Jimquisition: Buyer Beware
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is another aspect to this, of why should the consumer have to spend there time as well as their money before they should be allowed to enjoy a game. Having to trawl through heaps of steaming bull shit just to find out whether or not something is worth your purchase sounds more like a job then a hobby to me. I don't know about you but I play games to have fun and relax to get stressed out and irritated as I struggle against the publisher to figure the truth about their game.
I hear that massive anal trauma can do that to certain internet commenters.....Jimothy Sterling said:
*Googles it*JayDee said:
Man, that takes me back. Only 90's kids, and whatnot.
I'm not sure if you were or weren't alive during the time you are talking about, but if you were you must have had a vastly different experience from me if you're taking any of that as evidence that computers caused a console gaming crash. PCs were indeed like having a scientific laboratory in your home--along with all the required cost and expertise implied by owning a laboratory. I knew waaaay more people who owned the magic little few-hundred-dollar box that makes the picture games come up on the TV than I knew people who owned the two-thousand-dollar desktop machine with a shabby monitor that many times required you to dig into config files and compilers to play anything (it sure did Wheel of Fortune and Yahtzee good, though!)Aardvaarkman said:
Not saying the PC games market didn't exist, but it's kind of silly to think it contributed significantly to the Atari crash. All the issues (compatibility, useability, exclusivity, adaptability) were about a millions times more important in the day than they are now, from a consumer standpoint.
Sadly i disagree with you Jim. I don't think that an average gamer can do anything legitimate to not to get disappointed in the long run.
As a gamer that has a low to medium low tolerance for nausea inducing gameplay I got constantly disappointed by even games that have the reputation of top quality like half life 2 and half life 2 is one solid contender in terms of lack of PR spin and high quality control.
Way back I used to pirate most games and that was not of issue and I got money from my parents to buy games that had good multiplayer which I played with my friends. However over time I gradually moved to state where all of my games are legitimate and ever since it was a lottery even though I have read previews and reviews in multiple magazines as well as playing demos and still it was a lottery.
Of course other people had it worse without those information but still wasted money on a bad product or on a false premise is not a fun thing and it only has gotten worse over time to the point where I have given up my background checks and I buy games based on a criterium of whether or not I like the premise of the game. Either that or the game has to be f2p. Granted
I'm in a minority that does not represent an average consumer but the publishers lie all the same and present they products falsely to all of gamers not just me. Even though let's play's are a great source that expose such practices when it comes to single player games you cannot avoid spoilers. When it comes to previews and reviews I agree with you that pr people distort them in a such a way that they are not a good source of information anymore. While i don't discount them entirely a reviewer is still just a person who has to meet deadlines and cannot check an entire game for me. What do you think about that?
As a gamer that has a low to medium low tolerance for nausea inducing gameplay I got constantly disappointed by even games that have the reputation of top quality like half life 2 and half life 2 is one solid contender in terms of lack of PR spin and high quality control.
Way back I used to pirate most games and that was not of issue and I got money from my parents to buy games that had good multiplayer which I played with my friends. However over time I gradually moved to state where all of my games are legitimate and ever since it was a lottery even though I have read previews and reviews in multiple magazines as well as playing demos and still it was a lottery.
Of course other people had it worse without those information but still wasted money on a bad product or on a false premise is not a fun thing and it only has gotten worse over time to the point where I have given up my background checks and I buy games based on a criterium of whether or not I like the premise of the game. Either that or the game has to be f2p. Granted
I'm in a minority that does not represent an average consumer but the publishers lie all the same and present they products falsely to all of gamers not just me. Even though let's play's are a great source that expose such practices when it comes to single player games you cannot avoid spoilers. When it comes to previews and reviews I agree with you that pr people distort them in a such a way that they are not a good source of information anymore. While i don't discount them entirely a reviewer is still just a person who has to meet deadlines and cannot check an entire game for me. What do you think about that?
I understand your point, but still disagree Jim, even if thinking of EA.
You seem to want something to force companies to hold to a higher standard of quality (you didn't come out and say that, but that seems to be the gist). You also seem to want that to be the game companies themselves, and that they should be thinking long term. But that only works if there are repercussions long term.
What is to hold these companies to do better? Their moral compass? If a company is making money sending out shit products then why would they spend more money if it doesn't generate more profit?
Voting with your wallet is the only real power a customer has. The amount of research isn't that onerous on someone who plays video games. Likely they all have internet access and it isn't hard to type the name of the game into a search engine.
If people want better games then they have to force the game industry to make better games. Don't preorder. Don't buy bullshit DLC. Don't buy first day without seeing a review. Don't trust the bought reviews. Watch a video with some game play. These are not hard things to do, or even that time consuming. I do the same thing when purchasing other items.
Until game companies stop making large profits for releasing sub par products nothing will change, ever.
You seem to want something to force companies to hold to a higher standard of quality (you didn't come out and say that, but that seems to be the gist). You also seem to want that to be the game companies themselves, and that they should be thinking long term. But that only works if there are repercussions long term.
What is to hold these companies to do better? Their moral compass? If a company is making money sending out shit products then why would they spend more money if it doesn't generate more profit?
Voting with your wallet is the only real power a customer has. The amount of research isn't that onerous on someone who plays video games. Likely they all have internet access and it isn't hard to type the name of the game into a search engine.
If people want better games then they have to force the game industry to make better games. Don't preorder. Don't buy bullshit DLC. Don't buy first day without seeing a review. Don't trust the bought reviews. Watch a video with some game play. These are not hard things to do, or even that time consuming. I do the same thing when purchasing other items.
Until game companies stop making large profits for releasing sub par products nothing will change, ever.
I see. I was a 6 year old playing the NES at the time, so I can't comment on the prevalence of that; I was privileged. From a pure analysis side though, I tend to agree with the statement that it is not yet, *quite* that bad, but only because the industry has not actually crashed yet. I mean, the sheer fact that it is FACT that steam allows outright underhanded manipulation of its messaging boards and boldface LIES about a games release date is The Coffin itself. That it carries on in the face of full public awareness and derision, is all of the nails.Aardvaarkman said:
If I may, I would liken it to the USA claiming that Afghanistan wasn't as bad a Vietnam on the basis that the country hasn't yet lost as much money and soldiers, or Killed as many Canadian friendlies as 'Nam yet.
Wait, is that Aprils fools joke or what, Jim? Of course, the industry is to blame is to blame for the state it's in now. But that's beside the point. What we really need to do is to educate gamers who don't know any better.
Is that what that tune was? It was driving me daft wondering. I knew it was something from bad tvland of yesteryear alright....Orcboyphil said:
One thing I'd like to ask is why haven't the television, movie, book, or music industry gone through similar happenings? And, if they have, would anyone mind providing a few examples.
But, then again, majority of consumers are, sad to say but, mindless sheep anyway and Steam goes to show that on a bi-annual occasion. Ask any amount of Steam users how many gamers they have, and then ask how many they have actually played or plan on playing. Granted, I do have a few games laying around my house that I still need to get around to playing, but I have played almost all my games on multiple occasions, and got rid of the ones I don't care to play anymore.
IMO, there really shouldn't be any need for that. We live in a technological age where you can acess nearly any amount of information, almost literally, at your figure tips. Add on to the fact that people don't have as much money these days than they used to, you'd really expect people to at least do some research as to what is and isn't good.Jhonny Malkav said:
But, then again, majority of consumers are, sad to say but, mindless sheep anyway and Steam goes to show that on a bi-annual occasion. Ask any amount of Steam users how many gamers they have, and then ask how many they have actually played or plan on playing. Granted, I do have a few games laying around my house that I still need to get around to playing, but I have played almost all my games on multiple occasions, and got rid of the ones I don't care to play anymore.
I understand the situation was probably rather different in the US than it was in Europe and Australia, for example. But I did mention "home computers" as they were called back then. Things like the Commodore 64 were not significantly more expensive than consoles, and they also could be hooked up to the TV set. I also don't think they were that much harder to use - and some console hardware of that era was notoriously flaky and troublesome (most consumer electronic gear was somewhat flaky in the 80s).Abnaxis said:
For example, many of the home computers of the time took game cartridges, just like the consoles, which didn't require any more fiddling around than a console did. So, I'm generally not referring to the IBM-PC style of computer (although those were used for gaming, but typically in wealthier households, and not until years later - more late-1980s).
With a multi-purpose home computer costing only a few hundred dollars, and a single-purpose game console also costing a few hundred dollars, it wasn't a difficult economic for many families to buy the home computer that could play games and do a bunch of other useful stuff, than to buy the much more limited console in a similar price range. Again, I know that game consoles were relatively more popular in the US and Japan, but in the rest of the world, the reverse was often true.
P.S:
I'd strongly disagree with this one. At hat time, there was no "standard" Operating System or hardware for home computers. There was a multitude of competing proprietary systems - far more than there are today. And "usability" wasn't something that was taken for granted. People expected that they had to learn how to use something like a computer. People even expected to have to build their own hardware, or learn to program them.Abnaxis said:
It was like the days when a car owner would expect that they would have to learn how to do mechanical maintenance in order to be a driver.
I do. I do all of the things you mention here. I watch reviews on both escapist and screw attack, as well as TB. I buy only titles that seem to be at least worth my money, and generally am not disappointed with my purchase. I do this for movies as well. I actively do not support movies whose premise or existence I dislike. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Because the amount of people fooled by the BS is greater than the number of people who do the research, and then spread their findings via mass media ie. Jim, MovieBob, TotalBiscuit, Screwattack etc. and those who watch said media Combined. They also spend more money per individual on the deceptive games than we all spend with our informed decisions. (See monetizing Whales for the retention of being a total prick)Blade_125 said:
Let's use Transformers as an example of how voting with my wallet failed, epically. I dislike the movies. I told everybody I know so, loudly. I was still given TWO copies of the first movie, and the sequels were each purchased for me. They were purchased for me by Family members whom I HAD TOLD I hate the movies. On principle, on design, on merit of Garbage writing, on ALL counts, I hate them all. When I asked said family members they said "but you like transformers as a kid?"
So despite my SPECIFIC hatred of a product, and stated intent to boycott it, no less than 4 full priced units, across the entire trilogy were purchased in MY name, at my express desire to the opposite.
What good is voting with my wallet alone, when the entire population of China, and my own family votes against me with theirs?
I've skimmed through most of the posts, but it seems like people missed the biggest point:Aardvaarkman said:
In the past you almost always needed a publisher to release a game. This publisher acted as quality control to some degree and with the industry crash it was no longer profitable (or even possible, after console manufacturers banned publishers if they abused their trust) to release broken games.
Now we have self-publishing and small publishers who release whatever they can to make a quick buck, as Steam (just like the Xbox Indie Arcade) doesn't care what is sold through their market. Is it worse than before? Maybe not, but that was the infancy of the video games market. We don't need to revert to those times, especially not now that everyone and their dog can create a game that barely works and release it online for minimal (or no) investment. It gets even worse when Early Access is flooded with broken "games" who get away with it because "they might be good eventually", making the average consumer expect games to be like that.
That music change...
anyways, i do wonder what lengths those who say people who buy games uniformed want how deeply to look past the smoke screened bullshit. Let's face it, like god tier Jim said publishers and developers go great lengths to conceal if they have a misleading and/or horrible product, to a point where a common customer can't tell if the publisher/developer is pulling the wool over their head and smothering them with it. Sometimes, unless you actually worked on the game or waited weeks/months later, you won't get a clear picture a game is a quality product.
At this point it's becoming harder to trust the industry and the industry caused this bullshit themselves.
anyways, i do wonder what lengths those who say people who buy games uniformed want how deeply to look past the smoke screened bullshit. Let's face it, like god tier Jim said publishers and developers go great lengths to conceal if they have a misleading and/or horrible product, to a point where a common customer can't tell if the publisher/developer is pulling the wool over their head and smothering them with it. Sometimes, unless you actually worked on the game or waited weeks/months later, you won't get a clear picture a game is a quality product.
At this point it's becoming harder to trust the industry and the industry caused this bullshit themselves.
Sorry Jim, even if there are objectively poor quality games, tastes differ which is why gamers should still need to do their research. I quite like Mitsurugi Kamui Hikae while you think it's a terrible game. I dislike Angry Birds Space while you're fond of it.
Also, for there to be a climate where no one has to do research, we can't have games with aesthetics deliberately conflicting with game themes even if it's for artistic reasons.
Also, for there to be a climate where no one has to do research, we can't have games with aesthetics deliberately conflicting with game themes even if it's for artistic reasons.
Then he followed it by several videos saying "You know the whining the ME fans do might be a good idea, why don't we do that more often?"josh4president said:
The point is that you are not spending your money on things you don't want. Different people have different tastes, and you can't force the market to only provide what you want.SilverStuddedSquirre said:
I dislike the Transformers movies, too. I dislike McDonalds. So I don't buy them. That's about all you can do, apart from informing your friends and family about other options and why they might be better. Every day we wake up in a world with a bunch of hassles and shit we don't like. That's life. For example, nobody likes being stuck in traffic. But everybody wants to drive. For me to have an empty road to drive to where I want to go, would deprive a bunch of other people of driving where they want to go.
That's not really the point, though. It's about games being broken, buggy, stolen, missing files (like the game released without the main EXE file a few months back) or outright lying to the customer (like WarZ). You also have the issue of re-releasing a game that was originally released a decade ago and Steam placing it on the "New Releases" list, when the game is horribly broken on modern systems.CBanana said:
There are games like Ride to Hell: Retribution that are horrible disasters, but they are still mostly playable and it should be up to the customer to read reviews.