Poll: Entertainment You Refused to Purchase due to Principle Alone
- Thread starter PainInTheAssInternet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think I've ever done anything of the sort. I don't have to prove anything to anyone about myself.
I voted yes and my example is Dead Space 2 which I refuse to buy or even play due to the idiotic marketing campaign and the fact it means I would have bought an EA game. The only exceptions that I would consider would be the Mass Effect Trilogy but even then it would be a used copy of the trilogy box set. Also though I don't know if this counts but I refuse to buy season passes for games.
The answer is "yes" the most notable example of this would be the much beloved "Silent Hill 2". I was a pretty huge fan of the original "Silent Hill" on the original Playstation, and was psyched up when the PS-2 came out to get "Silent Hill 2" as one of it's first big releases. However, reactions to the playable demo had lead to some outcry over the slaying of those evil child-monsters that were a mainstay of the original Silent Hill, leading to "Silent Hill 2" being edited so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of those who neither get horror, nor would likely be playing a horror game (especially seeing as nobody had an issue with this with Silent Hill One).PainInTheAssInternet said:
In short despite the rave reviews, and the game becoming an all-time classic, I refused to buy it or put any money into the hands of devs or publishers because they caved in to censorship.
I also maintain to this day that this was the death of the series, "Silent Hill 2" succeeded I feel because most of it was intact despite the change to the rogues gallery, and the game was more or less "done" by the time the edits were completed. However I think they got too afraid to innovate after this point which is why it was all downhill from there and we started seeing the same monsters and elements constantly recycled as they were seen as being fairly "safe" even if they had no place in newer stories.
I eventually did relent and buy a copy of "Silent Hill 2" but I got it used, so as to ensure none of my money went into the hands of the developers or publishers, and to be honest I tend to do this with most "Silent Hill" merchandise. I like the series and the material, but honestly I do not think those who bow to censors deserve to be rewarded for it.
I am hoping the upcoming "Evil Within" will be the next great horror franchise, and will wind up offending pretty much everyone who isn't a jaded horror fan, and then stick to those guns in sequels. Of course that's just wishful thinking on my part I suppose. I can't say I have faith in the current games industry to make horror games as good as those from years past, but with new tech and FX quality, the mentality has become too different for it to happen, and sadly I think the battle was lost when "Team Silent" and "Konami" backed down all those years ago.... but that has nothing to do with anything.
I will not spend money that will makes its way back to Orson Scott Card's due to the level I disagree with his social views. Specifically his association with NOM, it's more the fact that he puts his views into action than that he holds them. Which is unfortunate, because Ender's Game is actually one of my favorite books. I first read it for a high school English class and found my current copy on the side of the road.
I also would not buy an Xbone even if I suddenly acquired a financial situation suited to owning more than one console. After the month(s) of poor decisions and condescension following its announcement and E3 I have no interest in supporting its existence.
Additionally, I have no interest in supporting always-on games. I was pretty close to desperate for SimCity before its release, but after learning about that feature I decided to abstain. From how things played out, I'm rather glad I did.
I also would not buy an Xbone even if I suddenly acquired a financial situation suited to owning more than one console. After the month(s) of poor decisions and condescension following its announcement and E3 I have no interest in supporting its existence.
Additionally, I have no interest in supporting always-on games. I was pretty close to desperate for SimCity before its release, but after learning about that feature I decided to abstain. From how things played out, I'm rather glad I did.
I have a policy. If pretty much everyone says it's bad, it probably is. So far this policy has steered me well.delta4062 said:
Not to mention the fact I have a job, a gf, a workout routine, I'm taking engineering classes at college, and a steam/gog backlog/new PS3.
So I'm getting kind of picky what games I buy, because I'm not going to waste my time on crappy ones. Right now the only games I'm buying are games that already had my interest to begin with that I don't already own.
Hell, if I really, really need an Aliens Fix, I'll go back and play AVP2 again, or finally get around to trying the AVP game from 2010 that seems to keep ending up in the "Someday, not now" pile.
Star Trek Online has a myriad of issues, not the least of which that the story arcs are extremely poorly written; and when I say "poorly written" I mean that they could've been written by a 13 year old fan fiction writer. Actually I think a 13 year old fan fiction writer might've done a better job.wombat_of_war said:
Uh... Does anything I would not manually watch by myself more than once count?
...Because that's where I stand on that principle... In terms of video games, I lack that kind of standard to begin with...
It ends up with me becoming my own critic instead of letting reviews "persuade" my overall judgement...
...Because that's where I stand on that principle... In terms of video games, I lack that kind of standard to begin with...
It ends up with me becoming my own critic instead of letting reviews "persuade" my overall judgement...
Yes, a LOT actually.
There are actually quite a few more, though they are mostly smaller, more specialized instances. Really I have already spent too much time on this post as it is.
I will not give Disney ANY money, Ever. This includes any subsidiaries or their properties like Marvel or Lucas arts.
I will not purchase media with "always on" Requirement when there is no possible way of justifying its presence, such as for single player games, until such requirement has been effectively removed. Products where there is no logical reason or practical need for it such as Diablo 3 (In its original PC/RTM/Always On format) as consequent console release proved there was never a genuine need for it
I will not buy anything from a distributor whos policies seek to transform products into revokable subscription, excluding what never existed as anything but a subscription. If I exchange money for it, I expect that I will have the ability to keep what I paid for once the transaction is complete and not contingent on conforming to acceptable behavior and/or maintaining recurring transactions to continue accessing it. This allows for things like MMORPGs who have functionally always been subscriptions, where the "content" you are paying for is not so much the games software, but the server access that grants features like access to other human beings to play with, In the case of FPS/MOBA types matchmaking services.
Games that historically originated as products before transitioning themselves into services like Sim City V where the franchise was built on single player and the player would reasonably desire to continue playing the franchise in that format but due to SCV development choices they effectively cannot.
Games that historically originated as products before transitioning themselves into services like Sim City V where the franchise was built on single player and the player would reasonably desire to continue playing the franchise in that format but due to SCV development choices they effectively cannot.
Any product that will continue its content development beyond its release(IE: DLC, Not patches) eventually resulting in the release of one "complete" product. One product, one purchase for instances it is known or reasonable to assume a finalized version of the product will eventually be released, unless the additional content is assured as part of the original purchase(IE: The Walking Dead E1-5 and Season pass games) and not until the anticipated "completed" version is released.
Important exception being cases where buying the original game or DLC before there was any indication of future DLC or repackaged completed version (IE: Walking Dead E1-5 prior to 400 days release and eventual repackaging for GOTY Ed.) Another would be Dark Souls prior to PTD Ed. was conceived as some games might get DLC, not all of them that do get bundled re-releases.
Important exception being cases where buying the original game or DLC before there was any indication of future DLC or repackaged completed version (IE: Walking Dead E1-5 prior to 400 days release and eventual repackaging for GOTY Ed.) Another would be Dark Souls prior to PTD Ed. was conceived as some games might get DLC, not all of them that do get bundled re-releases.
Any game where the primary content is designed as Single Player, but effectively forces you into (potentially paid) online/multiplayer, or that neglect/refusal adversely effect the offline single player product.
Glaringly this is directed squarely at Mass Effect 3 and its "galactic readiness" rating. Even if it was done in a semi logical manner like ME3 did.(If you are the commanding general of a large scale multi theater war, it makes sense you would travel to those various territories and "train" with local regiments to ensure every group is on the same page. It is a surprisingly well thought out rationalization. But the ends do not justify its means.
Glaringly this is directed squarely at Mass Effect 3 and its "galactic readiness" rating. Even if it was done in a semi logical manner like ME3 did.(If you are the commanding general of a large scale multi theater war, it makes sense you would travel to those various territories and "train" with local regiments to ensure every group is on the same page. It is a surprisingly well thought out rationalization. But the ends do not justify its means.
Any game that cordons off crucial/relevant sectors of its single player offline content for any reason but mostly used as an attack against used/resell markets and holds that content hostage behind a Project 10$-esque paywall. We have not yet seen a true example of this yet, but games like Arkham City and Rage skirted that edge, pushing the envelope just that much closer by blocking off non essential content in single player affairs.
Anything Pay To Win Equally applicable to MMOs as it is to single player offerings. ME3 again skirted this with galactic readiness, and there was the talk of Final Fantasy XIII-2 P2W DLC, which honestly I do not know if SE actually went through with it or not.
Any distributor or manufacturer that would attempt to demand your voluntary compliance to rules and conditions they have no legal right to demand (Such as the abdication of class action rights) and/or would hold previously purchased content hostage until compliance is obtained. This also includes in the case of distributors when rule modifications are made retroactively applicable to transactions that were completed before the adoption of such rules.
Any product that prior to its release will announce contained irremovable characteristics that will set bad/dangerous and/or anti consumer precedents and those built with similar characteristics proliferate those negatives based on previously set precedents.
Example: Given its original released format Diablo 3 set the RTM and Always On for Single Player precedents. That would make it applicable should say EA comes along and try to build something similar into say Dragon Age 3, even though Acti-Blizz know they failed with it by releasing the console versions without it.
Example: Given its original released format Diablo 3 set the RTM and Always On for Single Player precedents. That would make it applicable should say EA comes along and try to build something similar into say Dragon Age 3, even though Acti-Blizz know they failed with it by releasing the console versions without it.
There are actually quite a few more, though they are mostly smaller, more specialized instances. Really I have already spent too much time on this post as it is.
reviewSSSSS. he didnt just hear one person say it was bad, he saw a worrying trend. i dont see how you can disagree with his choice when there is literally only one positive review of the game on metacritic. the majority of consumers didnt like it either.delta4062 said:
also, SEGA and Gearbox mislead consumers by showing a much better looking product at E3, only to deliver a significantly less impressive product at launch.
why should he waste his money? the risk far outweighs the reward. might he have wound up liking the game, had he decided to buy it? sure, he might have enjoyed it, but the odds of that would have been pretty low. he made the smart choice by cancelling his preorder.
I'll do you one better, OP. I've recently returned a purchase over a matter of principle.
I'm a fair big Arcade Fire fan. So I was excited as hell when they announced their new album, Reflektor Not too long after it's release, I purchase it. Three days later, Arcade Fire announces a "mandatory" dress code for their upcoming tour.
Now I've listened to the album. I know it's good. I even wanted to buy a ticket to their tour. But I'm not rich, and it was already gonna cost me a bit just to be able to go due to travel. A "mandatory" dress code would have added even more expense to what was already a costly prospect. And how would they even be able to enforce it? A day later, I return the unopened album.
Arcade Fire have since repealed that dress code, saying that it was just "for fun". Don't care. Not buying the album, not buying a ticket to the tour. My principles say, "You piss me off, you don't get my money." That simple.
I'm a fair big Arcade Fire fan. So I was excited as hell when they announced their new album, Reflektor Not too long after it's release, I purchase it. Three days later, Arcade Fire announces a "mandatory" dress code for their upcoming tour.
Now I've listened to the album. I know it's good. I even wanted to buy a ticket to their tour. But I'm not rich, and it was already gonna cost me a bit just to be able to go due to travel. A "mandatory" dress code would have added even more expense to what was already a costly prospect. And how would they even be able to enforce it? A day later, I return the unopened album.
Arcade Fire have since repealed that dress code, saying that it was just "for fun". Don't care. Not buying the album, not buying a ticket to the tour. My principles say, "You piss me off, you don't get my money." That simple.
I'm more-or-less in the same boat. I can't really think of anything I've refused to purchase based on something other than its own merits.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
The only thing that comes to mind is clothing and the like. The faded/worn jeans or brand-specific Abercrombie & Fitch are examples of things I'd never willingly purchase, but I don't think that fits the OP's criteria.
I buy things I need or maybe want. If I don't buy something, it's largely because I don't want or need it.
If we're talking games, I won't buy another Call of Duty until the level of innovation is stepped up. I liked CoD4, and I got it on the cheap, so I felt it served its purpose for me. Every subsequent game in the series hasn't interested me at all. My stance toward the genre and the companies behind the games in general are also cast in a negative light, but that is separated from my reason to not purchase their games.
As an example, I tend to feel unfavorably toward EA for a few different reasons, yet I purchased both Battlefield 3 & 4. My reasons were based on the fact that a group of friends wanted me to join them in playing it and I find it a very good co-operative & versatile FPS multiplayer experience. I also didn't buy either before or near release, but waited and eventually got them (at separate times) at a fairly large discounted price. My stance toward EA had no bearing on whether I purchased either game.
You just missed out on a decent game that was buggy as crap and a massively disappointing ending so not much. I will most likely never buy another EA game (new at least so they don't get money from me)O maestre said:
I refused to see it in theaters as well, however I have the capability to see it for free tonight so I will. not expecting it to be amazing but if it is free, why not.Zeke17 said:You didn't miss much. I really like the book but the movie didn't do it justice at all. It's the first Harrison Ford movie I've seen in which I think it would've been better without Harrison Ford.Jasper van Heycop said:
I threw that in there because I wasn't going to create another point just for that game alone.bug_of_war said:
It kinda fit because it's not really an Elderscrolls game anymore. All freedom for your character and the way you play the game is limited to what Bethesda decided. The only thing that remains is the freedom of exploration, but you get that in any open world game. I don't see much difference between GTA, an action game, and Skyrim, a supposed RPG. It didn't need to exist that way, but like needless sequels, it was created for brand recognition, and not because it belonged in the TES series.
Well, I avoid EA as much as possible, although I did buy Dead Space 1 & 2 on a Steam sale a year ago - totally forgot they were EA games, yes really. *dunce cap* - and recently got Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition on Steam as my disc version is crapping out on me. I might make an exception for the new Mirror's Edge, but I'll wait a year and/or for a sale. I am kinda sad at missing out on Mass Effect 3 though; I really liked 1 & 2, and GARRUS I MISS U.
I'm TRYING to avoid Ubisoft, or to at least not buy their games until they're super-duper cheap. Not easy though. Love their games. Also my brother just recently gave me a free copy of Black Flag, although as it's free maybe that doesn't count. Not gonna get Watch Dogs though, although I really, really, REALLY want it. REALLY.
I won't be seeing Ender's Game. Never liked his writing all that much to begin with - although I've only read the Seventh Son series - but I don't feel comfortable watching something that I know is making Card money. But I like sci-fi and so I might've enjoyed the movie itself if it wasn't for that.
I CONSIDERED not getting The Witcher because of the whole sex card thing, but I do support their stance on DRM so I finally got 1 & 2 on GOG. And regretted it as soon as I started playing 1. When I accidentally sexed up Triss - two seconds after she'd recovered from a debilitating illness - I quit.[footnote]Yes, I know I keep going on about this game but I need to vent damn it![/footnote] I'm trying it again now though and, though the voice acting and some of the writing are still dreadful IMHO, I do like the mechanics. But DAT VOICE ACTING: link
Can't think of anything else at the mo'.
I'm TRYING to avoid Ubisoft, or to at least not buy their games until they're super-duper cheap. Not easy though. Love their games. Also my brother just recently gave me a free copy of Black Flag, although as it's free maybe that doesn't count. Not gonna get Watch Dogs though, although I really, really, REALLY want it. REALLY.
I won't be seeing Ender's Game. Never liked his writing all that much to begin with - although I've only read the Seventh Son series - but I don't feel comfortable watching something that I know is making Card money. But I like sci-fi and so I might've enjoyed the movie itself if it wasn't for that.
I CONSIDERED not getting The Witcher because of the whole sex card thing, but I do support their stance on DRM so I finally got 1 & 2 on GOG. And regretted it as soon as I started playing 1. When I accidentally sexed up Triss - two seconds after she'd recovered from a debilitating illness - I quit.[footnote]Yes, I know I keep going on about this game but I need to vent damn it![/footnote] I'm trying it again now though and, though the voice acting and some of the writing are still dreadful IMHO, I do like the mechanics. But DAT VOICE ACTING: link
Can't think of anything else at the mo'.
I've got some entertainment things that I wont buy/pay for out of principle.
Xbox180- Their grand vision of the future of gaming was terrible and needlessly restrictive for players. Their reactions to questions and criticisms were downright insulting. I don't care if they did an about-face on many features, Microsoft showed their intentions and they were not conducive to my gaming habits or beneficial to me as a consumer.
Gearbox Software- I loved Borderlands and thought they could do no wrong. When BL2 came, they pretty much promised everything fans were asking for in their hype campaign and didn't deliver on a lot of it. When they went on to nerf items and Pitchford dismissed criticizers as cheaters, it left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Then they flat out lied about ACM and it became apparent they'll say anything for hype and presale orders/season passes and don't give a shit about integrity. Luckily I had a bad feeling about ACM just before it was released and cancelled my collector's edition preorder.
Always online games- I don't like having to rely on internet to be able to play games. I generally shy away from anything that doesn't have a solid single player experience and flat out refuse to buy anything that requires a constant connection to play. It makes no sense to require permission to play a game that I purchased.
Star Wars prequels- They were terrible movies and only hurt the overall SW universe.
Xbox180- Their grand vision of the future of gaming was terrible and needlessly restrictive for players. Their reactions to questions and criticisms were downright insulting. I don't care if they did an about-face on many features, Microsoft showed their intentions and they were not conducive to my gaming habits or beneficial to me as a consumer.
Gearbox Software- I loved Borderlands and thought they could do no wrong. When BL2 came, they pretty much promised everything fans were asking for in their hype campaign and didn't deliver on a lot of it. When they went on to nerf items and Pitchford dismissed criticizers as cheaters, it left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Then they flat out lied about ACM and it became apparent they'll say anything for hype and presale orders/season passes and don't give a shit about integrity. Luckily I had a bad feeling about ACM just before it was released and cancelled my collector's edition preorder.
Always online games- I don't like having to rely on internet to be able to play games. I generally shy away from anything that doesn't have a solid single player experience and flat out refuse to buy anything that requires a constant connection to play. It makes no sense to require permission to play a game that I purchased.
Star Wars prequels- They were terrible movies and only hurt the overall SW universe.