Talking about a Game, you didn't buy

[max734734]

Hi again! So how was everyone's Steam Summer? Hope everyone's still good considering the half a decade old meme we still snark a bit at.

So as you may or may not know, Killing Floor had a giveaway via Humble Bundle recently (It just ended so...), and it's a terrifying mess that I'm having actual nightmares about. (Think 28-Days later, during its outbreak, set in your local High school)

But rather than ramble on about the game, I wanted to talk about this strange dilemma...that sounds trivial but bear with me. Do players have the right to talk about a game, they never paid for?

It's strange, I know. I bring this up given the fact that it's been raining games lately this 2017, at least 5-ish games joined up my Library this year off the various giveaways. Most of which I've given a brief spin before getting bored, and tending back to old games that we've been playing for the last decade.

At the risk of sounding like a pirate confessing to his sins, basically I have a lot of games that I legitimately didn't brought off legit sources, rather acquired from events like giveaways or magazine gifts etc. Most fondly Company of Heroes 1 and its Expansion off 2 PC Gamer Magazines, and I believe X-Com: Enemy Unknown along with Bionic Dues from their Online giveaways, the latter of which I would recommend if you like Advance Wars with Real Time.

I do play a lot of these games, and yet I can't but feel a bit...guilty, of not supporting the Devs of these amazing titles. I mean I know a lot about these games (most of which you could read it off their wikis anyways), but does it make it ethically invalid to talk about it?

What should we do? Also what are your thoughts on this matter? It's not that big of a deal is it? Or we should be castrated at the firing range for even speaking about this.

PS: Thanks a lot for the feedback for the Tutorial Post from last time, that feedback really helped a lot!

PSPS: Also to clarify, I do buy stuff off the Steam Store. Hero Academy for one, given how much of a mistake that was but I ain't complaining, they had Team TF 2 in it!

 

[Saelune]

...Yeah. I mean, you cant go "I cant believe I paid money for this garbage" but you can still go "This is garbage".

 

[Hawki]

Hi again! So how was everyone's Steam Summer?

Eh, same old, same old. I set myself a budget of $5 USD, and managed to get Half-Life, Opposing Force, Blue Shift, Team Fortress Classic, and Halo: Spartan Assault/Spartan Strike. Now they're in my Steam library in the vain hope that one day I might get round to playing them.

But rather than ramble on about the game, I wanted to talk about this strange dilemma...that sounds trivial but bear with me. Do players have the right to talk about a game, they never paid for?

Um, yeah? I don't see that being an issue for any medium. If someone gives me a piece of entertainment as a gift, does that negate my 'right' to discuss it? If I win it, am I also waived of that 'right'? I mean, if you've consumed the piece of entertainment in question, I think you have the 'right' to discuss it.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

At the risk of sounding like a pirate confessing to his sins, basically I have a lot of games that I legitimately didn't brought off legit sources, rather acquired from events like giveaways or magazine gifts etc.

And those aren't legit sources because...?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.
They're removed from a major element of gaming, the consumer part. Someone who doesn't pay one red cent for a game might be way more forgiving of lags and glitches, 'cause hey, as reviewers they're being payed to play it.
As consumers, you and I are paying to play it, so our time is simply worth more.

Is the game worth full price? What about 10% off? 50%? What about the DLC, they worth the price?
These very critical questions a free-reviewer can never give.
The very best they can give is a 'For a game I didn't pay any money for, this is excellent'

Also it sits ill with me when YouTubers beg for free gaming computers. Boogie I remember did a whole series of videos where he just laid out the free gaming rig pieces he wanted Nvidia to send him. And they did. Just like that.
Gross.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.

While I agree with some of the sentiments of your posts (especially about hardware beggars) I'd daresay that game critics aren't removed from the game buying process. I mean they do know what it means to spend money on a game, I'd assume, since they weren't always game critics and they more than likely were game enthusiasts prior to their career choices. So even if they get press copies of a game, they still have the experience necessary to say whether or not a game is worth spending money on. Just because someone got a free copy doesn't negate their past experience with buying a similar product. And I do know some independent critics who still buy games because the AAA industry in parts won't give them copies. And even so, some might buy them anyway for their home/private use.
If I personally got a copy of a game for free, and I played it and it was shit, I'm well within my right to say the game is not worth buying regardless of how I got my copy, because I still know what it is to buy a game.

 

[CaitSeith]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.
They're removed from a major element of gaming, the consumer part. Someone who doesn't pay one red cent for a game might be way more forgiving of lags and glitches, 'cause hey, as reviewers they're being payed to play it.
As consumers, you and I are paying to play it, so our time is simply worth more.

On the other hand, consumers can be more forgiving on glitches and lags because admitting they threw away money and time on something that was worth neither is harder for them. From what I have seen, mainstream consumers are more forgiving than most critics (just look at the sales figures of AC: Unity and BF4)

 

[CaitSeith]

...Yeah. I mean, you cant go "I cant believe I paid money for this garbage" but you can still go "This is garbage".

Pretty much this. If there is something required for talking about games, spending money on them is an irrational requirement. If you feel that guilty, @max734734, about not supporting them, you could buy the retail versions, buy DLC or pay some microtransactions (it's the only case in which I do the later)

 

[KaraFang]

I'd say yes.

I'm a HUGE Mass Effect fan... but I didn't buy Andromeda because of all the info coming out of critics and reviewers I trust when they got their hands on it (to say nothing of the "uh oh" news that kept leaking out.

So, yeah.

 

[sXeth]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.
They're removed from a major element of gaming, the consumer part. Someone who doesn't pay one red cent for a game might be way more forgiving of lags and glitches, 'cause hey, as reviewers they're being payed to play it.
As consumers, you and I are paying to play it, so our time is simply worth more.

On the other hand, consumers can be more forgiving on glitches and lags because admitting they threw away money and time on something that was worth neither is harder for them. From what I have seen, mainstream consumers are more forgiving than most critics (just look at the sales figures of AC: Unity and BF4)

I'd say the bias is possible on both sides. If you put money (and time) into something, you generally are adverse to acknowledging the waste of said money/time. The time even carries over to the free copy. Most people also don't want to burn bridges or appear ultra negative (particularly in the "amateur" level on Youtube or whatever, where a developer is suddenly acknowledging you as legitimate by gifting you review copies).

Not paying for the product doesn't really invalidate your sense of its wort. I can tell that a plate of food with half-cooked meat, runny potatoes and microwaved frozen vegetables isn't a $100 dollar restaurant quality plate of food. I've never had a $100 dollar plate of food at a restaurant, so my more nuanced observations might be a bit lacking, but I know that pile of crap in front of me isn't anything I'd shell out 100 bucks for even if I was given it. Now if I'd never consumed mashed potatoes and lacked any knowledge of their nature, you might con me into thinking they're supposed to be semi-liquid goop, but that level of inexperience probably isn't applicable to (99% or more) of people critiquing games.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.
They're removed from a major element of gaming, the consumer part. Someone who doesn't pay one red cent for a game might be way more forgiving of lags and glitches, 'cause hey, as reviewers they're being payed to play it.
As consumers, you and I are paying to play it, so our time is simply worth more.

On the other hand, consumers can be more forgiving on glitches and lags because admitting they threw away money and time on something that was worth neither is harder for them. From what I have seen, mainstream consumers are more forgiving than most critics (just look at the sales figures of AC: Unity and BF4)

Eh, I take the opposite view. Look at ME Andromeda and Dawn of War 3. Critics loved them. And then the consumers who actually paid for it tore them to shreds.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

With the increasing number of websites and youtubers talking about every game to come out in detail, with gameplay footage, often times even playing the entire game through, I'd say yes.

If we're talking about people who get games for free, also yes, though I'm a little biased because I've been writing for review websites with the only form of compensation being the free copy of the game. I've been writing reviews and articles for two years at least and haven't made more than $1 (that was cut of the pay for ad revenue...woohoo).

You'll see this phenomenon where people will try really hard to justify something if they paid money for it. Not everyone, but I do know a few people in my life that have done that, with games specifically.

 

[Vigormortis]

...Yeah. I mean, you cant go "I cant believe I paid money for this garbage" but you can still go "This is garbage".

Sure, you can still say that, but because you've never actually seen/heard/played/experienced the game, your opinion is, at best, second-hand or, at worst, completely worthless. In effect, rendering the opinion to be "garbage".

'Course, some would argue all opinions are, but that's not what we're talkin' 'bout 'ere.

On the other hand, consumers can be more forgiving on glitches and lags because admitting they threw away money and time on something that was worth neither is harder for them. From what I have seen, mainstream consumers are more forgiving than most critics (just look at the sales figures of AC: Unity and BF4)

Or, a large variety of people have a large variety of tastes in media. Or, your average consumer is less critical of their pointless media entertainment than critics.

I mean, it's easy to call someone else stupid for liking what they like, but it's just as easy to say the same about you and everything you like. :/

 

[Battenberg]

A lot of critics get given their games for free when others have to pay full price, does that mean they have less reason to grumble?

I have always maintained the ultimate judgement of a video game is 'is it worth paying money for?' and I'm sorry, someone who gets games for free will never be able to make that judgement.
They're removed from a major element of gaming, the consumer part. Someone who doesn't pay one red cent for a game might be way more forgiving of lags and glitches, 'cause hey, as reviewers they're being payed to play it.
As consumers, you and I are paying to play it, so our time is simply worth more.

Is the game worth full price? What about 10% off? 50%? What about the DLC, they worth the price?
These very critical questions a free-reviewer can never give.
The very best they can give is a 'For a game I didn't pay any money for, this is excellent'

Also it sits ill with me when YouTubers beg for free gaming computers. Boogie I remember did a whole series of videos where he just laid out the free gaming rig pieces he wanted Nvidia to send him. And they did. Just like that.
Gross.

All of which would make perfect sense if money had the same value to all people. A person making minimum wage barely covering their rent etc will invariably have a different threshold for a game financially being worth it than someone with a lot of disposable income. Also I'm guessing you're not oblivious to the massive downsides that come with demanding reviewers pay full price for copies of every game they review and why that's impractical and would likely ultimately lead to a less well informed audience (due to fewer reviews of each game and the only reviews available will be from wealthier individuals)?

It seems as shallow a point to focus on as "how many hours of gameplay will I get out of this" for pretty much the same reasons. Particularly when you consider that most reviewers will have a solid frame of reference from purchases they have made and how worth it they were - is it really necessary to buy each and every game you review to get an accurate read on price vs quality?

 

[DoPo]

Do players have the right to talk about a game, they never paid for?

Yes. Counter question: what in the world would prohibit them talking about it? You are free to talk and have opinions on pretty much everything, free games included. Heck, some people would disagree, but having opinions on games you haven't played is also totally valid.

I do play a lot of these games, and yet I can't but feel a bit...guilty, of not supporting the Devs of these amazing titles.

That would be a completely separate topic. You are also free to feel guilty, of course. However, do bear in mind that in order for you to get a game free on Steam, the developer is most likely OK with it. Somebody else might have already paid for the game, or the developer has released free keys.

I mean I know a lot about these games (most of which you could read it off their wikis anyways), but does it make it ethically invalid to talk about it?

What is next - you cannot discuss anything you haven't paid for? Say, walking is free, unless you pay for access somewhere, I guess. If we were to discuss walking are the only participants going to be people who do "premium walks"? You cannot talk about socks, because you got yours as a Christmas gift, instead of buying them yourself?

Here is a better criteria I can propose for what you should to express opinions on: are you going to bring up something useful. There. If you have no knowledge, experience or skill or whatever that is at least tangentially related to the topic, then your opinion is likely not going to be of value.

 

[max734734]

A more pertinent question would be if people are allowed to criticize a game they've never played, but of course the answer to that's much too obvious.

 

[DoPo]

A more pertinent question would be if people are allowed to criticize a game they've never played, but of course the answer to that's much too obvious.

Of course they are. Not having played the game, doesn't mean you are totally clueless. Now, of course if it comes to some specific stuff that you probably need more hands-on experience with, then having played the game would definitely help and it might be required. As an example, if there is some trick move you can do, then commenting on the ease or difficulty of pulling it off when you've never tried it could be misleading to others. However, there are plenty of stuff that you can still have valid points on without first hand experience. That, of course, relies on you having information that is related to the game - you cannot expect to shout random stuff about a game and have them accepted.

If that weren't the case, then any and all reviews would be completely worthless for people, as they cannot provide the same amount of information as playing the game, therefore, people would still need to play the game to make up their mind on whether to buy it...which is information they need before doing it.

 

[McElroy]

I mean, it's easy to call someone else stupid for liking what they like, but it's just as easy to say the same about you and everything you like. :/

Woah, what the fuck did you just say about my opinions? Some of us were raised to have better tastes and that's a subjective FACT. Now if you'll excuse me, for it seems my dwarves are running out of beer. edit: oh shit this isn't ww, it's just a joke eveybody, nothing serious

 

[BarkBarker]

There is no entry fee for legitimate criticism, however you may miss contradictions to your argument and be unaware of other information when you haven't played it yet.