A Winner Is You

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I would like to interject that I consider Sony a hero for standing up for gamers. Allow me to explain: MS showed their hand early. Sony could have just as easily gone along with it. Why not? It's good business. Walk the trail MS blazed. Regardless of how self serving Sony's intentions ultimately are in the end (to gain the customers MS lost), I consider them a hero. An "anti-hero?" Perhaps. But:

"A hero. Not the hero we deserved but the hero we needed."

They "stood up" for gamers because they had no other choice. Had they done what MS had done gamers would have crucified them and probably abandoned them for either Nintendo or the PC. They did this because they saw an opportunity to cater to people's indignation. They did it because anger is the easiest emotion to pander to. They did it because they saw money to be made, not because they give a damn about you. They're not even anti-heroes, they're the lesser of two eviles is all.

 

[Lightknight]

If people want to say that video games are art, then people need to stop getting indignant every time a game doesn't end the way they want it to. Books don't all have happy fun-time endings. Movies don't all have happy fun-time endings. Why are gamers entitled to dictate that a game series should?

You can't have it both ways.

What? Are you aware that the practice of having artists and writers change things has been going on for some time in every form of media? Hell, people bitched at Charles Dickens about the original ending of Great Expectations being too sad and so he actually changed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expectations#Revised_ending

So I reject the premise that alternate endings and edits cannot take place for something to be regarded as great or artistic. How is it different from releasing a directors cut of a movie that has an alternate ending or anything like that?

Likewise, even if editing a work compromises the artistic integrity of it, how does one piece doing it impact the media as a whole? That's silly. The only difference between video games and movies is the degree of interaction between person appreciating it and the work itself. I have no idea why having more interaction with the finished product would magically change its status. But I'm sure that movies ran against the same ridiculous notions when people complained that it can't be art because it's in motion.

 

[Oskuro]

Here we go again, a video explaining a few things better than I could:

Spoiler

The point is.... This is a WIN, but we, as consumers, must remain vigilant. All those "Guess I'll get a PS4" knee-jerk reactions to the Xbone will, in the long run, lead to Sony screwing people over too. Why wouldn't they if they manage to become dominant?


Captcha, curiously: vicious cycle

 

[Callate]

I agree that we played the biggest part in making this happen. Seeing the same sentiments echoed all over the web, from Amazon to IGN, Penny Arcade to Gamespot, Edge Magazine to, of course, the Escapist- people were angry, people were loud, and people were right to be both.

But I can't help but suspect that Sony did play a part, simply in acknowledging that the ongoing fatalistic chorus of "this is the future" wasn't how things had to go. Jimmy Fallon played a part, by showing that the issue had gone beyond trade shows like E3 and web discussion forums.

And as others have acknowledged, this is the battle but not the war. We're going to have to keep watching those Terms of Service and End User License Agreements that all companies have insured their own abilities to re-write at will don't quietly put things back in place while the spotlight's off. We're going to have to maintain the ability to get stomping mad if and when they try to do similar things again.

So, take a deep breath- cheer, if you're so inclined- and be prepared to do it all over again.

 

[frizzlebyte]

If people want to say that video games are art, then people need to stop getting indignant every time a game doesn't end the way they want it to. Books don't all have happy fun-time endings. Movies don't all have happy fun-time endings. Why are gamers entitled to dictate that a game series should?

You can't have it both ways.

What? Are you aware that the practice of having artists and writers change things has been going on for some time in every form of media? Hell, people bitched at Charles Dickens about the original ending of Great Expectations being too sad and so he actually changed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expectations#Revised_ending

So I reject the premise that alternate endings and edits cannot take place for something to be regarded as great or artistic. How is it different from releasing a directors cut of a movie that has an alternate ending or anything like that?

Likewise, even if editing a work compromises the artistic integrity of it, how does one piece doing it impact the media as a whole? That's silly. The only difference between video games and movies is the degree of interaction between person appreciating it and the work itself. I have no idea why having more interaction with the finished product would magically change its status. But I'm sure that movies ran against the same ridiculous notions when people complained that it can't be art because it's in motion.

Sure, I'm aware that it happens, though I forgot about that specific instance. And in any case, I think Dickens was wrong to do it, because it seems to have been a choice simply guided by his reader's whims, even if he himself did think the happy ending was "for the better."

Alternate endings, for what they are worth, *must* exist for any work to be created, as the creator must see which ending fits best with their vision of the story, and a director's cut is, essentially, the director's original vision of the film, unfettered by studio or practical limitations, so I'm not sure why you would compare the act of changing the ending to a more popular one to releasing a director's cut. I also do not object to the release of these endings as, for example, bonus content on the DVD. I love to see these endings, myself.

As someone who writes fiction himself, I'm apt to vociferously defend the creator's right to do with his creation as he wishes, popular opinion be damned. Yes, even George Lucas. While I object to someone deliberately and cruelly manipulating their audience for attention (LOST did this as a matter of course, and is my biggest problem with the series, though it is one of my favorite works of popular art), I feel it is sacrosanct territory for a creator to have the freedom to choose for themselves the course of the plot that they feel best suits the tone of their work.

EDIT: As to the question of Mass Effect 3's ending change affecting the art as a whole, let's not forget that video gaming is subject to an extremely large amount of pressure, both from studio execs and an unfortunate amount of rabid fanboyism. I simply do not want to see the course of game development over-abundantly tainted by these forces. Luckily, this fear may be, and likely is, unfounded. But I cannot help how I feel.

 

[Lightknight]

Sure, I'm aware that it happens, though I forgot about that specific instance. And in any case, I think Dickens was wrong to do it, because it seems to have been a choice simply guided by his reader's whims, even if he himself did think the happy ending was "for the better."

Alternate endings, for what they are worth, *must* exist for any work to be created, as the creator must see which ending fits best with their vision of the story, and a director's cut is, essentially, the director's original vision of the film, unfettered by studio or practical limitations, so I'm not sure why you would compare the act of changing the ending to a more popular one to releasing a director's cut. I also do not object to the release of these endings as, for example, bonus content on the DVD. I love to see these endings, myself.

As someone who writes fiction himself, I'm apt to vociferously defend the creator's right to do with his creation as he wishes, popular opinion be damned. Yes, even George Lucas. While I object to someone deliberately and cruelly manipulating their audience for attention (LOST did this as a matter of course, and is my biggest problem with the series, though it is one of my favorite works of popular art), I feel it is sacrosanct territory for a creator to have the freedom to choose for themselves the course of the plot that they feel best suits the tone of their work.

EDIT: As to the question of Mass Effect 3's ending change affecting the art as a whole, let's not forget that video gaming is subject to an extremely large amount of pressure, both from studio execs and an unfortunate amount of rabid fanboyism. I simply do not want to see the course of game development over-abundantly tainted by these forces.

Unless I've missed something in your post then I'm led to believe that we do not disagree on this topic as I initially thought.

With things like Mass Effect giving out DLC to change the ending, it really doesn't matter. It's up to your discretion to download it and you can always just play on the original version. As long as that continues to be the case then I think we're good. It isn't like if Picasso had walked up to starry night a decade after its creation and drew a garden gnome in the corner or something. It also would make it cease to be art. It would just impact the quality thereof.

I think creating a series creates a sort of obligation. J.K. Rowling was obligated to finish the Potter series once she began and it caught on. It's a social obligation of such and it requires justice be done to it. If the author/painter/developers do not do it justice then they deserve to be called out on it. If they've done a particularly bad job at it, then an alternate ending is not necessarily unwarranted.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Snip.

If what I've been reading online isn't true, then yes, we may have lost some innovation in regards to the Xbox One itself. But they were trying to force change for something that basically was always online and requires the net for "cloud based gaming" and many other things that people might not be equipped for. Games that use the cloud to help power single player elements, like enemy AI etc. Couple that with download sizes and other things, unless you're lucky enough to have unlimited internet, you're going to end up paying a lot more on your internet bill as well. The tech on their side may have been ready for all these supposed innovations, but on the consumer side, a lot of people aren't. For me and most people I know in my country, it wouldn't have been much of an option at all, the net isn't all that great over here.

The average AAA game is at least about 6-7 gigs (Next gen games will be even bigger then these) and I have seen some installed on my 360 for around 10 gigs, trying to force all digital, or share with friends who can't use the physical disc to save their net usage, for a lot of people here, 5 gigs can easily be at least 10% of their bandwidth. That's a lot when you take into account the amount of cloud usage some of their games are supposedly going to have. It would have been a machine for only those in the most privileged of places that have awesome net etc. Which is fine, but that means it probably wouldn't have sold enough consoles to succeed at a guess.

However, shouldn't the most important thing to innovate be the games themselves? I think so, it's what we use the systems for in the end.

I just think in regards to this change the company made, it's great for consumers, but they didn't do it for us, they did it for their wallets. They took themselves from a negative position, and have now brought themselves to zero, not good, not bad I guess. That said, I'm still staying away from them, I won't be getting any system at launch because I want to see everything upfront for myself first before buying.

 

[Lightknight]

Snip.

If what I've been reading online isn't true, then yes, we may have lost some innovation in regards to the Xbox One itself. But they were trying to force change for something that basically was always online and requires the net for "cloud based gaming" and many other things that people might not be equipped for. Games that use the cloud to help power single player elements, like enemy AI etc. Couple that with download sizes and other things, unless you're lucky enough to have unlimited internet, you're going to end up paying a lot more on your internet bill as well. The tech on their side may have been ready for all these supposed innovations, but on the consumer side, a lot of people aren't. For me and most people I know in my country, it wouldn't have been much of an option at all, the net isn't all that great over here.

The average AAA game is at least about 6-7 gigs (Next gen games will be even bigger then these) and I have seen some installed on my 360 for around 10 gigs, trying to force all digital, or share with friends who can't use the physical disc to save their net usage, for a lot of people here, 5 gigs can easily be at least 10% of their bandwidth. That's a lot when you take into account the amount of cloud usage some of their games are supposedly going to have. It would have been a machine for only those in the most privileged of places that have awesome net etc. Which is fine, but that means it probably wouldn't have sold enough consoles to succeed at a guess.

However, shouldn't the most important thing to innovate be the games themselves? I think so, it's what we use the systems for in the end.

I just think in regards to this change the company made, it's great for consumers, but they didn't do it for us, they did it for their wallets. They took themselves from a negative position, and have now brought themselves to zero, not good, not bad I guess. That said, I'm still staying away from them, I won't be getting any system at launch because I want to see everything upfront for myself first before buying.

Games are getting a LOT larger. Uncharted 3 is something like 40gbs. It'll be a force to be considered considering just how long the download times will take.

I wonder if XBO owners will still have to be required to install the entire game even if they now require the disk.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Games are getting a LOT larger. Uncharted 3 is something like 40gbs. It'll be a force to be considered considering just how long the download times will take.

I wonder if XBO owners will still have to be required to install the entire game even if they now require the disk.

Exactly, it's one issue with this next gen that not many seem to be talking about. Steam has huge games on it, but they have an un-metered server with my ISP which has most big games on it. So that really helps, but I doubt Sony or Microsoft will do the same thing. That's why people like me need the option for the optical media route in regards to getting my games for consoles.

 

[Rakschas]

I may have slightly overdramatized for the sake of the argument.

While the innovative part felt non-optional and shoved down our throat, I, being a consumer myself and not working in the industry, feel that generally the force originates from one source and not several simultanously, therefore some people will inevitably feel negative about it because they have the initiative taken from them.

I think we will actually see innovation in the field of games only as far as technology is already in place.

GameDevs also tend not to innovate on certain proven concepts, creating the oversaturation mentioned in Bobs article. That is until someone has the balls to do something totally different. For example From Software in regards to multiplayer in Dark Souls.

Lets hope we will continue to have people with the guts to do this.

 

[The Random One]

I would have preferred it if Microsoft hadn't backed down.

Microsoft changing their stance is a nice tale for marketing students.
Microsoft refusing to change and being so fucked up because of that that they have to shut down their games division is a fuckup of legendary proportions. Now that is a consumer victory.
(That or they'd sell as many as expected and we'd have more proof that gamers have no restraing whatsoever. If that is the case it'd be nice to know the extent to our spineless when it requires more of us than cupcake-sending measures.)

 

[bigfatcarp93]

Bob should be a motivational speaker.

 

[faefrost]

Hey Bob. While we pat ourselves on the back and celebrating our great victory over MS, can we talk about the OTHER elephant in the XBox room. The Mandatory Kinect, that MS has been studiously trying to downplay? You notice how quickly and brutally MS caved on the whole DRM thing? It's because the real money with them lies with the mandatory Kinect, but we the gamer populace hasn't figured it out yet.

Look very closely at how carefully MS has been parsing info about the Kinect. Yes you can turn it off when you are not using the console. It's not gonna simply be spying on you all of the time. This is probably true... But it still skirts around the obvious. It's job is to watch you when you are using the console. Not just for gaming, but when you are watching TV (TV! tV! tV!) The Kinect is MS's device for challenging Google by collecting millions of points of unbelievably personal Metadata about you. It watches you watch TV. It can tell exactly what on the screen you are looking at. It builds a reference library and profile about you by listening to conversations. It can measure biometrics and your heart rate via subtle changes in your infrared skin tone. This is an advertisers wet dream. And MS is seeking to get you to pay $500 to install it in your living room.

 

[Jamous]

Ironic that Bob takes this stance, when he blasted the same culture who complained about the poor quaility of the Mass Effect 3 ending, Because like the Xbox One, the company in charge of that product essentially bullshitted the fans and screwed them over.

Except for, you know, those two things are in no way the same. One is putting needless restrictions on you, invading your privacy and making things ridiculously inconvenient for the consumer. The other was an ending a lot of people disliked. There is quite a difference between them, no matter how you feel about the ME3 ending.

We won a battle, but probably not the war.

Microsoft will probably just slip this stuff back in as an update after they've sold millions of Xbones. At that point it will be too late to say no.

That's why we have to keep fighting. We can't let them get away with this bullshit. We have to cause unbelieveable amounts of uproar if we want to stop them doing this shit. We've won once. That means we can do it again.

We won this time because we had leverage: they didn't have our money. Once consoles are in homes they can flip the switch because at that point it's "their way or the highway." They'll already have your money. What are you going to do? "Not accept the update?" Fine. Enjoy being able to use your console for nothing but single player and blu ray. Most of the features that you'd buy an XB180 for require an internet connection. And they'd no doubt make it that you have to enable the DRM in order to get on the internet.

"But that's not what you paid for?" No worries, that's what the EULA, and its "terms subject to change without notice" clause is for.

True, but you can still fight back against that by refusing them any further income. Buy no more games, cancel any subscriptions, stop using the console. It's shitty that you'd have to do that, but you can. Still, I don't plan on getting an Xbone, so (hopefully) I won't have to worry about this for quite some time.

 

[RicoADF]

We won a battle, but probably not the war.

Microsoft will probably just slip this stuff back in as an update after they've sold millions of Xbones. At that point it will be too late to say no.

I'm betting if that happened then at that point alot will be returned to shops as they will no longer work for those that don't have net or have slow connections.

We won this time because we had leverage: they didn't have our money. Once consoles are in homes they can flip the switch because at that point it's "their way or the highway." They'll already have your money. What are you going to do? "Not accept the update?" Fine. Enjoy being able to use your console for nothing but single player and blu ray. Most of the features that you'd buy an XB180 for require an internet connection. And they'd no doubt make it that you have to enable the DRM in order to get on the internet.

"But that's not what you paid for?" No worries, that's what the EULA, and its "terms subject to change without notice" clause is for.

Except that EULA's don't override local laws, so in most countries if they were to do that then the customer would have a right to get a full refund. Especially if that killed the console (if they don't have the net or a spotty connection). Not all countries recognise EULA's as legal documents either.

 

[frizzlebyte]

SNIP

I think you are right, I think we do agree on some aspects of this.

But your feeling that, as long as they can release DLC to change the ending, it doesn't matter and is all good, comes incredibly close to making them "choose your own ending" type games, which I think would be a horrible state of affairs, were it to become common (beyond the whole "multiple ending" thing that has become common). There has to be some kind of emotional integrity for a story to have any meaning, and giving people the ability to choose which one they want, in my view, dilutes, or I dare say, obliterates that meaning.

And I disagree, I think that even poorly-handled endings (and all parts of a story, for that matter) are still a part of the creator's vision, and must be respected, even if that is not the ending we want to see. Besides, one man's poor ending is another's masterpiece. Just look at St. Elsewhere. The ending to that series is the greatest form of cop-out in my opinion, but to many other people that ending was a perfect twist ending for the series. I have to respect the creators' decision, even if they chose one I didn't like. They don't owe me a certain ending. I can be angry about it, sure, but to expect them to retroactively change it just because I got invested enough to care is beyond absurd.