E3 Boycot

[Yopaz]

How do you boycott e3? You're not allowed to got here either way.

Yeah, this is an excellent point. Also I can't understand why I would want to boycott something I would pay loads of cash to be allowed to enter.

There's also the choice of boycotting all game companies that support SOPA which would only result in me not being able to buy any new interesting games and give me no pleasure whatsoever. Also it bears repeating: boycotting E3 is something only the press can do thus we can't boycott it. If the press does they lose a lot of traffic and will lose money from it so no-one is likely to do so. Sheesh, the stupidity of the OP in this one...

So you'd sacrifice the internet, the future of free speech, and your integrity cause you have absolutely no ability to deny yourself some fleeting pleasure for a brief period of time. You really sicken me.

So you clearly just read a small part of my post there ignoring the issue I brought up with a full boycott.

Let's say a gaming related website took a stand against SOPA and refused to report any E3 related news they would lose web traffic and thus lose a lot of money which could lead to the site having to close. Now it's a nice gesture to go down like a martyr for a good cause, but with the internet's memory how long would we remember a site that had to close down because it took a stance?
Our side would in fact be losing because we took a stance that doomed us. Now let's pretend that all us internet using gamers started boycotting every site that reported E3 related news. That would mean they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for the expences to cover their reporters which could again lead to the demise of every game related site doing SOPA's work for us.

Now let me ask. Does it sicken you that I understand the economy and how internet works better than you or that I understand that this boycott does more harm to our side than theirs?
I don't know what part of my post that sickens me, but that you care to judge me as a person based on a tiny fragment of a post that includes more intricate though about this boycott than you seem to have does sicken me. I explained why this boycott wont hurt the companies. All you seemed to read was that I want to go to E3.

 

[kurupt87]

So you clearly just read a small part of my post there ignoring the issue I brought up with a full boycott.

Let's say a gaming related website took a stand against SOPA and refused to report any E3 related news they would lose web traffic and thus lose a lot of money which could lead to the site having to close. Now it's a nice gesture to go down like a martyr for a good cause, but with the internet's memory how long would we remember a site that had to close down because it took a stance?
Our side would in fact be losing because we took a stance that doomed us. Now let's pretend that all us internet using gamers started boycotting every site that reported E3 related news. That would mean they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for the expences to cover their reporters which could again lead to the demise of every game related site doing SOPA's work for us.

Now let me ask. Does it sicken you that I understand the economy and how internet works better than you or that I understand that this boycott does more harm to our side than theirs?
I don't know what part of my post that sickens me, but that you care to judge me as a person based on a tiny fragment of a post that includes more intricate though about this boycott than you seem to have does sicken me. I explained why this boycott wont hurt the companies. All you seemed to read was that I want to go to E3.

The point isn't to hurt the companies, it's to hurt the ESA.

The aim is to get the message out that E3 will be boycotted by the press, so companies won't bother to pay the ESA to be there because there will be no coverage. The ESA is the target, not the companies.

Simple enough for you?

 

[Yopaz]

So you clearly just read a small part of my post there ignoring the issue I brought up with a full boycott.

Let's say a gaming related website took a stand against SOPA and refused to report any E3 related news they would lose web traffic and thus lose a lot of money which could lead to the site having to close. Now it's a nice gesture to go down like a martyr for a good cause, but with the internet's memory how long would we remember a site that had to close down because it took a stance?
Our side would in fact be losing because we took a stance that doomed us. Now let's pretend that all us internet using gamers started boycotting every site that reported E3 related news. That would mean they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for the expences to cover their reporters which could again lead to the demise of every game related site doing SOPA's work for us.

Now let me ask. Does it sicken you that I understand the economy and how internet works better than you or that I understand that this boycott does more harm to our side than theirs?
I don't know what part of my post that sickens me, but that you care to judge me as a person based on a tiny fragment of a post that includes more intricate though about this boycott than you seem to have does sicken me. I explained why this boycott wont hurt the companies. All you seemed to read was that I want to go to E3.

The point isn't to hurt the companies, it's to hurt the ESA.

The aim is to get the message out that E3 will be boycotted by the press, so companies won't bother to pay the ESA to be there because there will be no coverage. The ESA is the target, not the companies.

Simple enough for you?

It is simple enough if you manage to explain how giving up one of the big chances the part of the press covering video games has to earn any income ends up doing any of us any good.
Can you explain that for me? Gaming websites such as this one already have to struggle because of the economy and you expect there to come anything good from a boycott?

The facts are that this would be a fight against a thriving industry and a struggling industry.
E3 is about marketing the games the developers make. The game industry can afford to cover the marketing without participation from the press. The game related press can't afford to let go of E3 and the entire game industry knows that. I hope I made this simple enough for you to understand it.

 

[kurupt87]

It is simple enough if you manage to explain how giving up one of the big chances the part of the press covering video games has to earn any income ends up doing any of us any good.
Can you explain that for me? Gaming websites such as this one already have to struggle because of the economy and you expect there to come anything good from a boycott?

The facts are that this would be a fight against a thriving industry and a struggling industry.
E3 is about marketing the games the developers make. The game industry can afford to cover the marketing without participation from the press. The game related press can't afford to let go of E3 and the entire game industry knows that. I hope I made this simple enough for you to understand it.

There are plenty of gaming conventions. The companies would just move to another.

Any of those other conventions would be falling over themselves to pick up as much as they can. They'd offer discounts to everyone and anyone they can to cement themselves as the big show this, and maybe even following, years. It'd work out cheaper for the industry and the press.

 

[Yopaz]

It is simple enough if you manage to explain how giving up one of the big chances the part of the press covering video games has to earn any income ends up doing any of us any good.
Can you explain that for me? Gaming websites such as this one already have to struggle because of the economy and you expect there to come anything good from a boycott?

The facts are that this would be a fight against a thriving industry and a struggling industry.
E3 is about marketing the games the developers make. The game industry can afford to cover the marketing without participation from the press. The game related press can't afford to let go of E3 and the entire game industry knows that. I hope I made this simple enough for you to understand it.

There are plenty of gaming conventions. The companies would just move to another.

Any of those other conventions would be falling over themselves to pick up as much as they can. They'd offer discounts to everyone and anyone they can to cement themselves as the big show this, and maybe even following, years. It'd work out cheaper for the industry and the press.

Sure there are other conventions and other opportunities to make money. However ask yourself this. When websites struggle to make ends meet as it is with all these conventions, do you really think it is wise to skip one of those that are most anticipated? Is it ever wise to skip one of the biggest sources of income and possibly go bankrupt?

Making a statement is one thing, but how much do we have to pay for our statements? Pride is bullshit. It doesn't matter if we lose the fight by opposing SOPA or if we lose it by letting it happen. If it happens we lose sites like this one. If we boycott major events which generate money we lose even if it doesn't happen. If you think a struggling company can afford to stay by their ideals and not give in to the wish for a steady income I envy you and your dream world.

 

[PBMcNair]

Why not just call your congressmen and senators?
It seems a lot easier and skips a lot of middle men.

Because some of us aren't american and therefore can't.

Also this is about changing the ESA's stance on SOPA, not changing the minds of politicians who probably havn't even heard of E3.

 

[kurupt87]

Sure there are other conventions and other opportunities to make money. However ask yourself this. When websites struggle to make ends meet as it is with all these conventions, do you really think it is wise to skip one of those that are most anticipated? Is it ever wise to skip one of the biggest sources of income and possibly go bankrupt?

Making a statement is one thing, but how much do we have to pay for our statements? Pride is bullshit. It doesn't matter if we lose the fight by opposing SOPA or if we lose it by letting it happen. If it happens we lose sites like this one. If we boycott major events which generate money we lose even if it doesn't happen. If you think a struggling company can afford to stay by their ideals and not give in to the wish for a steady income I envy you and your dream world.

If SOPA/PIPA goes through and proves to be as bad as their wording allows then a lot of people will just stop browsing.

The forums in particular, which generate a sizeable chunk of any sites page views, will become much more desolate. Shit, sites could scrap the whole ability of users to post things in order to stop themselves being held culpable for the things its users may post. I would if I owned a site.

You seem to not realise how big of an impact SOPA/PIPA will have, and have also resigned yourself to them passing. You may have, not everybody else has.

 

[Pebkio]

I think you're missing ht epoint. It's not about boycotting the games, but the convention itself. The ESA generates huge amounts of revenue from the event itself, revenue that we want to impact by boycotting the event.

The games presented at E3 are irrelevant. That's not where the ESA makes its money, that's where the developers make money. And we're not trying to harm the developers' income.

Except, that's the only REAL way you can boycott a damned trade show like E3. Regular people don't spend money on advertising there, so you can't withhold that. You can't refuse to pay to go, because you don't and can't anyway. The only thing you can do is demand that game companies don't go... but if they do anyway, then what? Oh well, we tried? Bullshit!

Plain and simple. If a company uses E3, run by the ESA who supports SOPA, to sell their products, then a boycott would have you not support that product... if not the whole company. Now, if that company has a project NOT shown at E3, I guess you can buy into that, but it won't make as much of an impact.

If you go ahead and buy what was shown at E3 anyway, then you come across as a whiny "Gamer" and become a part of the huge number of whiny "Gamers" who are detracting from what is meant to be a powerful concept.

Edit: Fuck man, they don't even call it a "boycott" in their video. Stop using that phrase to describe asking your favorite whatevers to not attend E3.

 

[Yopaz]

Sure there are other conventions and other opportunities to make money. However ask yourself this. When websites struggle to make ends meet as it is with all these conventions, do you really think it is wise to skip one of those that are most anticipated? Is it ever wise to skip one of the biggest sources of income and possibly go bankrupt?

Making a statement is one thing, but how much do we have to pay for our statements? Pride is bullshit. It doesn't matter if we lose the fight by opposing SOPA or if we lose it by letting it happen. If it happens we lose sites like this one. If we boycott major events which generate money we lose even if it doesn't happen. If you think a struggling company can afford to stay by their ideals and not give in to the wish for a steady income I envy you and your dream world.

If SOPA/PIPA goes through and proves to be as bad as their wording allows then a lot of people will just stop browsing.

The forums in particular, which generate a sizeable chunk of any sites page views, will become much more desolate. Shit, sites could scrap the whole ability of users to post things in order to stop themselves being held culpable for the things its users may post. I would if I owned a site.

You seem to not realise how big of an impact SOPA/PIPA will have, and have also resigned yourself to them passing. You may have, not everybody else has.

I know how bad SOPA is, but I also know that a website that can't pay for server costs or server maintenance wont be able to contribute any content. Not forum. Not news. Nothing game related. A site going bankrupt would result in the exact same things that SOPA would result in. Except that a boycott would make loss of money a certainty rather than a possibility.

Now please do you dare answer how sites already struggling would survive when a big chunk of their income disappears? When their budget suddenly disappears how will they keep doing what they already do? How many people would risk losing their job to prove a point?

I am aware SOPA could very likely mean the death of sites like this one so stop trying to convince me that SOPA is bad. I am aware and I would not want that to pass ever. Try to convince me how sites like this going bankrupt helps the greater good. Tell me how sites where the community and the employed contributors going bankrupt will stop SOPA. If The Escapist where to boycott E3, lose a lot of money, have to fire popular contributors causing them to lose more money which could lead to the site going down. How is that worse than the Escapist going to E3, let SOPA's influence grow, but have the resources to rally against it when things get to its worst?

I don't know why I bother doing this since you refuse to address any of my questions about money like money isn't an issue.

 

[kurupt87]

I know how bad SOPA is, but I also know that a website that can't pay for server costs or server maintenance wont be able to contribute any content. Not forum. Not news. Nothing game related. A site going bankrupt would result in the exact same things that SOPA would result in. Except that a boycott would make loss of money a certainty rather than a possibility.

Now please do you dare answer how sites already struggling would survive when a big chunk of their income disappears? When their budget suddenly disappears how will they keep doing what they already do? How many people would risk losing their job to prove a point?

I am aware SOPA could very likely mean the death of sites like this one so stop trying to convince me that SOPA is bad. I am aware and I would not want that to pass ever. Try to convince me how sites like this going bankrupt helps the greater good. Tell me how sites where the community and the employed contributors going bankrupt will stop SOPA. If The Escapist where to boycott E3, lose a lot of money, have to fire popular contributors causing them to lose more money which could lead to the site going down. How is that worse than the Escapist going to E3, let SOPA's influence grow, but have the resources to rally against it when things get to its worst?

I don't know why I bother doing this since you refuse to address any of my questions about money like money isn't an issue.

Like I said before, other conventions. The idea is that the press still get their attractive stories and the game companies still get their exposure, it just doesn't come from E3.

I'll make it simple. Everyone goes to a new convention called E4, all the companies and all the press. Everyone is happy, except E3. That is the ideal result.

A more likely one is that what would have been at E3 gets split up between several conventions, E4 5 and 6. This doesn't make a difference to the gaming companies but it's actually better for the press. More stories over a wider period of time instead of a single peak.

 

[RaikuFA]

By the way people, don't go on Capcoms website asking if they'll pull out of E3, it'll just get locked.

 

[ischmalud]

ud think this topic FOR ONCE be something everyone thats hanging out in the online forum of a site thats 99% focused could agree on - guess im wrong eheheh
funny to read to i give u that
best quote sofar

[quote="Evil Smurf" post="18.338615.13703100
No, I don't want your or anyone's piss. Whatever the hell that means...

not sure if thats sarcasm or some lvl of language barrier either way funny stuff

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It's okay guys, I won't be attending E3, I know how important it is for you that SOPA doesn't get passed and the only way that will realistically happen is if I publicly oppose this bill.


You're welcome.

 

[Yopaz]

I know how bad SOPA is, but I also know that a website that can't pay for server costs or server maintenance wont be able to contribute any content. Not forum. Not news. Nothing game related. A site going bankrupt would result in the exact same things that SOPA would result in. Except that a boycott would make loss of money a certainty rather than a possibility.

Now please do you dare answer how sites already struggling would survive when a big chunk of their income disappears? When their budget suddenly disappears how will they keep doing what they already do? How many people would risk losing their job to prove a point?

I am aware SOPA could very likely mean the death of sites like this one so stop trying to convince me that SOPA is bad. I am aware and I would not want that to pass ever. Try to convince me how sites like this going bankrupt helps the greater good. Tell me how sites where the community and the employed contributors going bankrupt will stop SOPA. If The Escapist where to boycott E3, lose a lot of money, have to fire popular contributors causing them to lose more money which could lead to the site going down. How is that worse than the Escapist going to E3, let SOPA's influence grow, but have the resources to rally against it when things get to its worst?

I don't know why I bother doing this since you refuse to address any of my questions about money like money isn't an issue.

Like I said before, other conventions. The idea is that the press still get their attractive stories and the game companies still get their exposure, it just doesn't come from E3.

I'll make it simple. Everyone goes to a new convention called E4, all the companies and all the press. Everyone is happy, except E3. That is the ideal result.

A more likely one is that what would have been at E3 gets split up between several conventions, E4 5 and 6. This doesn't make a difference to the gaming companies but it's actually better for the press. More stories over a wider period of time instead of a single peak.

So websites with already bad economy now has to plan for several smaller sources of income? They now have to pay travel expences to send their reporters to E4, E5 and E6 where none of those will carry the same magnitude or same level of organization as the one that has been around for years? Even if the press boycotts E3 what goes on there will still get out on the internet and steal web traffic from those who did a full boycott. So rather than letting income go to those who oppose SOPA the money will go directly to those who support it.
Are you sure you have thought this through?
You might think that game companies are thrilled to get another convention, but going to those is not free and they know they will get the best coverage at E3. They have also prepared a lot for E3. They have made demos, trailers and shows to be shown at E3. They would have to make new demos, new trailers and new shows for more conventions. This would mean that the developer crew would have to work more on getting demos done rather than getting the game done. They would have to pay their PR crew to make more shows.
I am also under the impression that some game companies are supporting SOPA and I am sure those would be thrilled at the opportunity to get rid of the press from video game related events like this and would most likely not participate in the anti-SOPA E4.

However it is up to you to determine which would generate more traffic. A convention presenting all the biggest companies or a small indie convention featuring a guy who was laid off from 2K showing some sketches he made on the way there to show what he thinks their next game will look like.