Jimquisition: Buyer Beware

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
Melion said:
Demonchaser27 said:
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.
 

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
I just had a nostalgeurysm with that Grange Hill music. Please more old CBBC music for intros!
 

Ford-Prefect

New member
Jun 26, 2008
17
0
0
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

New member
Mar 15, 2011
187
0
0
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

New member
Mar 2, 2011
41
0
0
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.
 

Liberkhaos

New member
Mar 14, 2014
8
0
0
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

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
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.

veloper said:
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

New member
Aug 21, 2009
32
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
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!
 

szaleniec1000

New member
Nov 11, 2008
196
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Great video Jim. One of these days you should do a video about the people who justify every nasty action a corporation makes with "they are in business to make money". The "anything goes to make money" attitude doesn't help anyone.
Related to that, people who respond to criticism of publisher bullshit with a sarcastic "how dare they try to make money?" There's a special circle of hell for such folk, in which they're condemned to spend eternity playing always-online games on dial-up. As far as I'm concerned, "trying to make money" starts and ends with actually selling the game: anything else may or may not be bullshit, but if it is then you can't defend it that way.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
veloper said:
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.
Mainstream game journalism is advertisement.
Steam is a platform for selling games and you shouldn't be surprised when game publishers want to paint their products in a good light when you give them a forum board.
It's advertisement. It's allowed. It's not unique to the game industry either.

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.
It means that Jim railing against these issues is futile, changes nothing, and the only useful message on the subject is buyer beware.
 

Antsh

New member
May 15, 2012
50
0
0
Erik Kain from Forbes must really like you, Jim.

Covered another one of your videos.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/03/31/why-buyer-beware-is-a-terrible-excuse-for-bad-video-games/
 

Ironbat92

New member
Nov 19, 2009
762
0
0
Maybe people wouldn't argue that much if Jim wouldn't do so many episodes on the same topic. I'm not saying Jim isn't allowed to talk about Publishers being dicks, but it seems that's all Jim does now of days. Say Publishers are dicks this, Publishers are dicks that. Maybe if he did more episodes other than that, it we wouldn't get so many people arguing about that. Probably not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to get tired of Jim saying the Same thing over and over again.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Antsh said:
Erik Kain from Forbes must really like you, Jim.

Covered another one of your videos.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/03/31/why-buyer-beware-is-a-terrible-excuse-for-bad-video-games/
Sounds like he's just parroting or piggy-backing, but I'll give it a read...

Erik Kain said:
The video game industry is struggling, and part of its struggles stems from foisting badly made games on us, or breaking those games with DRM, or phoning it in with annualized titles, etc. Listening to criticism can help the industry figure out what it?s doing wrong.
I can see some parts that are struggling, but that's normal.
Not the ENTIRE game industry. Though I suppose you could interpret this to mean some of the largest/oldest firms.
But again, that's also normal. At some point, even the titans of industry are challenged, unless they have a monopoly or provide a unique, necessary good (like petrol), they're forced to change or fall.

We've seen that happen already. (THQ is gone, and others are looking to crack)

Anyway...

Criticism only works as long as a company feels that its reputation matters enough to impact sales.

If a company has historically ignored specific criticisms levied against it, it's because the sales numbers are telling a different story. That's consumer response ("voting with your wallet") in action.

Wal-Mart, for example, has a rock-bottom reputation. They're known for selling cheap junk and achieve that by overtaxing/abusing their employees and leveraging all manner of connections rather brutally.
Yet they remain one of the most consistently profitable companies on the planet because the masses, even when presented with those facts, will still buy Wal-Mart's shit and gladly.
Wal-Mart gives no fucks because they know public criticism has no impact on their performance.

Only when bad press coincides with bad sales figures, does a company bother to listen at all; especially big companies.
In that, "Caveat emptor" is completely valid and I can say that because company reputations don't exist in a vacuum; they grow and spread by consumer response.

I maintain that if someone cares enough to complain about something directly, they care enough to learn from their mistake and to do their research next time. Now I'm not heartless about this; we all get a freebie since we were all ignorant consumers once, but the important thing is to learn and move past that.

For whatever reason, the average consumer doesn't learn, and now Mr. Sterling insists that it shouldn't be their job to learn in the first place??? What?? How does that help anything? It certainly won't encourage producers to stop lying, scheming or otherwise jerking consumers around; they do those things SPECIFICALLY to prey upon consumer ignorance and laziness!

I mean, it's nice to imagine a world where the consumer is happy while companies turn a tidy but sensible profit.
But that's all we can do: imagine it. Bringing world that into reality requires more from both sides of the market.
Until that day comes, "Caveat Emptor" is and will remain true.

'Entitled' is a poor choice of words, still, but I think we can see a similarity between some types of gamers and the phenomenon of fanboyism.
It's a proper choice of words in the general sense, but not as a moral counter-argument against the consumer.
(which is the context most were using it in, in recent memory)

Mostly because as a moral argument, it assumes one side is -always- acting "unfair" in their evaluation of something; a unilateral argument that ignores the fact that BOTH sides are motivated by "greed" and thus both are assumed to be "acting entitled".

Which kinda undermines the "moral shaming" aspect of the argument completely.

So any sort of issues involving "False entitlement" is really just a conflict between the consumer and the producer, and whether the price was fair or unfair for a given product ("un/fair" being subjective). Personally, I think the consumer should be given more leeway since the quality or "true value" of a game can only be determined AFTER it's been purchased and played. (no refunds is a huge problem in this business)

This sort of unthinking, reactionary inability to let nuanced discussion take place around controversial subjects is just as bad and just as destructive as the press telling gamers to shut up and stop whining.
Agreed.

I don?t agree with everything Sarkeesian has to say, but I think some of her critique has pointed to shortcomings in video game storytelling that is important to take note of, and I think there?s an obvious problem with under-representation of women in both games and especially in the industry, where men vastly outnumber women.
Well, that particular can of worms has two separate issues:
1) Women are under-represented in games. That much has been obvious for decades.
The real question is why, and what do we do about it? Is increased representation of women something the game industry should enforce internally, or should it occur organically as a response to new-found demand?
(similarly to how there are now gobs of movies pandering to squishy "young adults" because Twilight make megabucks)

Those are both questions Sarkeesian does not, and probably cannot reliably approach in her series.

2) Sarkeesian's methodology is questionable at best. That's not an ad-hominem; it's an observation of her methods that I and MANY others have made. If you hold her work to academic standards, it crumbles. If you hold it up politically, it's just dated pandering. In short: I'd take anything she says or claims with a grain of salt.

We should be able to discuss Sarkeesian?s ideas without constantly reverting to ad hominem..
Agreed, but the Internet is not an inherently kind or rational place.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
Isengrim said:
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.
Yeah, I'm quite fearful myself of this. And I vote with my wallet as well. Hell, I even bought only 2 games in the past 8 months and omg one of them heavily dissapointed me. 2 games and still one had plenty of bugs. That's not good man.
In fact I think your final sentence is exactly why the "true" free market was actually abandoned by most countries. Because there are enough idiots out there that everyone ends up suffering because big business always go after easy money. So actually most people don't get the shit they deserve. They get the shit that everyone else feeds them. And there is no choice around it.
 

[email protected]

New member
May 8, 2008
11
0
0
Orcboyphil said:
Grange Hill?! That takes me back.
That's not Grange Hill... this is!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SlvZF6k5bE

The REAL Grange Hill!!!

(Am i really showing how old I am?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtr3N0lOLAs

Guess I am :)
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
veloper said:
Mainstream game journalism is advertisement.
Then it's not journalism. That's a contradiction.

Steam is a platform for selling games and you shouldn't be surprised when game publishers want to paint their products in a good light when you give them a forum board.
It's advertisement. It's allowed. It's not unique to the game industry either.
Please point me to other cases where a content creator is allowed to run the marketplace. I'm not sure you can even find one in games, let alone other media.

It means that Jim railing against these issues is futile, changes nothing, and the only useful message on the subject is buyer beware.
"Buyer Beware" is futile. In this context, it's ultimately a cop-out.