immortalfrieza said:
First, if the only effect you've seen complaining have is it only made things worse that's you. In my experience the only thing that gets anything at all out of these companies is the constant complaining. Companies also don't listen to any old whiner that complains and then does what they want like you seem to think, they listen to the legions that complain and do what they want. If the number of complaints are large enough then they know it's legitimate and listen.
I think you misunderstood my implication. I?m not trying to imply that complaining results in things getting worse; I?m trying to imply that just complaining is not as effective or efficient as simply closing the wallet. Also, as I mentioned or tried to imply, it is fine to also provide direct feedback (hopefully informative, rather than just the general ?cause it sucks?) why you are closing your wallet.
About the only time I?ve really seen complaining work is when the company is directly addressed by petition (for example, the recent event with Target and GTA V), but even so, the petition has to be backed with a threat of loss of patronage (i.e. closing of the wallet). However, all too often what I?ve observed is people just complaining randomly on forums on the Internet. Maybe other companies read forums on the Internet to gauge response and make adjustments, but my impression so far has been that game companies are not doing that. Otherwise, they probably would have changed 5-10 years ago. And, yes, as far as I have seen, the gaming community has been making the same basic complaints toward game companies for nearly a decade.
immortalfrieza said:
Second, there's a massive difference between buying games just because you enjoy the gameplay and just buying up any old crap regardless of how much you're being screwed by it. The former is someone buying games for a legitimate reason and the latter is someone just buying up anything like an idiot. If this incredibly obvious fact is not obvious enough for everybody I don't particularly care about those that don't get it.
It's not being unwilling to stand behind my own statement or cowardly when I point out when people I'm not even referring to try to call me on my statement.
When you make a blanket, unqualified statement, as you did, then it is non-obvious the separations you mean. It's obvious to you because you are the one making the statement, but others can not read your mind. Qualifying it after the fact when someone points out the offense is not standing behind the original statement, especially when you do so in a manner that does not acknowledge the error and further compounds the condescension towards the offended person by suggesting they lack in your intelligence to perceive the "obvious". Just my opinion.
ADDENDUM: I am beginning to feel that maybe this is just a point where we have to agree to disagree before either of us become disagreeable.
