Jimquisition: Buyer Beware

[electric method]

I have to say I agree with Mr. Sterlings general thoughts and ideas in regards to the topic of caveat emptor. That said there are a few points that weren't mentioned. The biggest of those points being this; Games, like most of the rest of things that are sold, are based on the principle of Supply and Demand. In this type of economy the power *always* rests with consumer.

The fault for many of the terrible business practices surrounding gaming can be placed directly at the feet of the industry to start with, initially at least. Now? Now, it's not only the industry's fault, but the consumers as well. If, for example, everyone had seen where the horrid practices surrounding CoD were going to lead at the start of the Modern Warfare craze and just refused to buy a mediocre game (and it's DLC) then CoD wouldn't have become the monster it is. The consumers, NOT the pubs/devs set the table for more of the same. If consumers don't buy what the devs/pubs are shoveling then those same devs/pubs must go back to the drawing board and start creating games that we will buy.

In short, we as consumers did not start this hell initially, but it, sure as hell, is our fault, collectively, for it's continuing practice as we have continued to support it, buy crappy games, bad dlc, yearly release mediocrity and the like. Sorry, but until we as consumers exercise the power we have in this type of economy, well... then at least half the blame rests on our shoulders as well.

 

[veloper]

No, it's not a get out of jail free card.

Games can be shit and the companies that produce them will get verbal abuse, but researching your games before you buy, is still sound advice, unless you like to play shit.

It's not like righteous indignation will solve anything by itself.

I don't think anyone's arguing that research is bad. Jim makes a solid argument in his video for the larger problem of information in gaming and contextualises his statement about "Buyer Beware." No offense intended, but did you actually watch the video?

I watched it and I say Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on. You cannot trust advertisement and that fact isn't unique to games and companies can get away with much.
This isn't going to go away.

So we just have to deal with the way it is now and forever and that means buyer beware.
The good news is that gamers are a vocal bunch and the red signs are usually all over the net for those willing to look.

 

[LostTimeLady]

Grange Hill music! Genuinely made me laugh, that takes me back to watching BBC children's telly in the early 90's. (Blue Peter theme next week?)

On topic:
I absolutely agree Jim that apologists for the games industry should not shift the blame for product dissatisfaction onto the consumer, especially when the consumer has been subjected to false advertising.

Speaking personally, thinking back on my recent game purchases ("Papers, Please", "Bastion" heck, going back much further to "Minecraft") they've all had one thing in common, I have either seen an Escapist video review (I trust you guys), a Zero Punctuation video, or something on youtube either by Yogscast or PaulSoaresJr. I rarely, if ever, "risk it for a biscuit" because that biscuit is too flipping expensive. I think that says something about the state of the industry. I don't do the same when buying books or CDs (when I may have only heard one or two songs) but with video games, it's such a huge risk.

Buyer beware? Yes, quite.

 

[Vegosiux]

I would raise a point that gamers should take the time to inform themselves about their purchases. Not because caveat emptor, but because that's the only way for us as customers to actually be able to do something about the deceptive environment the industry has degraded into.

So I won't say "Lol, if you had gotten yourself informer, you'd not regret buying that crap" but I will say "Yaknow, if you get yourself informed, you can do something about this entire issue."

 

[Isengrim]

Maybe I am just impatient, but the issue is that the bubble doesn't burst.
In my eye's the "gaming community" ( to whatever and whoever this term exactly is supposed to relate ) so far didn't scream enough, didn't scream loudly enough and not long enough.
So far, the state is this: Steam has neither the quality control, nor a refund policy; day-one DLC and preoders are fucking everywhere; EA still makes profit; Developers of Guise of the Wolf or Garry's Incidenet were not bashed with a Raw Club +5 nearly enough times; IGN still bullshits everybody into the hype; and publishers publish unfinished buggy games all a-fucking-round like it's raining shit.

In other words, things are bad. Very fucking bad, and I am yet the see the consequences, because so far most people are just fucking happy to go with it.

What the hell is not wrong with them? With ( as "gaming community" ) us?!

Don't we have a sense of self respect, are we so damn addicted to the games that every time a new nice looking trailer comes out we're like "MUST HAVE MUST HAVE MUST HAVE MUST HAVE GOONA BE SO AWESOEM"?
Because that's how it looks like.
And yes, I used the term "we" despite the fact that it rather hurts me, considering what this community represends - being passive when faced with bullshit that hurts them. ( Yes, I vote with my wallet, for a long time now ).

I've grown to the state of bitter cynicism about every scrnshot and trailer I see, every game that is said to come out, to the point of me bashing the games I adore and in a removing a bit of fun that I used to have from them. To the point of me doubting the developers that made the games that I love, and never did anything to betray my trust.

All because of all the bullshit that is happening, all the crap that is pulled out, it seems to me like a spreading taint, with the only possible cure being burning everything to the ground.

I'm impatient because lack of backbone I see in gaming community kills my hope to ever see a change. All I can forsee is the taint spreading, the fact that I vote with my wallet made irreleveant by so many that just do not. My carefullness shattered by those that just go and preoder everything...

When will the bubble burst? Because it seems out it won't be soon enough. Or hopefully I am just impatient.

 

[PunkRex]

Grange Hill?! That takes me back.

Me too... and I think I vom'ed abit.

Oh Jim! Grange Hill!!! That takes me back. But whatever next... Byker Grove! >_>

I'm hoping for 'The Animals of Farthing Wood', shizz is like shakespere with forest critters.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Thank god for you, Jim. I'm very surprised you had to explain this so thoroughly. Alas, your right. Some people are so deeply manipulated by corporate speakers that "free market" is the best answer. Does anyone forget how the food industry was before FDA? Don't get me wrong, the FDA isn't perfect and sometimes is absolutely stupid. However, people were getting sick and eating viral rats in their meals prior to this. And it went on for years... YEARS. Too many people get hurt for way too long.

Its literally impossible for everyone everywhere to be totally and completely informed. They don't deserve this bullshit just because they don't spend 9/10 of their lives doing fucking research.

 

[Melion]

Its literally impossible for everyone everywhere to be totally and completely informed. They don't deserve this bullshit just because they don't spend 9/10 of their lives doing fucking research.

But it doesn't actually take much time to do some basic research for a game or two. With the power of Google, it takes just around 30 minutes, an hour at most for me and I usually have enough info to go by that.

 

[JoMama_v1legacy]

We are consumers, and consumer need to take a level of responsibility when purchasing products, whether they be games or anything else. And no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be mad at companies for putting out shoddy products, but a consumer that blindly buys one of these shoddy products without any sort of knowledge of what it is - especially in a day and age in where finding such information takes minutes- then they are in fact just as big of a problem as the companies.

You brought up Aliens: Colonial Marines, which was a poorly made game. As such, the creators of said game should receive the blame. But then their are the numerous amounts of people who pre-ordered it with absolutely know knowledge of what the game actually was. I know you are against pre-orders, so should these people be completely exonerated for their bad decision? I don't think so. It was their poorly made, poorly researched decision.

Jim, I know you are for consumer rights, and I am all for giving more power to the consumer, but you need to realize that there is a point in which consumers don't need their hand to be held. Consumers are not a pet goldfish, they Conscious human beings, capable of making good decisions, and they are also capable of making bad ones.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Its literally impossible for everyone everywhere to be totally and completely informed. They don't deserve this bullshit just because they don't spend 9/10 of their lives doing fucking research.

But it doesn't actually take much time to do some basic research for a game or two. With the power of Google, it takes just around 30 minutes, an hour at most for me and I usually have enough info to go by that.

Well, sort of. Until you consider what Jim was talking about. You can't trust half of the resources out there so you have to read everything and search everywhere to get as many opinions as possible. It can take far longer than 30 mins sometimes.

This is only considering that your looking for ONE game. Imagine you don't know what your looking for and are just checking all of the things that catch your eyes. Lets say 8 - 10 games or so. It turns what should be a about 30 mins into several hours or more. Hell some games come out that I've done more research to ensure I wasn't getting screwed than it took to someone on a youtube LP to finish the game all throughout. You have dozens of different conflicting arguments that you have to go through and you have some people on one side and some on another. Gaming is too freaking political. You can't get detailed information anywhere. Its a bunch of half-truths and bullshit from reviewers, publishers, and sometimes even normal people giving their thoughts on the game. While I did end up liking Dark Souls 2, research for that game was terrible. VaatiVidya was a perfect example of this. He gave no critical points of the game and just spouted the same nonsense reviewers spouted 5 days later. Its just a mess man. Hell reviewers even ignored in scores and text a lot of bugs and problems the game had. Also they completely ignored the graphics false advertising until days after the game came out and the CUSTOMERS had come out and complained about it. Its just a mess.

 

[daxterx2005]

Not going to lie the lack of intro song made me sad in the pants.

 

[Griffolion]

I just had a nostalgeurysm with that Grange Hill music. Please more old CBBC music for intros!

 

[Ford-Prefect]

Damage is already done in my case, I am untrusting and disinterested in most games and have been for a couple of years. Still, it wont hurt as long as there are fresh customers to be courted, who cares if your old customers no longer trust you?

 

[IrenIvy]

The only recent time I've bought the game just by reading its description (not reading reviews from Steam and no reviews from other reviewers I trust) backfired horribly on me, as the game turned to be the exact opposite of what the description was telling. It was on sale so financially I didn't suffer much, but since that time when I buy a new game I research at least three-four independent sources. I wish I could trust game descriptions and promos, but this just not possible anymore as my experience tells me currently: if publishers/developers have an consequence-free opportunity to cheat on you, to hype on you, to fool you into believing that game is much better than it is - they will take that opportunity and they will try to hide everything that is wrong about their game in order to enforce its positive image; big companies or indies, no exceptions.
And there are no responsibility for them about misleading the customer, aside of word of mouth from customers and negative feedback/possible lost sales - no legal responsibility, at least. I don't know of any laws or regulations that would punish such practices as outright lying demos, forced positive feedback, removal of features in final version that were promised on promos for preorder and so on, that I'm seeing way too often in video games currently.

 

[kklawm]

I did do a post where I stated my dislike for the Steam Episode, but not really for the 'Caveat Emptor' reason but because I don't think any one or many people should be able to exclude a game because they think it is unworthy. I would have to say I mainly disagreed on the basis that I am a fan of an early release game (called Towns) on steam that people said should have never been on the store (being to their minds an incomplete alpha). It was and is the common opinion and I'm fairly sure the game has received little to no further updates. But in my mind it's excellent as is, and the developers themselves stated the game was largely finished.

My fear with going heavy handed game judgement to marketing is:
1. Lower-polished independant games might end up never being released on the steam store because they aren't finished, which would help the industry regress to the AAA publisher or unknown industry it used to be.
2. Good games might never get the chance I think they deserve because they don't get the recognition or funding to make it out of beta.

I said I wanted 'the good, the bad and the ugly' represented because people differ exactly what game fits which definition and personal opinion seems to me the decider, not some arbitrary quality controller. Some argue Elder Scrolls Online is a terrible game and a market hungry money sink (with $60 game price + $15 sub + DLC content), does that mean it shouldn't be on something like Steam if it wanted to? Every MMO releases with server problems, bugged quests, and may not even playable for the first few weeks. Wheres the line drawn? Yes some consumers will be burnt, and due to the shady business practices of a lot of companies lies will be told (which... why isn't that illegal anyway? Lying to your consumers.... Isn't that covered under consumer rights?) But 'shit' games like Towns can still be found and bought by people who enjoy those games.

Personally I'm glad Steam doesn't play Dictator, and if that comes with a bunch of half-way shit games or 'early access' into a buggy nightmare I don't think its healthy for any market to cull those games unless they outright do not function or are purposely misleading in their advertising (so Colonial Marines is still a travesty that should have never happened...) As for the underprivileged consumer who doesn't know any better and gets burnt, I'VE been that person plenty of times. If I would advise anything:

1. Steam games should, within a timeframe, be refundable. THIS I can see as being a big problem, any mistake being permanent sucks. To me this is what is unacceptable, not game quality. This is where the fight should be fought, not in a game is in/out of the store way.
2. There needs to be some sort of legal ability to punish game companies for deliberately lying in their marketing. It always seems to me that games companies get away with business practices that would be illegal in more 'serious' markets.

 

[t850terminator]

Great video, wish some CEOs of companies watch these videos and realize whats wrong....

 

[Liberkhaos]

I totally agree. It's great to live in the age of smartphones where you can Google a game live from the store seconds before deciding whether to buy it or not but it shouldn't happen.

I don't use Steam so I can't vouch for virtual gaming but I don't think games are worst than they used to. We have as much good stuff as we have bad things but advertising and the amount of promise around games have increased to the point where every piece of trash out there claims to be a mind blowing game according to some (sometimes shady) critics and the only way to be sure is to hang on with critics you are used to and agree with or counter check every analysis with at least 5 others to make sense of it.

Granted some things are left to the opinion of each and every gamer but these days more than ever integrity is clearly missing and the consumer pays for that. Whether it's by wasting time in researches or money on a botched game. Marketing needs to remember that there is more profit to make on the long run out of building the customer's trust than by becoming one of the "bad guys".

Oh and for the record.... I preferred the old theme song!

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure how it's ridiculous - it emphasizes how things today are not the worst they have ever been, as Jim claims in his video.

No, it doesn't even really address such a claim. In fact, you went the other route, to point out how shovelware has always been an issue. But at the same time....

If shovelware was so bad in the 80s that it led to a major industry crash, then how is it not a compelling argument that things aren't nearly as bad today as they were then?

Not necessarily. We could crash tomorrow from the conditions today, or gaming could triple its profits. The conditions right now not having led to a crash yet doesn't mean it's not worse. It's actually not an indicator in any direction. That's like saying that because it's not raining right now, the hurricane twenty years ago was obviously worse than the one we're supposed to get tomorrow.

Now, if anyone has serious analytics in terms of shovelware, I'd be interested to see. However, I would give validity to Jim's claim based on the fact that in the 80s video games didn't have the scope or vector to deliver shovelware anywhere near as broadly or efficiently.

Indeed. Which is why Jim's contention that quality control is worse today is so strange.

Not really. All that means is I would expect things to get better. It doesn't mean that they have.

I mean, I lived through the 80s. Even AAA titles could sometimes be broken and unplayable. But that doesn't give any creedence to the idea that it happened more or less.

Honestly, though, it seems like QA has taken a major step back in the last generation or two. Is it as bad as Jim says? I don't know, but I definitely see where he's coming from.

But home computer sales rose throughout the 1980s, including during the console crash of 1983-1985. The market for home computers certainly did not "shrink greatly" during that period - it grew.

It also grew during the non-crash periods including the boom of eight bit consoles, so that's not relevant or meaningful to an assertion of a crash.

You mention home computer software sales. I'm not sure what figures or sources you are using for that, but it seems pretty irrelevant. Software piracy was much easier on home computers than on consoles, so even if software sales did shrink, that doesn't mean that the home computer market wasn't growing at the expense of consoles or computer software sales.

Software is the only thing relevant to the crash. Hardware wasn't at issue.

My anecdotal evidence from that era is that less than 50% of software used by home computer owners was purchased

Anecdotal evidence meaning nothing here.

I wasn't aware I was suggesting anything "beyond that." My contention is that personal/home computers had a significant effect on the console market. It appears you agree.

Errrrrr...Even saying "significant" was "beyond that." Are you even reading what I'm saying?

The only part we're agreeing on is that it had AN impact. The scope/significance is not something we agree upon. And your logic does not track.

I watched it and I say Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on. You cannot trust advertisement and that fact isn't unique to games and companies can get away with much.

Errr...That wasn't the thrust of Jim's argument. In fact, the elements at issue (developer censorship, moderation of Steam forums, even the issues with journalistic publications mentioned before) are quite different from not only other products as a whole, but specifically other entertainment media.

You keep mentioning statements that are meaningless to the argument you claim Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on. You can't trust advertisements. And? That wasn't the point here. You should do research. Nobody's saying otherwise. That's the rough equivalent of saying people should buckle their seatbelts in a discussion about whether or not a car manufacturer market a car whose gas tank they knew hand a tendency to explode. In short, so what? These are trite platitudes with no relevance to Jim's video or the larger discussion.

 

[Silvver]

I don't understand the point of the song replacement or if it tied into the rest of the episode in some way, but I totally enjoyed it!

Its a song called 'Thorn in my side' by Eurythmics haha, brilliant perfect placement!

 

[Silvver]

...sorry, did I miss why the Record Breakers theme was being used?

Well, it sure as shit ain't the Record Breakers theme, for one.

Thorn in my side!