Korolev said:
Therumancer said:
Understand, right now it's the PS-3 users getting shafted apparently. However given Activision's track record, next time it could be you. Sitting there and saying "oh quit the whining" is exactly the kind of response you WOULDN'T want to get if you were the ones feeling wronged. Sadly it's a lack of any kind of solidarity even on important issues or when we're being exploited that allows this kind of thing to happen.
Exploitation? Solidarity? What are you, some oppressed minority, or a 19th century factory worker?
Games are GAMES PEOPLE. To try to elevate them to the same level as genuine civil rights or worker's rights issues is ludicrous and insulting to people who have genuinely suffered throughout history.
Activision published the game. Treyarch is owned by Activision. Activision has the right to charge XYZ for it.
Did any tax payer money go towards making Black Ops? I don't think so. Did you, personally, invest money into Activision to make Black Ops? Are you a shareholder? If you are, you should be ecstatic at the return you'll be getting for your shares!
Games are luxuries. Not necessities. They aren't a fundamental right. Only someone with a shaky grasp on reality would elevate Games to the same level as a civil right.
Look, I'm all for consumer protection and competition. I don't like it when companies scam customers. But charging what they want for a game they published and helped make, isn't evil. It's not immoral. It's not illegal.
If you really think Activision is "oppressing" you, then you haven't really lived. You're naive as hell, and have certainly, CERTAINLY never really been oppressed.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? I guess not, because you sound so far out of context to the discussion that it's insane.
While it should be obvious, I am not claiming any kind of "civil rights issue", nor have I used the term "oppression". I am addressing this from the perspective of a business mistreating their customers.
I am not suggesting any kind of "uprising" or legal action on the part of fans. I'm simply saying that with the gaming industry charging outrageous prices for things like downloadable content, and doing things like releasing buggy or defective games (even if it's just one version of a multi-platform title) we should not continue to give them money. A company is not going to stop holding back content to release later as DLC, or charging $15 for a couple of maps if people keep paying that money.
Though technically, at least by law in the USA the game industry is engaged in criminal behavior, though not connected to THESE issues. The gaming industry does things like set prices, and adjusts release schedules so that titles won't compete directly against each other. Like when a bunch of games were pushed up to avoid having to compete with "Modern Warfare 2". The way things are supposed to work in the US is that companies compete with
each other to produce the highest quality goods for the lowest prices. With the gaming industry you don't see that, indeed irregardless of it's budget a new game is going to cost
a standardized price that has been agreed upon by the industry.
You might think "that's just business, that's not illegal!", but yes it is. What's more you probably know it is if you listen to the news. What is being done here is exactly what gas companies are accused of with setting, and manipulating gas prices at the pump. It leads to constant investigations by both state and federal goverments. In the case of the game industry however it's not even as subtle as the gas companies who might have a penny or so differance to try and throw people off. The price of a console game is $60. By the same token if there was evidence of companies like Exxon getting together with other big gas/oil companies that are supposed to be the opposition to set prices and policies, certain federal prosecutors would have a bloody field day. The gaming industry however does this blatently like they did when there was the $50 to $60 price hike, and what apparently goes on with things like the "Game Developers Conferance". It's just that so far the issue isn't big enough, and there haven't been enough complaints, for the goverment to look into it.
That is off topic from what I was saying, I point it out only because you act so mocking on the idea of there being any big "rights" related issues here. In the USA at least we believe in capitolism, but not unfettered capitolism, laws exist that are supposed to keep prices down and quality up through competition. Cartels, Monopolies, and similar things are illegal in The United States, if the nature of a business prevents viable competition then the goverment sets the prices (which is an entirely differant issue).
There are organizations out there based on the idea of "consumer advocacy" this is to say that they watch out for unethical and illegal business practices. One of the most famous and most powerful, whom you might remember from commercials as a kid is called the "Better Business Bureau". None of these groups have so far taken up the torch for video games in paticular, a lot of the people calling the shots don't "see" the industry fully, or even really understand games (as we see in things like the recent Escapist article on Billy Bob Thornton).
On the subject of games themselves, why should a company like Capcom hold back characters to release as DLC later? They never did this before. It's only part of the business model because people keep paying for this kind of thing, even as they complain about it (which started this discussion). My comments here are simply that if we don't want to effectively pay $60 for a game which requires us to pay another $60 for the entire thing a bit at a time, we need to stop paying them. If they aren't making money doing it anymore, they aren't going to continue doing it.
It's very true, gamers so far have never been very good at any kind of "solidarity". The most we can usualy get going is an internet petition, and that's why the cost of games is raising at an astronomical rate, even if it isn't apparent from the basic sticker price. On the other hand if we worked on getting a bit more organized, worked on getting our own consumer advocacy going, and actually participated in some of these boycotts instead of just calling for them, I think we'd actually benefit. Right now the gaming industry doesn't care what anyone says or thinks, because we have so far proven that we can be ignored.
I get the whole "I want to play this fun game" and "all my friends are going to be playing it, and I don't want to be the one guy left out of the peer group due to some kind of principle". That's the problem in getting anything like this started.
You don't have to agree with me mind you, but don't go putting things into my mouth that I never said or implied. This is a business matter, consumers against producers. It's a timeless conflict as old as business, and has nothing to do with civil liberties, or fundemental human rights. While I *CAN* raise legal questions about the game industry (based on other business conflicts in the US) as I demonstrated, that has nothing to do with this paticular discussion or what I was saying.
... and yes, games are luxury items, as are many products. However as a consumer you should br striving to get a fair price and a fair value for what you pay. Businessmen by their very nature want to charge you as much as possible for as little as possible. Consumers who are not willing to stand up for themselves wind up getting exploited to the breaking point. We need to be careful to define what the market will bear, rather than letting businessmen do it entirely on their own.
While a differant issue, involving govermental taxation, remember that one of the reasons why Tea was taxed so heavily in the US was that it was being presented as a "Luxury Item". This lead to "The Boston Tea Party". Whether it's the goverment, or the merchants setting the prices ridiculous is ridiculous. Nothing so extreme is nessicary here, or being suggested, but there are some vague analogies if you think about it. Letting an issue related to business be dismissed because it's a luxury is a bad idea, and opens unpleasant doors in the long run.
