The "you knew it would be like this" argument (D3 related, but not only)

[Poster1234]

I've seen a lot of people, here and all over the internet, giving various justifications for why we should be ok with the D3 always-online thing, most of which were picked up and attacked by others (such as Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit).
However, there is ONE argument no one ever attacks : the "you knew it'd be like this argument".
Now, the fact is, I knew about this for D3, and decided not to buy it because of it, but I cannot help but believe that SOME people will be buying D3 without having knowledge of it. I guess "needs an internet connexion" is written on the box, but that can mean a number of things nowdays.
My point is, just because we inform ourselves about upcoming game releases (well, I guess you do, at least a little, since you are on this website), doesn't mean everybody does.
In fact, I had this problem with Starcraft 2 WoL : I purposefully avoided any exposure to news related to this game, because I didn't want any spoilers, and ended up very shocked by the fact that I had to log in to play singleplayer.

Long story short : What's your take on the argument that gamers can't complain about certain features/problems in a game they bought because they knew this would happen when they paid for it ?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

"We hate DRM, but we're giving you our money anyway!" doesn't exactly help the situation.

And no, this doesn't mean you should pirate it either, because that justifies it for them.

 

[Savagezion]

My sister didn't know. She has been waiting on D3 since it was announced and its one of the few gaming titles she enjoys. We had planned to both get it when it released. However, I found out it was online only and opted out, but hadn't spoken with her yet. Last week she mentioned it and I asked if she knew about the "always online/auction house" stuff." She hadn't and when I told her she didn't want to get it anymore. I purposely didn't talk bad about these features but just mentioned them because I wanted to see what she thought about it. Plus, if she was OK with it, I didn't want to knock on one of the few gaming titles she likes.

However, as a Diablo fan, she was ready to buy it and knew nothing about this stuff. Upon finding it out, she declined.

"You knew it was that way" only works if someone is bitching about it and bought it while knowing it was included. I haven't seen anyone online state they did this though.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I really do think that people should be complaining about the DRM to D3 because it makes it frustrating to just get into the game and play it. For me, I was very much well aware of the always-online bit, and I had a feeling that just trying to get into the game at launch was going to be a trial in patience, but nothing like this.

Blizzard should've had enough servers to compensate for this and to make sure that things would run smoothly, but they didn't. They messed up, so we do have a right to complain about it not working like they said it would. /rant about this.

Now, for something like 'last chance' for multiplayer and whatever, that's totally subjective. Some people just like to complain about things just for the sake of complaining.

 

[chadachada123]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

 

[chadachada123]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

Oh, and I definitely have. I've refused to buy games that pull unfair crap like this before and I will continue to do so (and urge others to do the same).

The irony of course is that as soon as private server software is made for Diablo III, pirates will do EXACTLY to that what they've done for World of Warcraft, and they'll make a good single-player or LAN mode.

The pirates will have a superior version of the game than paying customers, and with less lag. And then Blizzard will punish customers harder. *Sigh*

 

[Hazy992]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

But like Jim Sterling said, it's not our problem it's theirs. It's their IP not ours so if they want to stop piracy they're the people that need to do it, not us. As far as the consumer is concerned they should only be worried about buying and playing the game and for companies to just offload all the problems on us, the paying customer, is bullshit.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

But like Jim Sterling said, it's not our problem it's theirs. It's their IP not ours so if they want to stop piracy they're the people that need to do it, not us. As far as the consumer is concerned they should only be worried about buying and playing the game and for companies to just offload all the problems on us, the paying customer, is bullshit.

That's what I mean.

It's not our problem to fix the problem of piracy, but is our responsibility not to support companies that enforce draconian DRM.

 

[Vault101]

back in the day I wasnt aware of steam or how it worked

so when I found out I couldnt play my game because I had to download 2gb except I didnt even have that much on my internet cap.....I was kind of really angry

if you do know (and TBH I don't see hwo you wouldnt) and you buy thr game then you cant "complain"..BUT that doesnt mean you have to like it

 

[Hazy992]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

But like Jim Sterling said, it's not our problem it's theirs. It's their IP not ours so if they want to stop piracy they're the people that need to do it, not us. As far as the consumer is concerned they should only be worried about buying and playing the game and for companies to just offload all the problems on us, the paying customer, is bullshit.

That's what I mean.

It's not out problem to fix the problem the of piracy, but is our responsibility not to support companies that enforce draconian DRM.

Oh sorry when you said 'combat the problem' I thought you meant piracy, my mistake. Yeah I agree it's our job to stop draconian business practices I mean just look at Capcom; they don't sell as many copies of SFxT as they wanted and now they're reviewing their DLC policy. This shit can work if gamers got their act together more often.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Long story short : What's your take on the argument that gamers can't complain about certain features/problems in a game they bought because they knew this would happen when they paid for it ?

Well if they knew what would happen and they still bought the game then they are idiots. For example, I will never buy a single player game that requires always-on DRM because I have enough brain power to understand how many things can go wrong. When I buy a game I don't want to depend on anything other than my gaming system's functionality in order to play the game that I bought. I want to be able to play whenever I want to.
When you buy a single player game with always-on DRM you are not actually buying it. You are renting it. Your game is a hostage. You will only be allowed to play it for as long as the company that made it allows you to. When they decide that you had enough, your game is rendered nonfunctional and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter that you bought it.
It's a problems pirates don't seem to have. So the only ones getting fucked are legitimate customers.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

But like Jim Sterling said, it's not our problem it's theirs. It's their IP not ours so if they want to stop piracy they're the people that need to do it, not us. As far as the consumer is concerned they should only be worried about buying and playing the game and for companies to just offload all the problems on us, the paying customer, is bullshit.

That's what I mean.

It's not out problem to fix the problem the of piracy, but is our responsibility not to support companies that enforce draconian DRM.

Oh sorry when you said 'combat the problem' I thought you meant piracy, my mistake. Yeah I agree it's our job to stop draconian business practices I mean just look at Capcom; they don't sell as many copies of SFxT as they wanted and now they're reviewing their DLC policy. This shit can work if gamers got their act together more often.

Companies will always push with what they can get away with.

That doesn't make them evil or anything, I hate the whole 'evil corporations' schtick, but it's up to us to tell them when they've crossed the line.

If people are still buying stuff like D3, then they obviously haven't pushed hard enough.

 

[burningdragoon]

Yes people should still complain. They should have known better and acted accordingly, but that doesn't change whether or not they're getting a shitty deal.

Also, "that game you've been waiting ten years for is out" is a pretty big thing to ignore even for something shitty like always online drm.

 

[Hazy992]

I think gamers have every right to complain about this.

But you aren't telling Blizzard that this shit won't stand if you go and buy the game anyway.

It's like the whole boycott thing. If you hate the way a game is implemented, then don't buy the game. Don't give them your money.

You really have a way of /threading practically every new thread that comes up, don't you?

To go back to the OP, even if you knew that you'd need to always be online, it doesn't excuse the fact that many gamers couldn't play the game that THEY PAID $60 FOR because Blizzard couldn't hold their shit together as far as servers go, an issue that is only there because Blizzard PUT it there.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Companies wouldn't have to punish their consumers, and they wouldn't need to because people wouldn't pirate.

But we don't live in an ideal world, so we all have to do our part to combat the problem.

But like Jim Sterling said, it's not our problem it's theirs. It's their IP not ours so if they want to stop piracy they're the people that need to do it, not us. As far as the consumer is concerned they should only be worried about buying and playing the game and for companies to just offload all the problems on us, the paying customer, is bullshit.

That's what I mean.

It's not out problem to fix the problem the of piracy, but is our responsibility not to support companies that enforce draconian DRM.

Oh sorry when you said 'combat the problem' I thought you meant piracy, my mistake. Yeah I agree it's our job to stop draconian business practices I mean just look at Capcom; they don't sell as many copies of SFxT as they wanted and now they're reviewing their DLC policy. This shit can work if gamers got their act together more often.

Companies will always push with what they can get away with.

That doesn't make them evil or anything, I hate the whole 'evil corporations' schtick, but it's up to us to tell them when they've crossed the line.

If people are still buying stuff like D3, then they obviously haven't pushed hard enough.

Exactly. It's complacency more than anything

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Also, "that game you've been waiting ten years for is out" is a pretty big thing to ignore even for something shitty like always online drm.

Not really. I was very excited about Diablo 3. I was ecstatic. Until I heard about always-on DRM and real money auction house. I immediately realized that Diablo 3 will only be a shadow of a game that I've been waiting for. So I chose to ignore it. It was a very easy decision actually.

 

[burningdragoon]

Also, "that game you've been waiting ten years for is out" is a pretty big thing to ignore even for something shitty like always online drm.

Not really. I was very excited about Diablo 3. I was ecstatic. Until I heard about always-on DRM and real money auction house. I immediately realized that Diablo 3 will only be a shadow of a game that I've been waiting for. So I chose to ignore it. It was a very easy decision actually.

Easy for you. Not necessarily so much for everyone.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That statement is aimed at people on gaming sites (like this one) who should know better, not at the more casual fans who don't follow the gaming news. I have a friend in real life who didn't know about the DRM until, like, the day before the game came out, and even after learning about it he's not the kind of gamer who keeps up with this sort of thing, so I can't blame him for not knowing how bad this stuff can be. The users of this site, though, who post regularly and read the articles? No sympathy. They not only brought it on themselves, but they're bringing it on the rest of us by sending a message to the publishers that this kind of crap is okay. I'm not saying they don't have a right to complain (Blizzard did effectively lie when they said the always online component wouldn't effect gameplay), but I am saying they have no reason to be surprised if they follow the gaming news at all. I mean, has everyone forgotten Assassin's Creed 2 already?

 

[zombieshark6666]

Long story short : What's your take on the argument that gamers can't complain about certain features/problems in a game they bought because they knew this would happen when they paid for it ?

Well if they knew what would happen and they still bought the game then they are idiots. For example, I will never buy a single player game that requires always-on DRM because I have enough brain power to understand how many things can go wrong. When I buy a game I don't want to depend on anything other than my gaming system's functionality in order to play the game that I bought. I want to be able to play whenever I want to.
When you buy a single player game with always-on DRM you are not actually buying it. You are renting it. Your game is a hostage. You will only be allowed to play it for as long as the company that made it allows you to. When they decide that you had enough, your game is rendered nonfunctional and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter that you bought it.
It's a problems pirates don't seem to have. So the only ones getting fucked are legitimate customers.

You might have a shitty voice, but I've been agreeing with many things you've said recently. Alas, my opinion doesn't count much as I'm not a clicking fan myself.

 

[Poster1234]

Yes people should still complain. They should have known better and acted accordingly, but that doesn't change whether or not they're getting a shitty deal.

Also, "that game you've been waiting ten years for is out" is a pretty big thing to ignore even for something shitty like always online drm.

Tell me about it. I am, every instant,, thinking about buying D3 anyway, just because I adored D2, but then I remember that not buying it is the ONLY way we have to make ourselves heard. Really sucks, actually.
Yet, when you say that people should have known better, I really cannot agree : the fact of the matter is : it wasn't properly stated ON THE BOX. As such, if, say, my grandma gives it to me for christmas, because she heard the it's the game everyone wants, Blizzard will have had a sale it didn't deserve, inspite of my boycott. Also, you can't possibly expect everyone that knows a gamer to be aware of all the titles that should be avoided.
My point : if there is any chance the game isn't in a playable sate after you buy it, you should be warned about it when you buy the product. Not in EULA, not in anything you see after you payed : you should be informed, insted it is no better than a street thug selling fake jewelry at a corner.
Seriously, we need better consumer rights when it comes to video games.