Jimquisition: Better Does Not Mean Good

[Ragsnstitches]

SNIP

To be honest, "consolised" generally means easy and unrewarding to play in my book. Bethesda softworks are fairly savvy though - having continued to support their modding community they could leave things out of the game that would be guaranteed to be added by modders and because of that not so much of a problem. Bioware on the other hand I think have made huge errors with their games working with EA, I suspect that enough of their fans don't trust them any longer and sales will not meet expectation. Gaining new fans at the expense of not meeting the expectations of existing core fans is a dangerous game; GTA IV sold well, but I don't know anyone who is looking forward to V enough to risk buying it at full price.

The key mistake made by those who like to wield the "entitled" card around in my opinion is that they seem to think folks like me want games to be designed specifically for core fans: that's a totally wrong assumption; we want choice. I had the same argument about anime over twenty years ago - the lack of a subtitled option for purchase led to massive piracy through fansubtitling which still persists today. When the option to play a game in my own style isn't in the game, well I'm not going to buy it am I? Devs and publishers expect me to buy it - that's entitled, but the truth of it is I'm simply not.

Players who have identified with and put vast amounts of time into a product shouldn't have to feel alienated "just because" devs want to make the game more accessible to a larger audience. Like a real life relationship, it's the little things that add up, and it's the little things that keep getting cut out of gamings' most popular franchises so instead of a stellar product we end up with mediocrity. Sure Bethesda Softworks or Bioware have delivered what they set out to, but I can't think of one reason why that should make them immune from receiving scathing criticism from the people who have supported them for so long and understand those games better often better than the devs do.

I put consolised in quotations in my first post to deliberately make note of it. Consolised is a buzz word coined by angry people to make other angry people angrier over a subject that makes them angry in the first place. I hate that word as it's to generalised and doesn't consider the functional things that have come out of making games for consoles. The console games haven't all been atrocious over the years and more recently that aspect of console gaming is waning. Developers and producers are seeing the success of games like Demons/Dark Souls (for it's classical trial and error difficulty curve and tasking but rewarding gameplay), Minecraft (with it's unconventional graphics and gameplay) and the Witcher (for showing that ports can be an improvement, and that people like a story that doesn't pamper their every action) and are taking note. These games and more will shape the next few years of game development... for better or worse.

Unfortunately, I can't defend or argue against the point of wanting choice. Everybody wants choice, and some developers try and give us choice, but the choices are limited by practicality. It is undeniable that over the last decade there has been a malign design ethos creeping into the industry of creating games for broad audiences and consequently diluting the flavour for the the core fans of the genre/series but it is also undeniable that the conditions for AAA gaming has also changed, making it a big investment. So playing it safe by appealing to people who normally wouldn't show an interest with you by adding hot topic gimmicks or functions to your games to peek their interests, has become a standard. Though as I said earlier, there are exceptions succeeding and bringing this ugly fallacy to the front, where it will be judged and hopefully repressed. Unfortunately I doubt it will be discarded.

As you said above though, the likes of Bethesda are being savvy about what they can and can't do, aiming to make as competent and memorable (for some) experience as possible while keeping themselves close and open to the modding community so that they can address the "core" issues for the long time fans without barring off the more recent console only fans (oblivion being a bit of a disaster in that sense). Personally, being a long term fan of TES as far back as Daggerfall, oblivion has been the only misstep and I stilled enjoyed it. Skyrim is what Oblivion wanted to be and more. Is it perfect? No. But I have seen improvements and I expect more in the future.

Bioware... I don't know about bioware. They have a history of some great games, but fucked up one sequel and ballsed up the ending of a trilogy and suddenly people hate bioware. I don't buy it. Bioware was never big with their community like Bethesda. They are a closed developer producing everything internally with little external influence bar their previous games successes. They never had an issue with developing a good game before, how can EA who is just the publisher be doing so much damage? Deadlines? They were always there. Demands by EA for change? I still think bioware games are more than a cut above other EA titles, even DA2. Personally, I think it's pressure to live up to their success in the past... it's too much for them and they buckled. Could it be the end for bioware and have they peaked? Maybe. That's the sad truth to business, it's not indestructible or infallible, regardless of its history. I would love to hear it from the mouths of the developers, and not some public rep.

SNIP

This is a thoughtful, insightful post - I generally agree with you in most situations. However, there are few things - I wouldn't paint every single thing with a broad brush. Things like online passes, anti-used gaming measures, et al are not across the board morally reprehensible.

Some are bad solutions to terrible problems (used games sales and piracy) - in these cases, the industry and the consumer need to work together to find a common solution. Neither side should endeavor to take money out of the pocket of the other. For example, would you accept an all-digital platform if the pricepoint for the games was lower - say closer to $50 at new and scaled down over time?

Some are simply reactions to the nature of the industry. The curve of sales of DLC on the y axis and time from release date on the x axis is almost a straight slash (unless I just bobbled my metaphor...), so releasing DLC as early as possible is simply the market responding to external forces. If they store the files on the disc, it's even more cost-effective. Now, there are cases where this is abused, but not all of them. In Capcom's case, they flat out said there were going to be DLC characters - does the fact that they stored them on the disc make them wrong inherently?

And some are just revenue generating mechanics. Some are stupid and blatant (Asura's Wrath), but others are giving you good value for your money, so they deserve to be paid as well. Every situation, every company is different. Let your mind and your dollar be your voice.

I made a remark on entitlement in a post earlier, I'll quote it here:

Here's an attempt to concisely define the proper and improper use of the entitlement argument: Anything that is demanded in excess of what you paid for, based on preconceptions of the final product that did not meet YOUR standard, or self-convinced notions of the importance of your presence to the company, is an issue of entitlement.

Anything that is officially promised but not delivered, or delivered in shoddy condition, or delivered underhandedly or lacking respect to the paying consumer, is an issue where a consumers entitlement is actually not being fulfilled. A person has a right to demand what was offered once money has been exchanged and has a right not to be shafted for a quick buck (or to be treated like a pirate etc.).

Of course, these are very rough and need some working, but I believe a distinction needs to be made between what a consumer gets and what a consumer expects to get. They are distinctly different outcomes.

It's a tricky subject. I can't agree with being treated like a criminal just because criminals are doing criminal things somewhere else. I can understand the need to protect your property... but some of these systems in place are pushing it. They aren't a necessary evil, they are exploitative and oppressive to the consumer disguised as a means to counter piracy/2nd hand sales. They punish the consumer, tell us it's for our own good, while making it harder for us to enjoy their product... that doesn't make sense, and is unacceptable.

I agree contingencies are needed to stop piracy, though that will never happen in totality. Jim made a point a couple of weeks back about offering a better platform then the pirates... that means cutting out DRM, gutting intrusive systems like GfWL and refining the positive aspects of platforms like steam.

Online passes are an arbitrary response to used game sales... rather then taking a step back and seeing a way to reduce the price of new releases they just say we'll ask for more money from honest consumers. When people scoff at that, they site our resistances to their current contingencies as being counterintuitive to the industry.

So, let me get this straight. You aim to make games that consumers would be willing to buy in order to be profitable, but you aren't making enough money so look to find who's to blame. When you cherry picked a few candidates for finger pointing you proceed to implement systems to thwart them. That evidently doesn't work but you continue to push it on us, the honest consumer, because we haven't stopped buying your games... but you can't figure out why you still aren't making MORE money. So you start to blame the perfectly normal 2nd sales market, a secondary option for gamers around the world and a valid option for those who aren't particularly wealthy or don't have confidence in your product. You penalise potential future fans, for not taking a risk, by charging them more (defeating the purpose of 2nd hand sales). Then you wonder why people are getting angry at you, all you've done is try to make games they would like... oh wait, in your attempt to protect themselves from loss you started to put undue pressure on the only people who are actually supporting them and on potential future supporters, and even after not seeing an improvement you continue to force it on us and even have the gall to tell us we are being bad consumers.

Da fuck is dis shieeet!
/rant

Anyway, I also said earlier something along the lines of "We as customers do have choice, buy or not buy. We talk with our wallets. Pro-consumerists tell us this all the time (along with demanding transparency in the market, which we still don't have)", So I agree with you on that point.

"Let your mind and your dollar be your choice". Exactly. They are providing things for us because they want something from us... if they don't have what we want, they don't get what they want. If that upsets them, then it's their obligation to make changes, not ours to submit to their will.

Well in the case of Skyrims UI, yeah you would have a right to complain. That system was slapped on generically for all platforms, not even trying to take advantage of a keyboards extra functionality. It's clunky and unintuitive, contrary to what the developers said it was.

I played elder scrolls IV and Skryim both on console (my sister wants to play, her computer is shit) before the PC and I have to say, the skyrim UI isn't even console-centric, it's just horrible shit all around, worst UI I've ever seen or used. I think it is so bad that I think bethesda should just pay the guys who made skyui some amount of money and patch it in on consoles (although for all I know that's impossible for some reason)

I actually own the PS3 version and aside from the lag issue (which seems to be resolved for me now) I had no real qualms with any thing. I wouldn't agree the UI is horrendous. It's not perfect and it could be worse. Though it could be better too. I still think it's better then oblivion though. That said, I would like a few more menus. It gets too cluttered, especially when it comes to gathering materials for crafting.

I played it for a bit on PC (borrowed it to see if my rig could handle it). The UI was clunky and even unresponsive. I found that the potential for hotkeys was not nearly as good as it could have been and it was just so, unintuitive to browse through.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Aww, sounds like someone had their feelings hurt that they were losing to EC.

Pfft. I'm too busy winning hearts to be winning polls!

Well that's fair. You do win a lot of hearts. And Polls are hard. Especially when they have options. People get distracted, and panic. Hardly reliable anyway.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I dunno am the only one that finds most 7-9's to be 3-6? "Better" seems to be a more twitch friendly fluid gameplay thats inherently shallow and easy(bioshock anyone?).

I wish they got back to developing better gmaeplay narratives that do not involve focusing the product on the drooling masses.


If you want easy and regenerating health then put it on super easy mode.....

 

[Samantha Burt]

Raisin Bran! Is the shit....

Sorry, we did not have time to get your raisins in by product launch. You can buy them in a separate pack for $2. They are a non integral part of the bran experience anyway, so this way consumers win by being able to choose just to eat bland crap.

I must say, I got a few good giggles out of that one. Nice

 

[Tel_Windzan]

I've had a lot of talks on this with my brother on the fact that I thought if Game Companies/Developers/Publishers (or just the Sellers of Games, I guess) just reduce the price for their games that they would get far more people to buy those games, because the "bar to entry" would be lower in terms of trying to get those games. Sure, you aren't getting something like $60 dollars per game, but for each person who would have bought the game for $60, you instead get something like 5 customers if the game was priced at $20, wouldn't that pay off in the end? It just seems to make some good business sense to me, at least from my perspective.

Unfortunately, it seems like the collective Sellers of Video Games seem to rather want as much money from people as they can and I get the feeling that a lot of people seem to be okay with it, which isn't a bad thing for them. There are probably people out there who could pay for the price of these games as they are no problem because they have jobs and are probably able to manage their money well to buy the games they want. It's very hard for me to find a reason to blame these people then as obviously, the price of the game isn't an issue with them.

However, as I was saying about the "bar to entry" as before, there are still a lot of people who probably would like to buy games but the price is just too high at the moment. While I guess a lot of people who pirate games are real people who just don't want to pay a dime for anything, I think it is equally possible that a lot of the pirates are people who would have bought the game if they could have. To me, it just seems like lower the price for games anywhere would help the Sellers of video games a lot more than it might hurt them.

It's because of this that I am curious as to the breakdown of what the $60 dollars might be for each video game, or perhaps a dynamic pie-graph of some kind that can be applied to all games. I'm just curious in where that money for that $60 dollar game or whatever that is just coming out and exactly where it might be going to pay for the game. I know some of it has to go into the production cost of the game, but I just wonder what else is to that price that might prevent the Sellers from reducing the price to games and make things nicer for all; besides just general greed.

 

[zacharyk88]

wtf was with the shrimp? what was that for?

 

[J.d. Scott]

It's a tricky subject. I can't agree with being treated like a criminal just because criminals are doing criminal things somewhere else. I can understand the need to protect your property... but some of these systems in place are pushing it. They aren't a necessary evil, they are exploitative and oppressive to the consumer disguised as a means to counter piracy/2nd hand sales. They punish the consumer, tell us it's for our own good, while making it harder for us to enjoy their product... that doesn't make sense, and is unacceptable.

I agree contingencies are needed to stop piracy, though that will never happen in totality. Jim made a point a couple of weeks back about offering a better platform then the pirates... that means cutting out DRM, gutting intrusive systems like GfWL and refining the positive aspects of platforms like steam.

Online passes are an arbitrary response to used game sales... rather then taking a step back and seeing a way to reduce the price of new releases they just say we'll ask for more money from honest consumers. When people scoff at that, they site our resistances to their current contingencies as being counterintuitive to the industry.

So, let me get this straight. You aim to make games that consumers would be willing to buy in order to be profitable, but you aren't making enough money so look to find who's to blame. When you cherry picked a few candidates for finger pointing you proceed to implement systems to thwart them. That evidently doesn't work but you continue to push it on us, the honest consumer, because we haven't stopped buying your games... but you can't figure out why you still aren't making MORE money. So you start to blame the perfectly normal 2nd sales market, a secondary option for gamers around the world and a valid option for those who aren't particularly wealthy or don't have confidence in your product. You penalise potential future fans, for not taking a risk, by charging them more (defeating the purpose of 2nd hand sales). Then you wonder why people are getting angry at you, all you've done is try to make games they would like... oh wait, in your attempt to protect themselves from loss you started to put undue pressure on the only people who are actually supporting them and on potential future supporters, and even after not seeing an improvement you continue to force it on us and even have the gall to tell us we are being bad consumers.

Da fuck is dis shieeet!
/rant

Anyway, I also said earlier something along the lines of "We as customers do have choice, buy or not buy. We talk with our wallets. Pro-consumerists tell us this all the time (along with demanding transparency in the market, which we still don't have)", So I agree with you on that point.

"Let your mind and your dollar be your choice". Exactly. They are providing things for us because they want something from us... if they don't have what we want, they don't get what they want. If that upsets them, then it's their obligation to make changes, not ours to submit to.

A few points, but generally, we're not too far out of line.

1.) Steam is really pretty DRM. There's plenty of games that can't be played without being perma-connected to Steam, or at least connected on launch. If your gripe against the Ubisoft copy protection is that "why do I need to be online all the time to play my game?", adding a pretty GUI and a chat over the top doesn't make it any less hypocritical. There's always going to be a certain percentage of piracy - even if we banned BT and Usenet, people would clone discs, make SneakerNets, etc. The thing is, Ubisoft/EA/Everyone else have a right to protect people from stealing their property as much as anyone else does. I don't agree with all their tactics, and I understand the gripes. The issue isn't the concept so much as the immediate implementation. Developers and publishers need to better, and the gaming community needs to discourage piracy. I may not like Activision. I may not agree with things they do. However, if I steal their stuff, I'm as much the cause as anybody else.

And to paraphrase Louis C.K. - "What happens after you enter the code or the online pass? Did you get a hundred hours of the work of the best animators, game designers, writers, coders, and voice actors ever? Did your magic box give you the awesome experience of being a space captain bounty hunter treasure finding ninja soldier world hero that flirts with beautiful women and saves the world? Did that happen? Then shut up! Technology is amazing and everyone sucks."

There's a sense that even the most minor of inconveniences are used as excuses to hate on the most wonderful of things. You may have to jump through some hoops. Get over it. I'm not saying this applies universally (especially when the DRM makes your PC not work...) but sometimes it really is just whining. If you have nothing but a desktop on a persistent 12 MBPS connection in the U.S. and you're worried about always on DRM, maybe the problem is you. You're not going to the third world with that video game. If you do, you're not going to worry about playing it. If it affects you, then gripe. Again - your results may vary here.

The thing is - why do they need to reduce the price of new releases? $60 was the same price a game was in 2002. I think that's when they went up from $50. The price of making a game has gone up exponentially, and the price hasn't. GameStop is a cancer. They buy games at $20 and sell them at $50, intact. Now, if they go all digital, and there's no used games sales, I expect them to drop the price, since my equity (the opportunity to resell my game) is gone, but that's it.

Now, if games had depreciation - if the discs wore out easily - if there were a way to age a game, the same way any normal good ages and becomes less functional, then this would be fine - but if a game is kept well, and doesn't get scratched to death, the systems won't damage it, so there's minimal depreciation. The game you buy used a year from now, is the same game I bought new. It is a year old, but the only value is in perception - the good itself does not depreciate. That's what makes the secondary market so nasty - there's no incentive to buy a game from the publisher the day after purchase unless they make it.

 

[carpathic]

Pretty awesome!

Always nice to see another Jimquisition up. Wish I had something wittier to say here, but I would only pale in comparison to "The Jim".

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

A few points, but generally, we're not too far out of line.

1.) Steam is really pretty DRM. There's plenty of games that can't be played without being perma-connected to Steam, or at least connected on launch. If your gripe against the Ubisoft copy protection is that "why do I need to be online all the time to play my game?", adding a pretty GUI and a chat over the top doesn't make it any less hypocritical. There's always going to be a certain percentage of piracy - even if we banned BT and Usenet, people would clone discs, make SneakerNets, etc. The thing is, Ubisoft/EA/Everyone else have a right to protect people from stealing their property as much as anyone else does. I don't agree with all their tactics, and I understand the gripes. The issue isn't the concept so much as the immediate implementation. Developers and publishers need to better, and the gaming community needs to discourage piracy. I may not like Activision. I may not agree with things they do. However, if I steal their stuff, I'm as much the cause as anybody else.

And to paraphrase Louis C.K. - "What happens after you enter the code or the online pass? Did you get a hundred hours of the work of the best animators, game designers, writers, coders, and voice actors ever? Did your magic box give you the awesome experience of being a space captain bounty hunter treasure finding ninja soldier world hero that flirts with beautiful women and saves the world? Did that happen? Then shut up! Technology is amazing and everyone sucks."

There's a sense that even the most minor of inconveniences are used as excuses to hate on the most wonderful of things. You may have to jump through some hoops. Get over it. I'm not saying this applies universally (especially when the DRM makes your PC not work...) but sometimes it really is just whining. If you have nothing but a desktop on a persistent 12 MBPS connection in the U.S. and you're worried about always on DRM, maybe the problem is you. You're not going to the third world with that video game. If you do, you're not going to worry about playing it. If it affects you, then gripe. Again - your results may vary here.

The thing is - why do they need to reduce the price of new releases? $60 was the same price a game was in 2002. I think that's when they went up from $50. The price of making a game has gone up exponentially, and the price hasn't. GameStop is a cancer. They buy games at $20 and sell them at $50, intact. Now, if they go all digital, and there's no used games sales, I expect them to drop the price, since my equity (the opportunity to resell my game) is gone, but that's it.

Now, if games had depreciation - if the discs wore out easily - if there were a way to age a game, the same way any normal good ages and becomes less functional, then this would be fine - but if a game is kept well, and doesn't get scratched to death, the systems won't damage it, so there's minimal depreciation. The game you buy used a year from now, is the same game I bought new. It is a year old, but the only value is in perception - the good itself does not depreciate. That's what makes the secondary market so nasty - there's no incentive to buy a game from the publisher the day after purchase unless they make it.

1. Steam is DRM. I don't like that. But steam is also an online store that offers GREAT deals. It offers a FREE, comprehensive and user friendly community service. It makes massive promotions for Indie and little league developers, promoting stuff that would have been forgotten or missed entirely under the shouting and raving of the big boys. It promises security and a right to own your purchased games if ever the platform is taken down, not just a license to play it with the service. It offers an offline mode that DOES function (but isn't well implemented). Steam is like a vaccination by a nice doctor, it's uncomfortable and is not something I want, but he promises to make things feel better and gives us a lollipop and a warm smile. I would rather not be treated like a child, but at least I'm not furious over it.

Ubisoft? Shafts us and tells us we deserve it. Their DRM is intrusive and DOESN'T WORK. Ubisoft is a rapist that let's us watch what we want on the telly. I fucking love watching Cowboy Builders, but I don't think I love it enough to compensate for BEING BONED unwillingly.

Sorry for the crude analogy. I hate Ubisoft and actively avoid their products. I don't pirate their stuff, I just ignore it. I refuse to even give them a chance.

2. The issue with DRM isn't that it's there. Steam makes it imperceptible AND offers a platform worthy of my money, they make a bad thing less bad by offering a really big good thing and as much support as is practical to the consumer. Ubisoft? Give it to us raw and tell us it's for OUR own good and that we don't know what we need anyway. ITS NOT FOR OUR OWN GOOD. Its for THEIR own good. They failed on their end, so we get punished, while the crooks walk away laughing. Great!

It's not Ubisofts place to punish Pirates (which it fails at totally anyway), but to offer a better service... a service we want to pay for (which it fails at for me). But a game is a product right? Well yes, it is a product... however they also work with functions beyond the product that have long lasting effects and are used to monitor the community... that is a service. Their service sucks and unfortunately the distinction between their service and their product is non-existent, so I treat them the same. Their service sucks, which makes their games suck.

TAKE NOTE OF THIS POINT
If I pirated a bad DRM game I get to play it without hassle from any hidden software within the product (as it is cracked) and I get it for FREE. That happens when I do the WRONG THING, the thing they don't want me to do in the first place. IF I PAID FOR IT, I have to fill in serial keys to confirm what I paid for legitimately is legitimate, register to a site so I can be monitored by it and remain connected to that site/service to be monitored at all times... just in case my game suddenly turns into a pirated game!? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!?

Way to make your friends into enemies and your enemies laugh their asses off.

3. Pricing is... a tough nut to crack. It's not perfect. In a bid to avoid a few more rants I can say that I agree with your sentiments but feel that system is showing too many holes in it. It's flawed (by the simple fact that they aren't getting enough and we aren't happy with the prices) and rather then getting it fixed they keep shovelling more money (the thing that they want more of) into SERVICES no one wants and that don't work as is intended, but instead completely counter intuitively..

 

[CardinalPiggles]

If you're poor, you shouldn't be buying games, or you should wait until they are cheaper, why must people insist on buying every new game that comes out and then complain when they say they are too expensive, have a little self control for god sake. And vote with your god damn wallet people.

 

[Sylveria]

This episode could have been a lot worse.

...but I'm not sure if it could've been better. I also find that people who espouse the "it could be worse, so shut your trap and take another dick in the arse" attitude are usually the ones who piss and moan about "entitlement" when people air legitimate grievances about a particular game/business model/whatever.

As a person who see's an issue with entitlement among gamers, I resent that. People do throw that buzz word around a bit too much, but it is a problem in some cases.

When gamers chastise a developer about a game for being "consolised" or being dumbed down, arguing that the developers don't care about their franchise and fans that follow them, ignoring the fact that the "streamlining" is intended to make a game more accessible to people with less tolerance to inefficient/unwieldy designs, and that audience being just as entitled to the games as you (but not as patient with games as you) since they will pay for it with money that is of equal value to your own... . Ergo, Entitlement. Your investment is equal to theirs, you have no real ground to argue otherwise (beyond feeling entitled).

Complaining that a product you paid for does not meet your expectations is not entitlement. It is a legitimate consumer complaint. Other people being happy with it does not negate your issues with it. By your logic, if they developed a car with no brakes to make it more marketable to the reckless driving enthusiasts, anyone who complains about that vehicle would be an entitled whiner cause they think cars should have brakes.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

wtf was with the shrimp? what was that for?

Better we shrimp the videos, than let the videos shrimp us.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

Good point. I also laughed so hard at the Raisin Bran.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

This episode could have been a lot worse.

...but I'm not sure if it could've been better. I also find that people who espouse the "it could be worse, so shut your trap and take another dick in the arse" attitude are usually the ones who piss and moan about "entitlement" when people air legitimate grievances about a particular game/business model/whatever.

As a person who see's an issue with entitlement among gamers, I resent that. People do throw that buzz word around a bit too much, but it is a problem in some cases.

When gamers chastise a developer about a game for being "consolised" or being dumbed down, arguing that the developers don't care about their franchise and fans that follow them, ignoring the fact that the "streamlining" is intended to make a game more accessible to people with less tolerance to inefficient/unwieldy designs, and that audience being just as entitled to the games as you (but not as patient with games as you) since they will pay for it with money that is of equal value to your own... . Ergo, Entitlement. Your investment is equal to theirs, you have no real ground to argue otherwise (beyond feeling entitled).

Complaining that a product you paid for does not meet your expectations is not entitlement. It is a legitimate consumer complaint. Other people being happy with it does not negate your issues with it. By your logic, if they developed a car with no brakes to make it more marketable to the reckless driving enthusiasts, anyone who complains about that vehicle would be an entitled whiner cause they think cars should have brakes.

Okay, Brakes on a car? Essential... no, mandatory. It would never be put on the market otherwise. Of course it would still work, but brakes are typically expected by the consumer, let alone necessary for safety reasons.

For games the equivalent of the above analogy would be releasing a game with missing audio files or textures. It will still work, but not as intended... the consumer knows audio and visuals are part of the experience therefore not getting what they paid for.

This is just a bad analogy.

A proper analogy of my point would be this:

A car that is sold with everything you need, but the floor matting or dashboard finish isn't what you expected it to be based off of pictures in the catalogue and your idle fancies (or maybe the car radio doesn't have enough nobs or too many nobs for your taste, but we'll stick to the finish analogy). You had no reason to think the finish would be better then that, you just hoped it would. So you complain to the manufacturer that you bought their car and that the finish wasn't what you hoped for and you demand a better finish. They will then laugh at you (actually they won't, they might offer condolences or a free coupon or something else petty and near worthless). Why? because their is a difference between what is on offer, and what is to be expected. By all means say what you want to say, shout it on the rooftops... but the most you can do is just that, voice your disapproval. You can't demand more then what was on offer... that is being entitled.

For games, the same thing. Just because you wished really hard for skyrim/mass effect/assassins creed/starcraft etc. to have certain things, the absence of them does not give you the right to demand them. You can complain and voice your displeasure, but you got was on offer. You are entitling yourself to something that wasn't on offer.

Now, if by chance something WAS offered but you didn't get? Yeah, you are owed it and make sure they know that... and make sure others know that.

In the end, your voice is in your wallet. That's all the industry will listen to. If you don't like what they do, don't fund it. That will come at a sacrifice for you however in the form of not playing their games (if you aren't a scumbag pirate)... the price for freedom and all that rhetoric.

EDIT: Actually, upon reflection YOU CAN play their games. Get them second hand... it's not illegal or morally reprehensible like EA would want you to think. They also don't get your support.

Know when to stand up for yourself and when not to make a show of yourself.

 

[Gatx]

Hilarious introduction, actually laughed. Also the episode was insightful, lots of good points, etc. etc.

 

[LilithSlave]

... you mean the contributors are actually reading our topics?

Oh! I feel so exposed! Don't look at me there!

I personally feel this message to be more poignant about the "Occupy x" protests than games. Even if one is making a point about games. This really resonates with me about all the times people have complained about problems in the United States or so forth, and met with "but even poor Americans are rich, stop whining like an emo teenager!". Don't complain because someone has it worse mentality, is sadly really common.

You think poverty in the United States is bad? What about the Africans?

You think that that's racist? This isn't Nazi Germany!

You think that's sexist? Try living in the Arab world!

No, that's horrible logic.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

one of your best jim, keep it up

 

[OZITOMAI]

i'm sorry, i stopped watching the video halfway through cause you guys are complaining 60 bucks!!!! fricken hell 60 bucks is what i rather pay 100 or over for games in australia, i have to get games shipped over from england that are 60 bucks or cheaper