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

[Lilani]

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 ?

The customer is always right. Even if they are wrong, they are right. What developers and publishers are failing to realize is they are no longer in the business of selling products. They're in the business of selling services, and because of that, customer service and customer satisfaction IS very much a concern of theirs.

Ideally, they would be punished for this poor customer service by the customers themselves, by them not giving any money. Unfortunately gamers just don't seem to have the stomach for such a thing, so it doesn't happen. So then the devs and publishers are free to go about using whatever business practices they want, knowing they are dissatisfying their customers but also that their paycheck is secure anyway. It's sort of a deadly cycle, and apart from the bad devs and publishers slowly fading over time (MAYBE, if they lose enough dedicated fans with time) I don't see much of a way to end it if gamers still prove unable to properly wield the power of their wallets.

 

[Skratt]

I rarely buy games at launch or full price, so I make it a point to do my homework before hand. I knew D3 was always on, I knew from basically EVERY OTHER ONLINE GAME LAUNCH that shit never goes right on day one, so I had no reason to suspect D3 would be any better. I still paid full price (pre-order) and just patiently waited an extra day or two after launch to start playing.

I'm not happy with the lag, the thought of accounts already being hacked and the overall "we're too busy to deal with customer complaints / bugs" attitude of blizzard, but I've already bought the game so what are my options?

I could go ***** on the forums, of which they seem to ignore partly due to the fact that for every 1 legitimate complaint, there are at least 2 others that are just noise. Notice the lack of "blue" responses? They have to prioritize what they fix and they are busy as all hell no doubt.

Any consumer can safely assume that online games will have issues on launch day. Get the word out because apparently the entire fucking world was shocked at this because Blizzard made hundreds of millions off the sale of D3 - which means a shit ton of people tried to log in on day one. There are also people already farming the highest difficulty. I fully expect the next complaint to be "it's too easy". *shakes head*

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The customer is always right. Even if they are wrong, they are right. What developers and publishers are failing to realize is they are no longer in the business of selling products. They're in the business of selling services, and because of that, customer service and customer satisfaction IS very much a concern of theirs.

Ideally, they would be punished for this poor customer service by the customers themselves, by them not giving any money. Unfortunately gamers just don't seem to have the stomach for such a thing, so it doesn't happen. So then the devs and publishers are free to go about using whatever business practices they want, knowing they are dissatisfying their customers but also that their paycheck is secure anyway. It's sort of a deadly cycle, and apart from the bad devs and publishers slowly fading over time (MAYBE, if they lose enough dedicated fans with time) I don't see much of a way to end it if gamers still prove unable to properly wield the power of their wallets.

"Gamers" are not a special, hermetic demographic with shared personality traits such as "not enough stomach". There have been plenty of poor to middling games that suffered from numerous issues that have gone on to have disastrous launches despite heavy marketing and high expectations, which demonstrates that gamers are more than capable of voting with their wallets, the same as any other consumer group.

What's happening here isn't that gamers are collectively too weak willed to battle the draconian publishers. It's that you're getting confused when your specific pet hate doesn't result in an otherwise serviceable game collapsing. The logical conclusion when a game does well despite irritating you isn't that people are as a whole stupid sheep who are fooled into buying things they secretly loathe. It's that the game was objectively good enough to succeed despite the issue you had with it.

I mean, really. What's more likely? That games exist in a special vacuum where market forces no longer apply to them? Or that a vocal minority of disenfranchised gamers are overstating their issues? I mean, we've had a few people compare the DRM in Diablo 3 to the Holocaust, so you tell me. Hyperbole? Could it be possible?

 

[Daveman]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

 

[allinwonder]

They know it's always online. But they don't they can't play it.

Some people say "because Blizzard don't know there are so many people on the launch day".

I call BS. Blizzard know exactly how many people will be on the launch day. They have access to: (1)pre-order sales information; (2)battle.net digital sales; (3)retail store shipment. They just don't give a fuck to their customers.

 

[Elamdri]

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 ?

It is the buyer's responsibility to be informed about their purchases. The seller can't lie to you obviously, but it's not their fault if you purchased something without understanding what it was that you purchased.

 

[Elamdri]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

I haven't had a problem connecting since launch day. And I only have a demo copy.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

When did they stop putting system requirements on the box? It was my understanding that the box says under Minimum System Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It relies on two assumptions: that people criticizing the game bought it (despite what TvTropes would have you believe, you don't have to own something to criticize it) and that buying the game constitutes a tacit endorsement of everything in it.

 

[Daveman]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

I haven't had a problem connecting since launch day. And I only have a demo copy.

So what about launch day? Could you play then? They said you would be able to then. Who's to say it won't happen again?

 

[Elamdri]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

I haven't had a problem connecting since launch day. And I only have a demo copy.

So what about launch day? Could you play then? They said you would be able to then. Who's to say it won't happen again?

Eh, it didn't matter to me that much. I mean, sure there are people who were SUPER upset that they couldn't get on Diablo 3 on launch day.

I think those people lead sad, little, pathetic lives.

"Oh NO, a video game I paid for doesn't work the moment I install it because the servers are overloaded."

Sure, you could get incensed about that, and I will even say that it's justified. But in the long run, it's just a stupid thing to be upset about. They fixed it in one day, and it's very unlikely to happen again.

I think people should do what I do when the servers on a game are down: Do anything else. Play one of your likely 50 other games. Play a free game online. Watch Youtube or Netflix. Read a book. Watch TV. Go Exercise. I mean there are a million other things you could be doing.

Does it suck that your game doesn't work day one? Sure. But it's not worth getting super upset about in my book. Now if was a week from now, yeah, I'd say your anger was reasonable. But it's not. It was Day one server issues, and as much as people go on about how "Oh it SHOULD work day one" yadda yadda, the reality is that Day one server instability is a part of the online gaming world and there really isn't anything that you or anyone else is gonna do by complaining about it.

 

[Daveman]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

I haven't had a problem connecting since launch day. And I only have a demo copy.

So what about launch day? Could you play then? They said you would be able to then. Who's to say it won't happen again?

Sure, you could get incensed about that, and I will even say that it's justified.

And that's all you needed to say.

Maybe it's a bigger deal to other people. No need to call them losers. You're getting worked up, resorting to insulting people, about other people getting upset over something you think is meaningless. Now THAT'S meaningless.

Also having the attitude of "meh, I can't be bothered to complain" is hardly something to brag about.

Me, I don't even have the game, I don't even want it. I still think people complaining about it is totally reasonable.

 

[Poster1234]

When did they stop putting system requirements on the box? It was my understanding that the box says under Minimum System Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection.[/quote]

Yup. The thing is, english may not be my mother tongue, but I am fairly sure "You need a good internet connexion" does not mean "you can only play when we are able to, and want to, let you. also, you may have lag, even with a great connexion, even in singleplayer, because we can't be bothered".
"Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" was also on the Mass Effect 1 box I bought. Sure, it was DRM (and I woulnd't have bought it if I'd known at the time what that meant), but it didn't require in to be ALWAYS online.
My point : saying "Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" is simply not enough. It can mean too many things nowadays.

 

[Elamdri]

Well I think they knew they'd have to be online, they just didn't expect the servers to be shut down. I mean that's what makes this totally unacceptable. How can they expect you to stay permanently online when they can't even do it?

I haven't had a problem connecting since launch day. And I only have a demo copy.

So what about launch day? Could you play then? They said you would be able to then. Who's to say it won't happen again?

Sure, you could get incensed about that, and I will even say that it's justified.

And that's all you needed to say.

Maybe it's a bigger deal to other people. No need to call them losers. You're getting worked up, resorting to insulting people, about other people getting upset over something you think is meaningless. Now THAT'S meaningless.

Also having the attitude of "meh, I can't be bothered to complain" is hardly something to brag about.

Me, I don't even have the game, I don't even want it. I still think people complaining about it is totally reasonable.

I won't lie, There is a great deal of Schadenfreude in watching the people whine about something like the servers on an online game being down the 1st day from too many people trying to log in.

 

[Elamdri]

When did they stop putting system requirements on the box? It was my understanding that the box says under Minimum System Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection.

Yup. The thing is, english may not be my mother tongue, but I am fairly sure "You need a good internet connexion" does not mean "you can only play when we are able to, and want to, let you. also, you may have lag, even with a great connexion, even in singleplayer, because we can't be bothered".
"Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" was also on the Mass Effect 1 box I bought. Sure, it was DRM (and I woulnd't have bought it if I'd known at the time what that meant), but it didn't require in to be ALWAYS online.
My point : saying "Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" is simply not enough. It can mean too many things nowadays.

I dunno about you, but Requires Broadband Internet Connection seems good enough to me. It's not like you couldn't have figured out what Diablo 3 requires without doing a Google search.

I could understand about if Blizzard had outright lied to people. If they had told them: "No you won't need an internet connection" or "You need a connection, but only to authenticate, once you do that, you can go offline" and then when the game dropped, it turned out that's not true, then I could understand people being upset.

But Blizzard was never coy about any of it. They said: "You need an internet connection." Multiple times. At that point, it is your own fault if you bought a product without doing the research.

Hell, I do consumer research before I purchase just about ANY product worth over about $50 and I am rarely disappointed with a purchase.

 

[krazykidd]

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.

I disagree with this . Why would blizzard listen to someone that isn't their customer? I mean i could ***** about their product , but unless i am an actual customer why should they give a shit . Now if people who actually bought the game complains then they would be more open to lend an ear . Because blizzard are dealing with people that actually supported them and want them to continue the support .

Capcha : whatever

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

When did they stop putting system requirements on the box? It was my understanding that the box says under Minimum System Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection.

Yup. The thing is, english may not be my mother tongue, but I am fairly sure "You need a good internet connexion" does not mean "you can only play when we are able to, and want to, let you. also, you may have lag, even with a great connexion, even in singleplayer, because we can't be bothered".
"Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" was also on the Mass Effect 1 box I bought. Sure, it was DRM (and I woulnd't have bought it if I'd known at the time what that meant), but it didn't require in to be ALWAYS online.
My point : saying "Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" is simply not enough. It can mean too many things nowadays.

I dunno about you, but Requires Broadband Internet Connection seems good enough to me. It's not like you couldn't have figured out what Diablo 3 requires without doing a Google search.

I could understand about if Blizzard had outright lied to people. If they had told them: "No you won't need an internet connection" or "You need a connection, but only to authenticate, once you do that, you can go offline" and then when the game dropped, it turned out that's not true, then I could understand people being upset.

But Blizzard was never coy about any of it. They said: "You need an internet connection." Multiple times. At that point, it is your own fault if you bought a product without doing the research.

Hell, I do consumer research before I purchase just about ANY product worth over about $50 and I am rarely disappointed with a purchase.

Because these people are customers who are saying "I was all set to buy this, but because you added in DRM, you did not get my money." If enough people do that, Blizzard will listen. Its the entire point of voting with your wallet.

 

[Elamdri]

When did they stop putting system requirements on the box? It was my understanding that the box says under Minimum System Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection.

Yup. The thing is, english may not be my mother tongue, but I am fairly sure "You need a good internet connexion" does not mean "you can only play when we are able to, and want to, let you. also, you may have lag, even with a great connexion, even in singleplayer, because we can't be bothered".
"Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" was also on the Mass Effect 1 box I bought. Sure, it was DRM (and I woulnd't have bought it if I'd known at the time what that meant), but it didn't require in to be ALWAYS online.
My point : saying "Requirements: Broadband Internet Connection" is simply not enough. It can mean too many things nowadays.

I dunno about you, but Requires Broadband Internet Connection seems good enough to me. It's not like you couldn't have figured out what Diablo 3 requires without doing a Google search.

I could understand about if Blizzard had outright lied to people. If they had told them: "No you won't need an internet connection" or "You need a connection, but only to authenticate, once you do that, you can go offline" and then when the game dropped, it turned out that's not true, then I could understand people being upset.

But Blizzard was never coy about any of it. They said: "You need an internet connection." Multiple times. At that point, it is your own fault if you bought a product without doing the research.

Hell, I do consumer research before I purchase just about ANY product worth over about $50 and I am rarely disappointed with a purchase.

Because these people are customers who are saying "I was all set to buy this, but because you added in DRM, you did not get my money." If enough people do that, Blizzard will listen. Its the entire point of voting with your wallet.

The game sold like 6 million copies in the 1st week. Doing a bad job of "voting with your wallet."

Personally, I don't really care about the DRM. It doesn't effect me and I get joy out of watching other people whine about it, so it's double plus good!