Do you think it's unethical to play a game you already own, from a company that is shitty?

[Xprimentyl]

I dunno I think people can make an impact it's just about thinking one can be made and being ok with not seeing a huge impact but doing it for yourself (with multiplayer games).

I mean we saw with Battlefield V how people put off by it could impact sales. It doesn't need to be a huge loss of sales just enough to make an impact and from there the internal struggles etc start because sales targets weren't met and the reason for the failure is looked into.

Historically, not enough people are willing to try, on a large enough scale, to submit consumer feedback in the form of poor sales or lack of willingness to succumb to deal in underhanded practices to effectively make the industry question itself let alone substantially change.

A lot of the generation growing up now, y'know, the target demographic of the future of gaming, don't know any better. They don't recall the time when "DLC" was expected to be a substantive addition to an already full experience (for better or worse.) They've been groomed to be content with "season passes" and "seasons" which each require a re-up in the form of more money, "additions" to games that are sold initially as largely unfinished messes. They expect to be asked for more, real money to improve their enjoyment of their purchase. They expect games with Day 1 patches to fix game-breaking bugs that 15 years ago would have been sorted out before the game went on offer. This same generation has grown up with smart phones and mobile games that actually started the aforementioned trends in AAA gaming, so they don't see the change in behavior; their expectations were tempered and forged in the now, so what incentive do they have to question it outside of old fogeys like me telling them "in my day, it was better" as I talk about games on a console that, in many cases, saw its heyday when they were toddlers if they were even born yet?

Older gamers, the ones who remember and actually care, are dying out (not literally; don't' ask me to cite the current death rate of '80s-'90s babies.) And while we seem to be able to find each other on social media and band together over ideas like a flat earth or COVID being caused by 5G technology, we can't seem to band together in enough of a force to effectively challenge the industry that has corrupted our beloved hobby. Meanwhile, there are more than enough teenagers and 20-somethings who don't seem to mind that 30 $5 purchases for cosmetic items or loot boxes in the latest CoD adds up to three-times the price of their initial purchase of the game. We live in a faster world today, and as long as the industry can make money hand-over-fist with their special brand of slight-of-hand in the face of the protests of we the minority... things simply won't change.

 

[Silvanus]

A game that you already own? No.


...Well, no with a tiny caveat. I suppose you are in a very minor way still "supporting" the company in a manner of speaking, by increasing it's active player numbers. But... I mean, that's a tiny moral compromise. It wouldn't stop me playing something I wanted to play and already owned.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Historically, not enough people are willing to try, on a large enough scale, to submit consumer feedback in the form of poor sales or lack of willingness to succumb to deal in underhanded practices to effectively make the industry question itself let alone substantially change.

A lot of the generation growing up now, y'know, the target demographic of the future of gaming, don't know any better. They don't recall the time when "DLC" was expected to be a substantive addition to an already full experience (for better or worse.) They've been groomed to be content with "season passes" and "seasons" which each require a re-up in the form of more money, "additions" to games that are sold initially as largely unfinished messes. They expect to be asked for more, real money to improve their enjoyment of their purchase. They expect games with Day 1 patches to fix game-breaking bugs that 15 years ago would have been sorted out before the game went on offer. This same generation has grown up with smart phones and mobile games that actually started the aforementioned trends in AAA gaming, so they don't see the change in behavior; their expectations were tempered and forged in the now, so what incentive do they have to question it outside of old fogeys like me telling them "in my day, it was better" as I talk about games on a console that, in many cases, saw its heyday when they were toddlers if they were even born yet?

Older gamers, the ones who remember and actually care, are dying out (not literally; don't' ask me to cite the current death rate of '80s-'90s babies.) And while we seem to be able to find each other on social media and band together over ideas like a flat earth or COVID being caused by 5G technology, we can't seem to band together in enough of a force to effectively challenge the industry that has corrupted our beloved hobby. Meanwhile, there are more than enough teenagers and 20-somethings who don't seem to mind that 30 $5 purchases for cosmetic items or loot boxes in the latest CoD adds up to three-times the price of their initial purchase of the game. We live in a faster world today, and as long as the industry can make money hand-over-fist with their special brand of slight-of-hand in the face of the protests of we the minority... things simply won't change.

See you'd think that but I looked into it and wrote something about it before. Turns out the boycotts etc have made an impact and it just doesn't really get covered, it gets glossed over. Like with Battlefield V you get a few headlines a few weeks after launch about best sales yet or beating first week expectations and how the boycotts were useless. Then months later you get stuff about how it underperformed overall sales wise but almost never anyone referencing the boycotts anymore.

I mean the outrage over Star Wars™ EA™ Battlefront™ II shows that things can change and people can cause enough of a storm still.

 

[thebobmaster]

See you'd think that but I looked into it and wrote something about it before. Turns out the boycotts etc have made an impact and it just doesn't really get covered, it gets glossed over. Like with Battlefield V you get a few headlines a few weeks after launch about best sales yet or beating first week expectations and how the boycotts were useless. Then months later you get stuff about how it underperformed overall sales wise but almost never anyone referencing the boycotts anymore.

I mean the outrage over Star Wars™ EA™ Battlefront™ II shows that things can change and people can cause enough of a storm still.

Here's the question with that, though. Is it "underperforming" because of the boycotts, or is it because the expectations of EA were set way too high? From the numbers I got, Battlefield V was a disappointment in that it "only" sold 7.3 million copies, rather than the approximately 8 million that EA was expecting.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Here's the question with that, though. Is it "underperforming" because of the boycotts, or is it because the expectations of EA were set way too high? From the numbers I got, Battlefield V was a disappointment in that it "only" sold 7.3 million copies, rather than the approximately 8 million that EA was expecting.

Yeah, I wouldn't say Battlefield V underperformed because of the boycott. I'd actually wager in that case that the controversy may have helped Battlefield V by creating free publicity from people who wanted to distance themselves from the boycott. EA just has a tendency to overmarket and underdeliver, which is probably why they keep killing companies they previously bought because their products don't turn out to be the giant impossible record breaking megaplatinum cultural phenomena EA expects from basically every game they release.

I think if consumer action makes a difference, it's going to be on the level of communications and PR. Game Devs seem to be really into the idea of building communities and creating engagement with their fans, so if a lot of fans are hostile and voice their anger or hostility towards a company or product, that's definitely coming across to the people in comms. Whether those people in comms are able to influence the company in any way, and whether any of it makes a difference to EA as a publisher is another matter, but I'm confident it does make work for someone who then has an incentive to get annoyed and complain about it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Here's the question with that, though. Is it "underperforming" because of the boycotts, or is it because the expectations of EA were set way too high? From the numbers I got, Battlefield V was a disappointment in that it "only" sold 7.3 million copies, rather than the approximately 8 million that EA was expecting.

Well the Expectations were about the same or only slightly better than the previous title in the franchise.

Yeah, I wouldn't say Battlefield V underperformed because of the boycott. I'd actually wager in that case that the controversy may have helped Battlefield V by creating free publicity from people who wanted to distance themselves from the boycott. EA just has a tendency to overmarket and underdeliver, which is probably why they keep killing companies they previously bought because their products don't turn out to be the giant impossible record breaking megaplatinum cultural phenomena EA expects from basically every game they release.

I think if consumer action makes a difference, it's going to be on the level of communications and PR. Game Devs seem to be really into the idea of building communities and creating engagement with their fans, so if a lot of fans are hostile and voice their anger or hostility towards a company or product, that's definitely coming across to the people in comms. Whether those people in comms are able to influence the company in any way, and whether any of it makes a difference to EA as a publisher is another matter, but I'm confident it does make work for someone who then has an incentive to get annoyed and complain about it.

I doubt many people bought the game just to prove they're not part of the boycott. They might have talked about it but then a number of people on Tumblr shared round fake quotes from Mad Max Fury Road on about how they'd go and see it but then later most admitted they never did go and see it (hence them sharing obviously fake quotes and scene descriptions round)

 

[CaitSeith]

Unethical? No. But playing that game may encourage you to want to play future games from that company (or buy its DLCs).

 

[Gergar12]

No, it's not my fault devs, and execs do shady things.

Edit: The graphics and performance upgrades are free, along with the fishing. The anniversary paid upgrade gets you creation club mods. I think that’s fair, tbh. If they had locked the upgrades behind AE that would have been bad.