few buy it because no one has heard of them. I'm far more likely to go to a bookstore and pick up a book by an author I've never heard of than dreg through the crap on the internet.

Look at Youtube. There are webshows and such on there that are excellent! But they are nearly impossible to find in the overwhelming amounts of crap put up by anyone with a camera and an internet connection.

In games, it just has to go back to the shareware model that was doing fine years ago, before CD keys on purchased games and crappy DRM came about.
Yes, let's go back to a clearly failed model. That will really work out well. /sarcasm

The publishers need to die, they need to be forced to give up and quit so there's no middle man, and it's just game developers and gamers. If more financial backing is necessary, that's what Kickstarter is for.
Yes, money will just fall out of the sky for every game developer that wants it. /sarcasm

I do understand what's going on, and the new model is better than the old one. Piracy is a necessary interim until everything makes the shift.
Clearly you don't know the first thing. Grow up and go live in the real world with the rest of us for a few years. Then maybe you'll be able to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.

Piracy does nothing but hurt. It hurts the game companies. It hurts the consumers. You aren't Robin Hood, so take off your tights already.