Jimquisition: EA & Ubisoft: A Cycle of Perpetration and Apology

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
EA & Ubisoft: A Cycle of Perpetration and Apology

The industry loves saying sorry without actually ever being sorry.

Watch Video
 

Magmarock

New member
Sep 1, 2011
338
0
0
Nice dog, and yeah Ubisoft recently apologized for using DRM but Far Cry 3 is still not on GOG :/

I'm getting rather tired of these companies and I know the word boycott is thrown around a lot but I seriously mean in it. in reference to your old episode on boycotts; Call of Duty 4 was the first and last COD I ever bought because I didn't like it. I have completely stopped giving EA and Actervision my money, with the only message being please leave the industry.
 

Big_Isaac

New member
May 24, 2012
17
0
0
So, how many people is that now we have to thank god for?
Jim, obviously, as well as Scarecrow, the Dragonborn and now the dog.
 

tm96

New member
Feb 1, 2014
99
0
0
I don't think companies like EA or Ubisoft will learn their lessons unless it truly bites them in the ass.
 

owbu

New member
Feb 14, 2011
37
0
0
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,298
0
0
I'm probably the only weirdo that still thinks the Diablo 3 auction house wasn't a terrible idea, since it was something that, yes you could spend money on it, but you could also make money on it. Granted, they went about it completely wrong and fucked everyone over with the always-on bullshit, making the console port the actual better game, but I don't blame the auction house in its entirety, I just blame Blizzard for handling it poorly.
 

Drummodino

Can't Stop the Bop
Jan 2, 2011
2,278
0
0
Your dog is very cute Jim :)

Yea I pretty much ignore everything that big publishers and even a lot of developers say these days. I've seen it too many times, them lying through their teeth, apologizing in the most smugly arrogant way possible, trying to spin bad publicity in a positive light (e.g. Watch Dogs PC graphics fix), making promises and never following through... I just don't trust them anymore.

I want to believe that the people making these games really do care about them and want to make a good product for them and us - but something has gone very wrong and that level of trust just doesn't exist anymore.
 

PG

New member
Apr 2, 2008
39
0
0
Magmarock said:
Nice dog, and yeah Ubisoft recently apologized for using DRM but Far Cry 3 is still not on GOG :/

I'm getting rather tired of these companies and I know the word boycott is thrown around a lot but I seriously mean in it. in reference to your old episode on boycotts; Call of Duty 4 was the first and last COD I ever bought because I didn't like it. I have completely stopped giving EA and Actervision my money, with the only message being please leave the industry.
I'm not buying any more of Ubisoft's games, but not as a form of protest, I just don't think they're worth money anymore.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Dammit, Jim. You'd better apologize for exploiting that poor dog.

And then you'd better give us more dogsploitation. ;)
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,230
0
0
I knew there was a point to this video somewhere, but I forgot everything when Jim's doge stole my heart.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
2,723
0
0
Thats why i liked renting games or buying second hand. When companies are terrible then they dont get my money. But then i only buy game i really want full price day one. But i think their are some games like that Dungeon Keeper, that is an obvious cash grab. An Sim City was terribly broken....is it even playable yet? Its that idea of what people wanted from a Sim City game, and they thought "fuck the fans, lets make something what we think they want". An thus we get rubbish. Fable could have been a great series if Moly didnt keep over selling it, not fixing the issues but instead added stuff no one wanted. Maybe Fable 4 will be awesome now without him.

Jim, why isnt the dogs name in the credits? He made your video great yet got no credit for the work. ;-)
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,317
0
0
Hey, I actually liked the Syndicate reboot after playing it recently. A bit too "Directed by J.J Abrams"-y but still fun. But that's not the point of this video, so moving on.

I would say that MS being mentioned on this with the Xbox One isn't as bad, as they did actually do something, unlike the other examples, even if it was under duress. If the next console comes along with the shit that they tried to pull this time, then I'd add them to this shitlist.

Finally, dat dog :3
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
970
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.
The Blizzard only screwed up once so far. They said sorry and fixed the problem within the one game that was a problem, which is further than anyone else typically gets, and they have not yet repeated the problem. Until Blizzard becomes a repeat offender I don't think we can lump them in with EA and Ubisoft as false apologists. The worst we can say for sure about Blizzard at this time is that they had the hubris to think they could succeed where all others have failed, turning a real world money auction house and always online into a good idea.

Now, if the next Blizzard game has the same problems as Diablo 3 then we can start lumping them in with EA. But so far they have shown their intent to change by actually changing Diablo 3 with the release of ROS. It may have been purely for financial reasons but they did change.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
96
0
0
Magmarock said:
Nice dog, and yeah Ubisoft recently apologized for using DRM but Far Cry 3 is still not on GOG :/

I'm getting rather tired of these companies and I know the word boycott is thrown around a lot but I seriously mean in it. in reference to your old episode on boycotts; Call of Duty 4 was the first and last COD I ever bought because I didn't like it. I have completely stopped giving EA and Actervision my money, with the only message being please leave the industry.
Yeah I'm with you there. I've already been started to boycott a lot of companies, at least big budget ones. Ubisoft, EA, and Capcom are just a few. Though Capcom is really about to be a non issue anymore.

I have to say I'm happy to see an episode on this topic. My brother and I have talked about this kind of things before and how sick and tired we are of the excuses and how ironic it is that they always say sorry right before the next big release. Every time we here that we take pleasure in not buying their product. We aren't perfect and we've been burned before with this kind of stuff, but we don't buy into it anymore. Those three plus even the big 3 console manufacturers have played the sorry card multiple times before and then went right back to what they were doing. Honestly with all the manipulation and lack of trust in this industry, its hard not to pirate games first just so you can try before you buy.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
10,733
0
0
Country
United States
Don't let miniature fantasy Willen Dafoe anywhere near him! I can tell by the look in his eye... that dog's a born killer!
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,198
0
0
tm96 said:
I don't think companies like EA or Ubisoft will learn their lessons unless it truly bites them in the ass.
Here's the thing though (and this is another facet of this issue that I'd quite like to see a Jimquisition on), no one company can eve get properly taken to task and pilloried for its bullshit, when the cycle of bullshit is so regular and so many different people are on board.

Whenever Ubisoft does something stupid (and they inevitably do) people will rightfully moan and other people like Jim will make entire shows or articles moaning. If they're lucky, Ubisoft will respond. If they're very lucky, Ubisoft will respond in a way that isn't basically just saying "Fuck all y'all!" However, just as it is inevitable that Ubisoft will fuck up, it is also inevitable that they'll only have to bear the heat for a couple of weeks before EA, or Activision, or Microsoft, or Nintendo, or Square, or Capcom, or all the others currently riding the merry-go-round of dishonest and incompetent business, do something even MORE shitty or stupid. The complain train will move on, and Ubisoft will be in the clear until the next time it's there turn to fuck up.

I'm not saying it's our fault for being too easily distracted. We should be complaining about all these things. It's just that the trouble is, we have so much to complain about, coming from so many different directions, that we can't ever focus our bile in one place for long enough for anyone to really get shit-canned, and as a result, nobody is ever going to learn. They know it too. Just as we've seen the cycle of empty apologies happen a thousand times, they've seen a thousand times that all they have to do is make the most token of concessions to placate us, until somebody else comes along and gives us something new to be mad as hell about.
 

ex275w

New member
Mar 27, 2012
171
0
0
Well Nintendo also apologized for the initial 3DS launch, gave a price cut and gave early adopters 10 free games which was nice of them and they recovered magnificently from their shitty launch so kudos for them, let's hope they do something similar with their console.

Also, nice pooch Jim.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Classic Jim, bitching about things that need to be bitched about. Rarely do I turn off Jimquisition halfway through and say 'whatever'.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
998
0
0
ex275w said:
Well Nintendo also apologized for the initial 3DS launch, gave a price cut and gave early adopters 10 free games which was nice of them and they recovered magnificently from their shitty launch so kudos for them, let's hope they do something similar with their console.

Also, nice pooch Jim.
You'd think other companies would follow Nintendo's example instead of saying "sorry... but it's really all your fault in the first place for not just accepting it."
 

ex275w

New member
Mar 27, 2012
171
0
0
Drummodino said:
Your dog is very cute Jim :)

Yea I pretty much ignore everything that big publishers and even a lot of developers say these days. I've seen it too many times, them lying through their teeth, apologizing in the most smugly arrogant way possible, trying to spin bad publicity in a positive light (e.g. Watch Dogs PC graphics fix), making promises and never following through... I just don't trust them anymore.

I want to believe that the people making these games really do care about them and want to make a good product for them and us - but something has gone very wrong and that level of trust just doesn't exist anymore.
Video Game creators do care about making a good game for sure but remember all the Executive Meddling that occurs in the industry or sometimes we just get a case like Duke Nukem Forever or Tim Schafer where the director is a perfectionist or sometimes the game has to be rushed for various unforeseen reasons.

Contracts force them to lie or give good publicity or prevents them from telling their side of why the game went wrong.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
20,159
0
0
Gamers may not be stupid, but they are certainly poor consumers. And as long as Ubisoft and EA get the message that this is what it takes, then they'll keep doing it.

Hell, the Xbone got a ton of people to yell at other people for not instantly forgiving Microsoft. Except it's one thing to say you're wrong, and another thing to revise your behaviour accordingly. I could say I'm sorry for saying Ubisoft is run b y idiots, but I'm probably going to say it again. Am I really sorry?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Magmarock said:
Nice dog, and yeah Ubisoft recently apologized for using DRM but Far Cry 3 is still not on GOG :/
And while they have scaled back the DRM, there's still Uplay. I'm reading online that Watch Dogs REQUIRES a Uplay activation, at least for PC.

tm96 said:
I don't think companies like EA or Ubisoft will learn their lessons unless it truly bites them in the ass.
I'm not sure even that will do it. See Microsoft. I doubt we've seen the last of their shenanigans.

owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
I'm not sure this breaks the pattern, though. They took the broken system, hung on to it, and waited to get as much money as they could first. They also changed things only around the time they wanted to sell us stuff (concurrent with the release of console versions of D3 and shutting down around the time of their expansion pack). That sounds like exactly the same pattern. "We fucked up, but we've got other stuff to sell you so please accept our apologies."

PG said:
I'm not buying any more of Ubisoft's games, but not as a form of protest, I just don't think they're worth money anymore.
This is pretty much me with EA. I can't say I'll never buy another EA title, but I've stopped buying them because I can't be arsed to pay for them.

Ubisoft? Well, I'll maybe buy Watch Dogs at some point, but even that I'm not sure on.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
7,991
1
3
Country
United States
Yeah, I haven't bought a game with EA's name on it for awhile, (Because their homogenized bland shit doesn't appeal to me) with the exception of Dragon Age Origins, and that game was one I knew from multiple recommendations was good, and it is. It's Bioware before EA's claws got too deep in.
 

teamcharlie

New member
Jan 22, 2013
129
0
0
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth and the barking really don?t help). But I?m afraid of them.

For me, this video felt like a retread of old ideas (companies apologizing for shitty behavior to the public without actually stopping is not exactly a new phenomenon), but I guess there are probably viewers who somehow expected that EA and Ubi et al. love them and would never lie and for whom this video is be a revelation.

So, uh, keep up the good work? Keep spinning out largely the same points every year for the people who are too lazy to look through the backlog of this show, who are also probably the people who most need to be told that big companies lie? Kinda depressing really.
 

2xDouble

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,172
0
0
Ah yes, the classic move, formerly known as "The Doctor Wily".

See? EA and Ubisoft have learned from and adopted Capcom-created business practices. That's growth for the industry.

...right?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
I should have explained those quickfire examples a little better. They're more companies that did things they claimed were impossible until it was time to gain positive favor with gamers again. It was a different brand of insincerity.
 

Oskuro

New member
Nov 18, 2009
191
0
0
That they have to make these insincere apologies has a positive side, in my opinion. It seems to indicate that these big corporations are not as immune to consumer backlash as they might have been (or thought to have been).

Maybe there's hope that the average videogame consumer will become saavy enough to not fall for these tactics in the future.

That "DRM" is considered a "dirty word" also seems positive, even though the Ubisoft reps are desperately trying to rebrand it as "services" and "value" so they don't have to change a thing.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
1,924
0
0
OMG WOOKIT DAH DOGGIE HE SO CUUUUUUTE!!!!1!!1
I'm sorry, where did my mind go? Oh, right! Good video, Jim. I hold out ope Ubisoft (who makes games I regularly buy and play) get their crap together about the DRM, and I liked the much-needed tongue-lashing you gave EA for their weasel behavior and heads-up-ther-ass actions. Now, can you please rip into Activision more? Have they done anything stupid or sickish lately? The last game of theirs I got was Deadpool, but only because its developer, High Moon Studios, also made the two Transformers games set on Cybertron.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
They've been doing this for a while now. Do something horrible, get yelled at, take a small step back and apologize, and continue doing what they're doing. This is how they feel out where the "line" is, the exploitation line of how much most people will take.

Plus it's backed by psychology. Marketing people have long figured out the insincere apologies are very effective at tricking dumb people back into your good graces, even if you just punched them in the face. Apologies are actually evaluated for how much money they make. This is the world we live in now.
 

Ipsen

New member
Jul 8, 2008
404
0
0
teamcharlie said:
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth and the barking really don?t help). But I?m afraid of them.

For me, this video felt like a retread of old ideas (companies apologizing for shitty behavior to the public without actually stopping is not exactly a new phenomenon), but I guess there are probably viewers who somehow expected that EA and Ubi et al. love them and would never lie and for whom this video is be a revelation.

So, uh, keep up the good work? Keep spinning out largely the same points every year for the people who are too lazy to look through the backlog of this show, who are also probably the people who most need to be told that big companies lie? Kinda depressing really.
It bugs me (and discredits yourself) that you find the lies of businesses so commonplace or obvious.
 

disgruntledgamer

New member
Mar 6, 2012
820
0
0
I think you're wrong the majority of gamers are idiots and will keep buying into the EA train of crap. It's why they've gotten away with it for so long and it's why they will continue to get away with it because consumers are dumb.

Anyone want to bet that the next Battlefield will be just as broken and EA will make just as much money and probably more? At least Ubisoft can be ignored they don't make too many games I'm interested in and even if they did I'm primarily a console gamer so I could care less about their DRM BS they give to PC gamers looks good on their smug faces.

EA can't be ignored tho because when you ignore them they buy up other companies and turn you favorite IP and studies into shit and eventually shut them down just so they can't be ignored. I'm willing to bet after the next Dragon Flop which I'm totally expecting to have Mirco...... Jumbo-Transactions and soon after which EA has made one last cash grab Biowares days will be numbered.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
Blizzard "admitted" their mistake, and then it took SEVEN MONTHS for them to remove the auction house. Curious, no? Oh wait, they'd just released the console version without the AH which was a better version than the PC because of it. Oh wait, 7 months later is exactly when their expansion came out, wasn't it.

It was never about the auction house, it was about getting you to buy the console version and then to buy their expansion. Did you fall for it?
 

DeathQuaker

New member
Oct 29, 2008
152
0
0
disgruntledgamer said:
I think you're wrong the majority of gamers are idiots and will keep buying into the EA train of crap. It's why they've gotten away with it for so long and it's why they will continue to get away with it because consumers are dumb.
Sadly, this. I think more gamers are wising up, but there are more than enough games customers who, if for no other reason out of an utterly misplaced corporate-brainwashed sense of brand or franchise loyalty, will buy these things regardless of how often these companies prove themselves to produce nothing but crap. Look at the furor about the Sims 4 leaving out key features that have been in base Sims games for 10-15 years... for all the calling EA out on the carpet and people acknowledging the company is setting up for a DLC/EP cash grab later, it won't stop the game from earning millions and millions of dollars on release day. Same for Battlefield, same probably for Dragon Age, same for any franchise they own. There are enough people who not only will stupidly buy it to let EA earn profit, many of those same buyers were vocally defend their purchase saying it's important to "support" the franchise even if it's being ruined. Many of these players will in one breath decry bugs and sales scams and in the second defend their purchase and declare their intent to do it all over again.

Ubisoft and EA and anyone else who pulls such BS deserve to be called out on the carpet, but so should the millions of consumers who tacitly support their shoddy business practices by buying their products.
 

teamcharlie

New member
Jan 22, 2013
129
0
0
Ipsen said:
teamcharlie said:
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth and the barking really don?t help). But I?m afraid of them.

For me, this video felt like a retread of old ideas (companies apologizing for shitty behavior to the public without actually stopping is not exactly a new phenomenon), but I guess there are probably viewers who somehow expected that EA and Ubi et al. love them and would never lie and for whom this video is be a revelation.

So, uh, keep up the good work? Keep spinning out largely the same points every year for the people who are too lazy to look through the backlog of this show, who are also probably the people who most need to be told that big companies lie? Kinda depressing really.
It bugs me (and discredits yourself) that you find the lies of businesses so commonplace or obvious.
Um, discredits me as what exactly? As a longtime viewer of Jim?s show? As an observer of things? I can tell you right now that I have seen nearly every episode of the Jimquisition and I have observed many a thing throughout my life.

Also, businesses. Walmart acting friendly and happy while gouging its workers and employing/buying from sweatshops to keep prices down. Oil cartels making up oil crises to keep gas prices high. Deregulated power companies in California lying about power supply issues and the causes of brownouts to keep prices high. Hucksters selling ?revitalizing tonics? made of heroin, lead, goat urine and radium before things like the FDA began regulating how much people can lie about what their products put in your body. Businesses have been lying since there were businesses, and it doesn?t surprise me that big video game companies are also businesses.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,013
0
0
At least when Peter Molyneux makes promises he can't keep, it's because he genuinely believes in all his impossible ambition. There's this air of cute innocence about it, as pathetic as it is sometimes.

And yet, Peter Molyneux is a universal punchline, while EA's and Ubisoft's audience lap up their fake apologies.
 

Ipsen

New member
Jul 8, 2008
404
0
0
Oskuro said:
That they have to make these insincere apologies has a positive side, in my opinion. It seems to indicate that these big corporations are not as immune to consumer backlash as they might have been (or thought to have been).

Maybe there's hope that the average videogame consumer will become saavy enough to not fall for these tactics in the future.

That "DRM" is considered a "dirty word" also seems positive, even though the Ubisoft reps are desperately trying to rebrand it as "services" and "value" so they don't have to change a thing.
I would actually claim the habit of making insincere apologies as a worse turn; I see it as less vulnerability to consumer backlash, and more adapting to it, but purely for both their own way and their own profit.

They only get to do this because they prey on the ignorance of some segments of the "gaming community". It may be that every one of the users here on this thread would never buy a Ubisoft or EA game ever again, but the way these companies operate, they'd still be in business.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
I'm wondering... Since when came Ubisoft back into the favor of gamers? Well, at least PC gamers. Ubisoft, for years, is a company that is nothung but lies, insults and failure from my perspective. They may release good games but according to them I'm just pirating their games, they plague me with Uplay (once and never again) and deliver subpar ports. Their position from years ago has not changed at all.
 

Sanunes

New member
Mar 18, 2011
314
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
I should have explained those quickfire examples a little better. They're more companies that did things they claimed were impossible until it was time to gain positive favor with gamers again. It was a different brand of insincerity.
Wasn't the stance of Blizzard that they couldn't remove the always on DRM because of the Auction House, not that they couldn't remove the Auction House? I do agree it took forever to actually remove the Auction House in the end, but considering it was done with a major expansion to the game it might not have been possible with a simple patch. Since this is Blizzard and really to me their first offense I can give them the benefit of the doubt, which is next to impossible with EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, Activision, etc.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
221
0
0
I'm honestly getting tired of seeing this stuff. Nothing new happening in the industry? Let's try and stir up controversy by making a video about how EA and Ubisoft respond to all the other controveries! EA sucks! Ubisoft sucks! Look at my video!

I'd be nice if you did a video about something that wasn't, you know, beaten to death. At the very least you could avoid creating controversy where none exists. This is like fox news level awfulness.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Jim is woefully inaccurate about Diablo 3's Auction House. Firstly the devs prevented the players selling legendary items on the auction house, the introduced smart loot which resulted in the players getting better legendaries. Next they closed the auction house, then released Reaper of Souls which contained better items. So twice the Diablo 3 devs took actions that reduced the number of high level items on the auction house, resulting in them making less money from anyone who paid using real money rather than the in game currency. I wonder if any of the other examples Jim used are equally misleading. Did any of the companies that Jim mentioned produce games that contain the same things that people were complaining about? If not then they did learn a lesson.

Finally Jim does not admit when he is at fault. For example when his ham fisted review of Dragon's Crown resulted in a huge backlash against him he blamed everyone who was pointing out the flaws in his argument, rather than admitting that his own flawed opinions had caused this backlash. He also didn't apologise because what he said was "his opinion" therefore no one was allowed to criticise him for it. So like EA Jim will not admit fault and tries to exempt himself from any responsibility.
 

Ipsen

New member
Jul 8, 2008
404
0
0
teamcharlie said:
Ipsen said:
teamcharlie said:
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth and the barking really don?t help). But I?m afraid of them.

For me, this video felt like a retread of old ideas (companies apologizing for shitty behavior to the public without actually stopping is not exactly a new phenomenon), but I guess there are probably viewers who somehow expected that EA and Ubi et al. love them and would never lie and for whom this video is be a revelation.

So, uh, keep up the good work? Keep spinning out largely the same points every year for the people who are too lazy to look through the backlog of this show, who are also probably the people who most need to be told that big companies lie? Kinda depressing really.
It bugs me (and discredits yourself) that you find the lies of businesses so commonplace or obvious.
Um, discredits me as what exactly? As a longtime viewer of Jim?s show? As an observer of things? I can tell you right now that I have seen nearly every episode of the Jimquisition and I have observed many a thing throughout my life.

Also, businesses. Walmart acting friendly and happy while gouging its workers and employing/buying from sweatshops to keep prices down. Oil cartels making up oil crises to keep gas prices high. Deregulated power companies in California lying about power supply issues and the causes of brownouts to keep prices high. Hucksters selling ?revitalizing tonics? made of heroin, lead, goat urine and radium before things like the FDA began regulating how much people can lie about what their products put in your body. Businesses have been lying since there were businesses, and it doesn?t surprise me that big video game companies are also businesses.
And the part where you do something about your observations comes in where?

All well and good, Observer of Things (I know you're being somewhat serious here, but that made me giggle), but if you're aware of issues and not doing anything about them (not to mention taking jabs at others while doing so), I can't look at you any better...than some random Escapist user, of course.

In any case, I've come to see the Jimquisition largely as videos not for us, as in people who are normally aware of pigshit in the gaming industry. It's for everyone else who may be ignorant to the fact (though perhaps its placement on this site and the comments in its thread are a bit...self-serving?).

That's also to say that myself and many others are not doing much to solve the issue either. We can swear off Ubisoft and EA product, but that's only a bit better than slackivism, I guess. Solving an issue like holding large game companies accountable this takes actual sacrifice, of time, effort, money, etc. of those who care. I don't see that coming out of many on the internet (anonymity can make that difficult to see) but at the least Jim is farther ahead for his effort.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.

Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.

I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
I should have explained those quickfire examples a little better. They're more companies that did things they claimed were impossible until it was time to gain positive favor with gamers again. It was a different brand of insincerity.
When did Blizzard claim it was impossible to remove the auction house? You could play Diablo 3 without using the auction house as long as you were prepared to spend a lot of time farming for gear (rather than farming for gold to buy things on the auction house). Even if you did use the auction house you could buy all the items using the in game currency instead of real money. Finally even if you paid with real money only 15% of your payment when to Blizzard and the rest when to the player who sold the item.
 

Elyxard

New member
Dec 12, 2010
131
0
0
The solution to a vast majority of their problems is to give all of their developers another year of dev time, but they're clearly not going to do that with The Sims 4 launching without a number of basic staples of the franchise. I've lost track on how many times EA has had to apologize over the last couple years, and they're clearly not going to stop anytime soon.
 

Flowstone

New member
Jul 7, 2014
1
0
0
I'd make some grand statement about boycotting Ubisoft, but in all honestly it would be meaningless. On a whim, I looked at a list of every single game ever released by Ubisoft, and came to the conclusion that I had never in my entire life bought a single Ubisoft game for myself. I picked up Riven back in 1998, but that was a present for my mother. The only Ubisoft game I've even PLAYED was Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, and that was at a friend's place; never picked up a copy myself.

It's not really a matter of taking a stand; they just don't make the sort of games I enjoy playing.
 

Nix33

New member
Jul 5, 2014
9
0
0
The more I delve into the bowels of the gaming industry, the more I am convinced that the PR for most of these companies is handled by some unholy fusion of Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Donald Trump, and a turnip. For shit's sake, I am a student of literary theory and I could do a better job of not shitting on gamers.

Call me mad, but I feel as if something pretty fucking major needs to happen in order for practices like these to stop, i.e. people need to stop buying their games.
 

Steve2911

New member
May 3, 2010
53
0
0
As others have pointed out I'm 100% on board with the episode, but I have to disagree just a tad on the Diablo situation. Blizzard genuinely fucked up, they knew they genuinely fucked up and they went well above and beyond to rectify the issue for free. And they haven't really fucked up in any comparable way since or before then.

Can't really say fairer than that.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Blizzard "admitted" their mistake, and then it took SEVEN MONTHS for them to remove the auction house. Curious, no? Oh wait, they'd just released the console version without the AH which was a better version than the PC because of it. Oh wait, 7 months later is exactly when their expansion came out, wasn't it.

It was never about the auction house, it was about getting you to buy the console version and then to buy their expansion. Did you fall for it?
1) How exactly was the console version better? Are you referring to smart loot because they introduced that on the PC version before they released the console version.

2) Why would anyone buy the console version when they could play the PC version and chose not use the auction house?

3) Blizzard closed the auction house before the expansion came out because they didn't want people to sell expansion items on the auction house.

4) Why would anyone buy the console version of a game they already had? If they wanted to start from level 0 with no items they could have simply made a new character.
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
276
0
0
100% agree with you on this one Jim.

HOWEVER, one aspect of this cycle that I think you neglected to mention is the media's role.

Every time publishers release one of these bs apologies, it's almost always in the form of a press statement, neutral 'interview' or community announcement and is reported as a passive news piece. It's so rare to ever see a gaming journalist actually take them to task and call them out for the rubbish they are trying to peddle (obviously excluding Jim and a handful of others).

Instead of pouncing on these comments, the articles come across like PR pieces. Can you imagine if political journos were this hamstrung? Yes the forums and comment sections will still point out the obvious and rage against the machine, but I wish more sites would follow up, ask questions and actually take up the cause of the consumer whom they are supposedly in touch with.


p.s +100 points griffon door for doge inclusion =)
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
699
0
0
To quote Agent K from MIB, "A person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals"

The problem is that while many of us gamers and those close to the industry have gotten wise to their bullshit there are still millions of people who let them get away with it either because they are indeed stupid, let fanboyism blind them, or just plain don't care for whatever reason. And even if we know better that doesn't mean we can't still get suckered in by false promises and apologies. These companies only care about pure profit, once someone hands money over for their packaged goods (because that's all games are to them) they don't care what happens after that, they got their money so fuck off. It's only when enough people complain that it starts to noticeably hurt their sales figures/PR image that they pretend to have learned thee error of their ways and feign good will toward their consumers.

I'm mad at the industry for turning something that was just about having fun and making people happy into a soulless machine that tries to milk its consumers dry and treats them like shit. I'm mad at people for letting them get away with it as much as they still do. And I'm mad at myself for being just as guilty for feeding this cycle bullshit in the past and even now if only in some small way just by being a gamer. All we can do is keep informed, keep a lookout for bullshit, and spread the word to warn others when it rears its smelly head.
 

blackdwarf

New member
Jun 7, 2010
562
0
0
I am not familiar with most issues of the battlefields games or other series that were use as examples, so I don't know if there were fixes or, of they were, how they were handled. I would like to say that Diablo 3 did eventually fixed its issue and that Reaper of Souls is an amazing expansion. I agree that their apology on the auction house was really weak, because messing up that a big a feature shows that the development had issues. But I am also glad that they turned around on a lot of the lesser game design, especially considering there are on the fourth (third?) game-director now since development began.

But the current state of affairs are sad indeed. The thing I find frustrating is that now it is hard to find the difference in genuine apologies and forced fake ones for the sake of PR.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,795
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
i think it fits because they did tell us the game would not work without the auction house and defended the game viciously, even attacking former blizzard designers who pointed out that the auction house was a feature for the boardroom and not for the consumer
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
1,899
0
0
I felt like saying that this felt like just a filler episode, but two things kept me from complaining about it for more than one sentence:
The return to Jim Sterling's "bad" art, arguably my favourite part of the 2011/2012 episodes.
My fear that that dog was going to leap at the camera. He seemed awfully irritated.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
uanime5 said:
Thanatos2k said:
Blizzard "admitted" their mistake, and then it took SEVEN MONTHS for them to remove the auction house. Curious, no? Oh wait, they'd just released the console version without the AH which was a better version than the PC because of it. Oh wait, 7 months later is exactly when their expansion came out, wasn't it.

It was never about the auction house, it was about getting you to buy the console version and then to buy their expansion. Did you fall for it?
1) How exactly was the console version better? Are you referring to smart loot because they introduced that on the PC version before they released the console version.

2) Why would anyone buy the console version when they could play the PC version and chose not use the auction house?

3) Blizzard closed the auction house before the expansion came out because they didn't want people to sell expansion items on the auction house.

4) Why would anyone buy the console version of a game they already had? If they wanted to start from level 0 with no items they could have simply made a new character.
1. No always online DRM.

2. Because the console version didn't have always online DRM, a feature Blizzard claimed was impossible to implement. Another blatant bald faced lie.

3. Why did it take 7 months again? Again - SEVEN. MONTHS. All they had to do was flip a switch and block everyone from clicking the button. Or go a little further and revoke all outstanding auctions and return the items to their owners. Not complicated at all. But they didn't do that - because it made them money.

4. Because it was better than the PC version at that time for reasons previously mentioned. They got their money from the PC people so they didn't care about them - UNTIL, that is, they needed to sell them something again (the expansion). Then suddenly having the game destroying auction house feature would have made them less money so they removed it.

They admitted their mistake and then kept on doing what they were doing. They completely deserve to be talked about with Ubisoft and EA.

By the way, they might not even be patching future editions on the console:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/13272817274?page=3#57

How pathetic is that!?
 
Sep 24, 2008
1,660
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
Yeah, Jim just mentioned Diablo 3 Auction house as something that Diablo 3 should apologize for. The real thing I feel they need to apologize for and change (but they won't) is the always online system.

They sat there and called us all cheats because some people cheated. They said we all stole the game while I can really look at my CD copy of Diablo 2 right now. And that online was the only thing preventing it from happening again. And that today internet is so common that everyone should have a good connection. But their own servers are a lot of the problems, and one just needs to head over to google, type "Diablo 3 I've been hacked" to see the benefits of The Protection of Always Online [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=diablo+3+I've+been+hacked].

EA and Ubisoft seem to be full of people who have nothing but the utmost of disdain for their customers. Mistrusting and railing against us while demanding we understand they if we weren't so shit, they wouldn't have to protect us from ourselves. And when they FAIL to 'protect us', they don't change and still say it's for our own good.
 

DragonDai

New member
Jun 3, 2012
16
0
0
You got one thing wrong, Jim. In fact, I think it's probably the only thing you've ever gotten wrong (that I can remember anyway). We ARE that stupid. Right at the end, you say we aren't, but we are. Otherwise these companies would have gone out of business LONG ago. But they are thriving. And that means people continue to buy the games these companies produce, which means people ARE that stupid. It's really that simple.

Also, you're dog is the second cutest dog ever (right after mine). He looks like a pretty fantastic little buddy.
 

Catrixa

New member
May 21, 2011
191
0
0
I'm just tired of all the hype for these games that either come out broken or inferior to what was promised. A million years ago, when Watch_Dogs was announced as a game that would exist, I was really excited. But, as more cycles of terrible game -> apologies for terrible game happened, I sort of lost my urge to play it. And, as it turns out, Watch_Dogs became a game that I probably wouldn't have really gotten into anyway (they made hacking seem so much more interesting in that trailer...). I've gotten to the point where, unless it's a franchise that I've liked and doesn't have too many stupid features (always online DRM and tiny, non customizable maps in Sim City, for example), or hasn't been completely ruined by previous games (for me), I'll probably wait for it to come out, get some kind of decent review (or lengthy gameplay demonstration), and be mostly confirmed enjoyable (by me) before I touch it.

I mean, I like getting super hyped for something, dragging it home in the middle of the night, and playing it until the sun comes up. I'm just tired of the disappointment at this point.
 

Grimh

New member
Feb 11, 2009
497
0
0
Oh here we go again with Jim spouting nonsense as fact. Making wildly inaccurate claims he can't possibly know are true.
I'll have you know, I'm totally a collossal stupid idiot, and I won't have you spreading lies stating otherwise!

The other stuff was very spot on though.
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
905
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
They sat there and called us all cheats because some people cheated. They said we all stole the game while I can really look at my CD copy of Diablo 2 right now. And that online was the only thing preventing it from happening again. And that today internet is so common that everyone should have a good connection. But their own servers are a lot of the problems, and one just needs to head over to google, type "Diablo 3 I've been hacked" to see the benefits of The Protection of Always Online [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=diablo+3+I've+been+hacked].

EA and Ubisoft seem to be full of people who have nothing but the utmost of disdain for their customers. Mistrusting and railing against us while demanding we understand they if we weren't so shit, they wouldn't have to protect us from ourselves. And when they FAIL to 'protect us', they don't change and still say it's for our own good.
Just for shits, I followed that link. And I took a look on the forums. I'll agree with you, and I have to add this...

Is an Authenticator what I think it is? How fucking pathetic is it that you need an authenticator to play goddamn blizzard games? The part that blows me away is that the community turns on the victims, "[...]because he doesn't have an authenticator and he blames Blizzard. This community man, this community."

If you ask me, the fact that your system is so goddamn fragile that you need an authenticator, THAT's what needs to be addressed.
 

Korzack

New member
Apr 28, 2010
167
0
0
Jimquisition: now with dog. Glorious beast :D

On topic, though... Ahm... My honest thinking? A snivelling apology now is nothing more than marketing to them, now. "Yeah, our old stuff was awful, we totally wouldn't do that again... By the way, have you pre-ordered our new bucket of turds & got the season pass?" The only way these companies will realise is if people stopped giving them the money for their turd buckets.
Heh, captcha message "get out". Oddly appropriate. Either that, or the escapist is fed up of me. One of the two
 

geier

New member
Oct 15, 2010
214
0
0
I still fail to see the problem. A company's goal is to make money. When the customers ARE stupid and throw money at shit, why not collect it?
This is part of being free. You have to make decisions for yourself. If you are too stupid to see shit and stay away from it, you shouldn't have financial freedom. Today i learned of a kickstarter project were a guy asked for 10$ to make potato salad. Up to now, he made 7.700$. That says all about the so called informed consumer.
 

luvd1

New member
Jan 25, 2010
660
0
0
Oh it's a lovely trick executives love to do in any industry for when they get cought out. It's coz a decent human being will forgive incomptance in a person coz hay, we all make mistakes right. We're only human and no body if perfect. Where if it wasn't a "mistake" then it would have to be delibarate from the start and the executives conspired to abuse you and that would be unforgivable.
 
Sep 24, 2008
1,660
0
0
BeerTent said:
Just for shits, I followed that link. And I took a look on the forums. I'll agree with you, and I have to add this...

Is an Authenticator what I think it is? How fucking pathetic is it that you need an authenticator to play goddamn blizzard games? The part that blows me away is that the community turns on the victims, "[...]because he doesn't have an authenticator and he blames Blizzard. This community man, this community."

If you ask me, the fact that your system is so goddamn fragile that you need an authenticator, THAT's what needs to be addressed.
Authenticators are usually smartphone programs that will give you another set of gibberish to plug into along with your regular password.

However, They also seem to have problems, as there are a string of people who do still get hacked with Authenticators, Evidenced Here [https://www.google.com/search?q=authenticator&oq=authenticator&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=diablo+3+authenticator+hacked]. Even a Reporter got hacked while using one.

Diablo Developers response? "Lulz. Internet. What u gonna do, huh? File ticket and hope we can help."
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Ubisoft have been doing this a lot longer than people give them credit for.

I wrote this article on Destructoid [http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/TheKodu/-we-are-ubishaft-and-were-here-to-make-you-feel-sad-and-stuff-248591.phtml]. It refers to Ubisoft and the problems they created with Scott Pilgrim vs the World the game.

Now the game was fine except it was a side scrolling brawler over a year after the release of Castle Crashers and had no online multiplayer. Ubisoft defended this decision by claiming ?We wanted to bring back the old school retro feeling on playing with friends in the same room all on a Sofa?. Which is all well and good to justify including offline but didn?t explain the lack of online.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World on XBL was released in July 2010. On 13th of March 2013 they released a new DLC pack the online multiplayer and Wallace Wells pack. Now you could say Ubisoft were charging 400 msp (about $5) for a new character and that content. Except the Knives Chau pack only cost 160 microsoft points (about $2) so nearly 3 years after the games release after defending it's decision to not include online play like a moron they finally add online play and charge $5 to be able to use it.

Ubisoft claimed it was all for the fans who had pushed for it. Yes totally that's why they charged nearly $3 for it because they knew people like me would pay it because I'm a fan of Scott Pilgrim vs the World.
 

Murais

New member
Sep 11, 2007
355
0
0
(I posted this in the comments of one of your videos, but I don't know if you read them, so I figure I'd post this here just to be sure.)

Hey Jim,

I don't know if you read the comments (I hope you do), but I wanted to bring something to your attention/ask for coverage.

EA's been pulling some nasty shit with the upcoming Sims 4. I know it's not exactly the most respected series out there, but it's one of EA's bigger cash-cows, and they've basically started to hack the game to bits, taking out core features that have been in the series for years, and calling it an "improvement." Most recently, it was revealed that the reason the game is so fucking bare-bones is because EA was planning to do with TS4 what it did to SimCity, but backpedaled after seeing the PR shit-storm that came in the wake of SimCity's launch. They scrapped the game, and attempted to rehash it from the ground up within the same launch window as their online version.

My point is, the fans of this series are mad, supposedly the developers working on this game are mad, and EA is smiling through its teeth and revealing next to NOTHING about this fucking game (we've yet to even see an actual, unscripted gameplay demo) and hoping it blows over, and I implore you, the man, the myth, the LEGEND, Jim-The-************-Sterling, to help ensure that the word of EA's bullshit and nasty anti-consumer tendencies get called out once more, and let the public know why this game is a travesty.

Here's a link to a well-known fan blog featuring the details of this debacle, with several links to research/evidence supporting it:

http://honeywellsims4news.tumblr.com/post/90934806596/the-sims-4-pools-toddlers-what-happened

Sincerely,

The Dan
 

RealRT

New member
Feb 28, 2014
483
0
0
Thank God for Jim (and the dog).

Nice dog aside, yeah, EA is being EA again. I hope Jim does one on the demo suddenly being sold for a fiver and people not believing in it being a simple mistake.
 

Chosenagain

New member
Jul 7, 2014
1
0
0
Question,
Has there been any positive actions taken by a video game company or any interesting ideas used in recent games that anyone has enjoyed?
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
993
0
0
It is, indeed, getting tiresome, Jim. I'd really really really like you to shut up about this issue...

...Just as soon as there's no longer any issue to discuss. (Yeah!)

Unfortunately, the "cycle" doesn't suggest that day will come any time soon, does it?

The really frustrating thing is these companies actually make GOOD games - although I'm unsure as to how long it's been since EA has done so. Ubisoft, though, recently made "Far Cry 3", a game I'd really love to play (but I don't want the DRM. I got burned by "GFWL" already. Steam's bad enough. I don't want yet another system clogging up my gaming rig.)
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
1,973
1
3
Country
United States
Fappy said:
Don't let miniature fantasy Willen Dafoe anywhere near him! I can tell by the look in his eye... that dog's a born killer!
Fappy, worried about a dog? What a shock. xD

Isn't it partly Fantasy Willen Dafoe's fault for looking so chewable and tasty? ;p

OT:

:D Barnaby is a great dog name. It means, "son of exhortation".
Perfect description of such a cute beast. :3

Anyway, yes. Jim is very right about this. It reminds me of when Yahtzee compared fans of companies to people in abusive relationships.

They do something wrong to you, say sorry, make promises to do better while kind of putting the blame on other things/people (like you, the consumer), and then do more crap later. -_-

[sub][sub]Disclaimer: I am not equating abusive game company to consumer relationships to actual abusive person to person relationships. The latter is far more serious.[/sub][/sub]

Thank Dog for Jim!
 

Master_of_Oldskool

New member
Sep 5, 2008
631
0
0
Jim, don't you live in the southern US? I thought pit-bulls were illegal in most of that general area. Which is utterly stupid, of course, anyone who isn't a total moron knows that aggressiveness is down to training rather than breed, but I'm surprised to see you own one.

...

He's so cuuuuuuuuuuuute!

*ahem*

Yes, video gamey things, quite, spot on, very true, corporate bullshit and so on.
 

Mithcha

New member
Oct 21, 2011
76
0
0
SQEEE!!!!! Doggy!
I love dogs. What is he, bulldog? Bloody big fangs, looks Orcish.

Anyways... I have nothing substantial to say. Eh, thank god for jim (and his dog) etc.
 

ThePurpleStuff

New member
Apr 30, 2010
403
0
0
The newest game I just bought recently was Shovel Knight. Yacht Club Games are great developers, I've seen them in interviews, live interviews. They're all just happy, fun loving people with senses of humor. I'm happy I bought their game and supported them. Their games great and the developers are great.

I will never buy a game from EA, Ubisoft, etc. ever again. I haven't for years and I won't start now since none of their games have any of my interest. I simply ignore them and no problems on my end at all. I am getting interested in Nintendo's products again though from people playing them and I see how fun they are. I may get a Wii u and 3DS someday when I can afford them. But we'll still see about that.

I don't support shitty publishers/developers bad decisions. I'm not an idiot and they won't take advantage of me.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
Master_of_Oldskool said:
Jim, don't you live in the southern US? I thought pit-bulls were illegal in most of that general area. Which is utterly stupid, of course, anyone who isn't a total moron knows that aggressiveness is down to training rather than breed, but I'm surprised to see you own one.

...

He's so cuuuuuuuuuuuute!

*ahem*

Yes, video gamey things, quite, spot on, very true, corporate bullshit and so on.
........That's not a pit bull. That is clearly a bull dog. They're not the same thing.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,006
0
0
that is a nice dog jim

man, you dont know how it kills me sometimes to not buy EA games, there are some games from them i really want to try out, like the mass effect series and the first dragon age, but every time the thought invades my mind, i get reminded of the disgusting cancer theyve become for this industry and just how little they deserve my money

but its ok, i might not have mass effect but i still bought sonic all stars racing on the last steam sale, man its so good, how come there are not that many good kart racing games anymore? particulary on PC



as for Ubisoft, for the time being i can still stomach to buy their games, theyve gotten a lot worse lately, but they still havent reached the deeps of decadence EA has, i can only be hopelesssly optimistic theyll stop being so shit before its too late
 

SnowWookie

New member
Nov 22, 2012
21
0
0
"The video game industry thinks you're an idiot... and you're not"

When it comes to the average gamer, all evidence would seem to point to the contrary. EA, Ubisoft (and let's not forget Activision!) keep pulling this shit and people keep buying their games. A glance at the top selling games and you're bound to find multiple games by these guys in the top 20 on any given week
 

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,555
0
0
teamcharlie said:
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth
Are you aware that a dog showing teeth does not mean it's aggressive? Also that dog is built so that it kinda always has to show teeth.

ASPCA said:
Some dogs show a ?submissive grin? when they?re feeling extremely submissive. They pull their lips up vertically and display their front teeth (canines and incisors). This signal is almost always accompanied by an overall submissive body posture, such as a lowered head, yelping or whining, and squinty eyes. Only some dogs ?grin? this way. People sometimes mistakenly think a dog is being aggressive when, in fact, he?s grinning submissively and trying to communicate the exact opposite of aggression.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,177
0
0
teamcharlie said:
Ipsen said:
teamcharlie said:
I would prefer not?to see that dog again. Nothing wrong with your dog specifically (okay, the visible teeth and the barking really don?t help). But I?m afraid of them.

For me, this video felt like a retread of old ideas (companies apologizing for shitty behavior to the public without actually stopping is not exactly a new phenomenon), but I guess there are probably viewers who somehow expected that EA and Ubi et al. love them and would never lie and for whom this video is be a revelation.

So, uh, keep up the good work? Keep spinning out largely the same points every year for the people who are too lazy to look through the backlog of this show, who are also probably the people who most need to be told that big companies lie? Kinda depressing really.
It bugs me (and discredits yourself) that you find the lies of businesses so commonplace or obvious.
Um, discredits me as what exactly? As a longtime viewer of Jim?s show? As an observer of things? I can tell you right now that I have seen nearly every episode of the Jimquisition and I have observed many a thing throughout my life.

Also, businesses. Walmart acting friendly and happy while gouging its workers and employing/buying from sweatshops to keep prices down. Oil cartels making up oil crises to keep gas prices high. Deregulated power companies in California lying about power supply issues and the causes of brownouts to keep prices high. Hucksters selling ?revitalizing tonics? made of heroin, lead, goat urine and radium before things like the FDA began regulating how much people can lie about what their products put in your body. Businesses have been lying since there were businesses, and it doesn?t surprise me that big video game companies are also businesses.
Punish the company, educate the customers. That's my take on the matter.

For conscientious gamers, saying that nickel-and-diming practices or excessively convenient apologies are both inexcusable is pretty standard stuff. We're aware of how the industry works. We care.

The thing is, there's a whole subset of the gamer populace that sets its collective eyes on a given title, decides it'll purchase it or pre-order it months in advance, and then buys the game without stopping to see the title's critical reception. From game to game, they don't find themselves invested in the practices involved - all they care about is the end product. That's what the big publishers rely on; the undying and unquestioning support of the "core fanbase" for Game Series Such-and-Such.

We need to educate these people in particular, get them to understand that if a car manufacturer treated its products the same way publishers treat their games, we'd be living in a world in which people would magically forgive horrendous incidents wherein multiple cars from a same model or line, say, had their fuel lines explode and turn the car into a giant, flaming ball of death. We *need* to ensure that no gamer, either casual or hardcore, just sits on the sidelines and complacently lets publishers have their cake and eat it.

Consumer advocacy needs to become a part of the gamer culture. It needs to be more than the province of some supposed malcontents who can't kneel down and say thank you.
 

Groverfield

New member
Jul 4, 2011
75
0
0
Jim! I don't know if you're publicly shaming games or not anymore, but I thought you might be interested in "Steaming" fresh "Claire," which straight up steals graphical elements from Home, Lone Survivor, Metal Slug (I think) and several others that I just didn't care enough to identify. This piece of reconstituted game product being sold at a $10 pricetag comes to us from Hailstorm (As in they stole their name from a crappy girl-Nickelback band) Games, not Hail Storm (a storm whose primary form of precipitation is hail.)
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
637
0
0
Really the only company I see not lying or slinging loads of bs is Nintendo. And when they admit mistakes they apologize and usually fix them. Hell when they realize things go bad they bite the bullet, take pay cuts instead of employee cuts and that sort of thing. Of course it helps that Nintendo rarely ever screws up big time. I mean they do occasionally, region locking I guess is a mistake, but they do it so inconsistently they don't get near as much flack for it because they will fix the problem if there was one.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
2,807
0
0
but people still buy their garbage and give them money. They can't even wait a week to hurt their launch numbers, then buy it.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
1,816
0
0
yeah, more of the dog please. just like lisa showing her cat more.

ok, @ topic.
i still think that ubi is getting worse than EA. sure, EA is far from being an angel but the new BF title is not even out yet so i think its a bit unfair to say that the next shit is coming. probably will be be but i think you should be optimistic about it. they know that BF4 failed (even when it took them over 6 month to admit it) and it would be utterly stupid of them to pull off the same crap.
you can say "the next shit" when the new BF has the same issues.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
2,500
0
0
This is the one thing that gives me some shred of hope that there could possibly be a good Final Fantasy game again someday. Squeenix saw how people reacted to FFXIV's terrible release, apologized for it, and then went and rebuilt the game from its foundation. Maybe they were mostly sorry that people weren't paying them money, but the remorse was sincere enough for them to act on it.
 

Lord_Jaroh

Ad-Free Finally!
Apr 24, 2007
560
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
EA & Ubisoft: A Cycle of Perpetration and Apology

The industry loves saying sorry without actually ever being sorry.

Watch Video
I have a question:

Why, if these companies keep doing their "thing" as you say, do the game journalists when speaking with them, never question them on it when the next bestest game ever comes out from them, nor take them to task for it, and warn people to stay away from said games as a "buyer beware" mentality? Why do they not, in their previews, ever give these problems any weight when giving advance "reviews" of an unfinished game?

This isn't a criticism of your video Jim, I just feel as you say, it's a bunch of wind until you are more than just a voice in the darkness unheard by the companies. This is part of the problem, and it won't be fixed until game publications stop promoting these companies shitty tactics. If you want the game industry to improve, you (you the Escapist company, not you in the vernacular), and everyone else in the hype machine, need to be a part of the solution.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
2,705
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
They could remove the need to be online to play, you know like the console versions :p Seriously EA/Activions/Blizzard/Ubisoft etc are now all losing me as a customer simply because I'm getting sick of the bullcrap. Thankfully I already have more games to keep me busy than I can play and also there's plenty of other great publishers like Paradox, Deep Silver etc that I can always get my new game fix from. (not to mention indies)
 

Freyar

Solar Empire General
May 9, 2008
205
0
0
You know who did this right? Square Enix with Final Fantasy XIV. A terrible launch in 2010, but brought forward a redevelopment with what is a great game. They apologized but they made up for it and continue to keep themselves in line.
 

Necris Omega

New member
Jul 27, 2011
13
0
0
I have to wonder where a lot of this originates - yes, it's in the end the entire company, but who's really to blame here? Executives? Marketing? Development? I can almost see perhaps companies being so large and ponderous that the "guys, we've been voted the North Korea of companies for the umteenth time in a row - wtf?" memo might just be getting lost in the shuffle.

On one hand it's easy and very tempting to blame malevolence, but really, I think incompetence deserves more credit for this than perhaps it's getting. Perhaps the right hand is clutching a rosary in penance, unaware that the left is still jerking off. In the end, it's probably a bit of both, but I've just seen too much raw stupid in management in my time to not attribute a good helping of this travesty to that.
 

Aaron Sylvester

New member
Jul 1, 2012
647
0
0
Disagree about Battlefield 4.

Believe me, I was FUMING at the state the game was released...but they did a bit more than toss empty apologies.

They released the Community Test Environment (CTE) initiative, an entire separate version/instance of the game created solely for making huge changes, testing them and then rolling them out to the live game. So far multiple patches have gone through it's results have been excellent, though a lot of work is still to be done. There are several devs dedicated to CTE initiative, reading forum feedback through every step and taking lots of suggestions on board.
EADICE definitely had to go out of their way to do something like this, it would not have been cheap.

Yes, CTE came out 7 months too late and should've been part of basic QA before BF4 was even released. Yes, EADICE are basically asking players to beta-test the game for them 7 months after the game's has been on the fucking shelves. I'm not praising EADICE for CTE.

Partly I know it's because they still have 2 DLC's to sell (Dragon's Teeth and Final Stand) and BF4 population is reducing at an alarming rate considering only 2 out of 4 DLC's are out. A LOT more people were playing BF3 when it was 7-8 months into it's life. After BF3's recent free offering the number of people playing BF3 occasionally overtakes the number of people playing BF4. I bet EA pulled that purely to check statistics on how fondly-remembered BF3 was and how many people would play BF3 instead of BF4. I bet they were surprised.

But it's better than nothing, or just having empty apologies thrown at me. Standards have been lowered, I know...but I'll take what I can get since I already blew money on BF4 and the game definitely has it's fun/amazing moments. CTE will only improve it.

There's a limit to how much bullshit EA can pull, there's a limit to how much they can apologize. It has already taken it's toll on Battlefield Hardline. As far as I can see, the reaction to Hardline has been largely a negative one. Based on playing just the beta there is a huge number of people saying they simply aren't interested in buying that game. This is partly due to the fact that the game does look and feel like a lazy BF4 re-skin, but it's also accompanied the massive pile of shit that is EA's reputation.
 

Maus Merryjest

New member
Jun 15, 2014
1
0
0
And then today EA said that it was shipping The Sims 4 without Toddlers or Pools because it focused so darned hard on 'revolutionizing' the game.

So the excuse has been launched. Wait one or three months after launch for the $20 DLC pack that includes toddlers and pools to hit retail :1

While this week's episode is, in some ways, a retread of some of Jim's old points, I think it bears repeating since EA and Ubisoft... well... keep repeating themselves.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,322
0
0
Chosenagain said:
Question,
Has there been any positive actions taken by a video game company or any interesting ideas used in recent games that anyone has enjoyed?
Yacht Club Games released Shovel Knight and included a 'butt' mode.


Crate Entertainment announced Transmuters, which make some skill viable as LMB instead of auto-attack.

http://www.grimdawn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15216

Perihelion Interactive came up with a partial way to easily rig male/female characters in their upcoming game The Mandate.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/3/5863785/ubisoft-female-characters-assassins-creed-the-mandate

Cloud Imperium games asked me to participate in the Arena Commander Multiplayer Alpha test.

If you look past the larger corporations there is a wealth of games made by people who love making them.
 

trouble_gum

New member
May 8, 2011
129
0
0
Necris Omega said:
I have to wonder where a lot of this originates - yes, it's in the end the entire company, but who's really to blame here? Executives? Marketing? Development? I can almost see perhaps companies being so large and ponderous that the "guys, we've been voted the North Korea of companies for the umteenth time in a row - wtf?" memo might just be getting lost in the shuffle.

On one hand it's easy and very tempting to blame malevolence, but really, I think incompetence deserves more credit for this than perhaps it's getting. Perhaps the right hand is clutching a rosary in penance, unaware that the left is still jerking off. In the end, it's probably a bit of both, but I've just seen too much raw stupid in management in my time to not attribute a good helping of this travesty to that.
Neither genuine malevolence or incompetence. Painting EA, Ubisoft or any other company (gaming industry and otherwise) as 'malevolent' just starts to conjure Pentex-style boardrooms filled with insane vampires, morally dubious werewolves and tentacled monstrosities. I'm pretty sure (well, fairly sure... kinda) that EA board meetings rarely have "How can we fuck our customer base (who we hate) over more and faster?" as their lead agenda point. I am, however, pretty damn sure that they do have "How can we maximize our profits and minimize potential collateral damage to us and our bottom line?" in there somewhere.

Put another way; when some thing happens that, from the gaming community's perspective is a terrible outrage for which recompense must be demanded, the reaction of the parts of big companies like EA and Ubisoft who actually make the Big Decisions? is not to ask "How did this happen and what can we do to stop it from happening again?" but instead to say "How many units are we not going to sell because of this and what is the least expensive, least involved and complicated way to make it go away for long enough to get the next product moving?" That's not actually evil or malevolent, it's just selfish and capitalist.

So far, these calculations have always come up in the companies' favour. While there's definitely some stupidity involved somewhere along the line, because these things keep happening and the cycle between them seems to be getting shorter and almost all of them appear to be really simple things to fix or things that should never have been issues to begin with, at the base it's less stupidity and more cupidity that's at fault.
 

Nixou

New member
Jan 20, 2014
96
0
0
The video game industry thinks you're an idiot... and you're not

Jim's dog lay down, get a treat.
Hardcore Gamers lay down their cash, get shit.

Great job letting your own pooch destroy your argument, Jim.

***

You know who did this right? Square Enix with Final Fantasy XIV. A terrible launch in 2010, but brought forward a redevelopment with what is a great game. They apologized but they made up for it and continue to keep themselves in line.

FF XIV was released way too early so it could be on the shelves before Cataclysm: it's the perfect example of a company's suits screwing the work of its craftsmen.
 

hydrolythe

New member
Oct 22, 2013
21
0
0
Chosenagain said:
Question,
Has there been any positive actions taken by a video game company or any interesting ideas used in recent games that anyone has enjoyed?
Sony and Microsoft accepting indie developers after they decided to tweet at the company that they want to be one.
 

hydrolythe

New member
Oct 22, 2013
21
0
0
SnowWookie said:
"The video game industry thinks you're an idiot... and you're not"

When it comes to the average gamer, all evidence would seem to point to the contrary. EA, Ubisoft (and let's not forget Activision!) keep pulling this shit and people keep buying their games. A glance at the top selling games and you're bound to find multiple games by these guys in the top 20 on any given week
But you also forget that this forum is only used by a minority. The majority sees the games they sell through their adverts on TV.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Metalrocks said:
yeah, more of the dog please. just like lisa showing her cat more.

ok, @ topic.
i still think that ubi is getting worse than EA. sure, EA is far from being an angel but the new BF title is not even out yet so i think its a bit unfair to say that the next shit is coming. probably will be be but i think you should be optimistic about it. they know that BF4 failed (even when it took them over 6 month to admit it) and it would be utterly stupid of them to pull off the same crap.
you can say "the next shit" when the new BF has the same issues.
Well, one could argue that EA has taken the lead again these past couple of weeks by trying to argue that toddlers and swimming pools will be cut from the new Sims game because they're too hard to implement... at launch.


And then they proceeded to give a detailed explanation that mirrors that of Ubisoft when it tried to explain its lack of female characters on AC:U and Far Cry 4 by explaining how complicated it was to implement them... at launch. And the reason why they are not including them... at launch (I know I am not being subtle on the sarcasm here, but it's their words, not mine) is so that they can dazzle us with realistic behavior never before seen since the days Peter Molineux was promising the world with Fable. So, they're neck for neck.

And I definitely don't want to sound like I am defending Ubi, but they do have a good thing going in their B projectss that are just that off the beaten path ( Blood Dragon was kinda ballsy, and Valiant Hearts should not be overlooked because of the company that launched it, IMO. And current EA would never ever attempt an artsy cartoon game meant as a memorial to WWI), and even their A studios biggest fault is in providing the exact same tools across all of their games (though I grant them that sea battles are pretty damn cool).

None of this matters in the end, though. Both Ubi and EA have some good devs under their belts that can do good things f given a bit of free reign. But what is wrong is less the talent of the devs involved and more the way that the publisher will actively fuck up said talent and drown it in overblown budgets which will eventually bankrupt the fuck out of them. It's not Ip's in sore need of a reboot, it's the current state of the industry.
 

Valkrex

Elder Dragon
Jan 6, 2013
209
0
0
geier said:
I still fail to see the problem. A company's goal is to make money. When the customers ARE stupid and throw money at shit, why not collect it?
This is part of being free. You have to make decisions for yourself. If you are too stupid to see shit and stay away from it, you shouldn't have financial freedom. Today i learned of a kickstarter project were a guy asked for 10$ to make potato salad. Up to now, he made 7.700$. That says all about the so called informed consumer.
Yes companies do exist to make money, but that doesn't give them an excuse to screw over their customers in a manner THIS ridiculous. Also "existing to make money" doesn't justify terrible behavior. Dog fighting exists to make money. Illegal drugs exist to make money. Human trafficking and slavery exists to make money, but we don't go around defending those do we?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

Also we shouldn't need to do as much research as we do for video games these days. It should be someone could just look at a review or two and that would give them as much information as they need, and that's all a lot of people do these days. However, reviews rarely cover all the issues in the game anymore, so before I buy a game I have to dig through forums, reviews, word of mouth, and countless other things before I can be sure the game will even run well, be a stable and somewhat bug-free experience, and not have gratuitous amounts of content cut out to be sold back as DLC. And even THEN, after HOURS of research, there's still a good chance that even with a lot of positive info behind the software, the game will turn out to be a dud. (I'M LOOKING AT YOU FAR CRY 3!)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8974-Buyer-Beware

The idea of "Buyer Beware" is a true enough statement, but the AMOUNT of awareness we need these days for fucking video games of all things is just getting absurd.
 

LiMaSaRe

New member
Mar 6, 2012
74
0
0
I've mentioned this on the Escapist before, but really, I don't understand the huge backlash against Battlefield 4. Its a great game with small but intelligent advancements from the last, and I never once experienced a glitch or any interruption of play. I bought it the month it was released. Either I'm the luckiest man in the world or the issues weren't as calamitous as the Escapist in particular out of all gaming zines seems to think.
 

Iceklimber

New member
Feb 5, 2013
29
0
0
I think "Sorry" means "We will do something else with ultimately the same result"

So for Example Blizzard removed Real Money AH from Diablo but instead they sell the Expansion at a higher price, and gate content so that some of it is sold on another Expansion(s)and also exploring paid DLC, even publicly asking their cusomer what they would like to pay for post-launch.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
LiMaSaRe said:
I've mentioned this on the Escapist before, but really, I don't understand the huge backlash against Battlefield 4. Its a great game with small but intelligent advancements from the last, and I never once experienced a glitch or any interruption of play. I bought it the month it was released. Either I'm the luckiest man in the world or the issues weren't as calamitous as the Escapist in particular out of all gaming zines seems to think.

The thing with glitches is that they're not universal, not do they affect everyone the same way. I have Skyrim on PS3 and never once saw a backwards flying dragon, or experienced the crippling lag others have reported in droves. It was still a big enough issue to make Bethesda do 6 patches in order to improve stability.

In Battlefield's case, it's bad enough that it inspires class action law suits. So I'd say yeah, consider yourself one of the lucky ones.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
Lord_Jaroh said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
EA & Ubisoft: A Cycle of Perpetration and Apology

The industry loves saying sorry without actually ever being sorry.

Watch Video
I have a question:

Why, if these companies keep doing their "thing" as you say, do the game journalists when speaking with them, never question them on it when the next bestest game ever comes out from them, nor take them to task for it, and warn people to stay away from said games as a "buyer beware" mentality? Why do they not, in their previews, ever give these problems any weight when giving advance "reviews" of an unfinished game?

This isn't a criticism of your video Jim, I just feel as you say, it's a bunch of wind until you are more than just a voice in the darkness unheard by the companies. This is part of the problem, and it won't be fixed until game publications stop promoting these companies shitty tactics. If you want the game industry to improve, you (you the Escapist company, not you in the vernacular), and everyone else in the hype machine, need to be a part of the solution.
Because video game journalists are a dime a dozen. If you try to hold a company responsible they simply don't speak to you anymore, and stop sending you games to review.

There's plenty of game "journalists" willing and eager to take your place and suck the publisher's teat.
 

maximara

New member
Jul 13, 2008
197
0
0
owbu said:
the diablo 3 comment seems slightly weird in the context of the rest of the episode (Just saying sorry to boost sales, but not changing anything)
Blizzard removed the auction house and completely remodeled the lootsystem towards what customers wanted, instead of saying sorry and then bringing out RoS with the auction house intact to keep making money with it.


Not sure how much more they can do at the point where they realised their mistake.



I am still waiting for the "sry for the long wait times for our WoW expansions, we will do better!" apology to mean something though^^
Given how this keeps happening I sometimes wonder if Blizzard takes a page from Peter Molyneux putting mouth in gear before the brain has even had time to wake up. Blizzard did this with Path of the Titans which once they started actually working on the thing turned into little more than the existing glyph system on massive steroids and they rightly killed it. Many of the numerous changed in Warlords can be put down to practicality (allowing garrisons anywhere was going to be a coding nightmare) mixed in with a good amount of 'let's trim the bloat and fix various issues with classes while we are at it.
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
132
0
0
This is why I only buy games when they are very cheap either through Steam or GOG. I haven't bought an EA game other than dragon age origins since they screwed up the Ultima and Ultima Online series with Ultima IX and Ultima Online Age of Shadows. I hope EA dies a horrible death one of these days for killing my favorite franchise. And this happened back in the early 2000s btw.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
96
0
0
trouble_gum said:
I'm pretty sure (well, fairly sure... kinda) that EA board meetings rarely have "How can we fuck our customer base (who we hate) over more and faster?" as their lead agenda point. I am, however, pretty damn sure that they do have "How can we maximize our profits and minimize potential collateral damage to us and our bottom line?" in there somewhere.
In the business world that's essentially saying the same thing. These business', as shown in practice, do want to get you paying as much as they can while having to give you as little as possible. In fact that is the best way to maximize profit. Anyone who has decided that they will put their benefit exclusively above others, which in this case is actually directly detrimental to the opposite party, is saying that they just don't care whether you die and rot. And to be fair they aren't exactly expected to care but when your actions, directly or indirectly, cause you to have to lie, cheat, or rip off people then you are responsible for that. Holding these companies accountable for that isn't by any means wrong or unjust. In fact its really the only thing that makes sense.


Put another way; when some thing happens that, from the gaming community's perspective is a terrible outrage for which recompense must be demanded, the reaction of the parts of big companies like EA and Ubisoft who actually make the Big Decisions? is not to ask "How did this happen and what can we do to stop it from happening again?" but instead to say "How many units are we not going to sell because of this and what is the least expensive, least involved and complicated way to make it go away for long enough to get the next product moving?" That's not actually evil or malevolent, it's just selfish and capitalist.
Being selfish or capitalist isn't a justification for any of this. This is as much the "gamers" culture as it is theirs. What they release and what practices they inflict on us does have an effect on the 'whole' community. That's the entire point of getting outraged about it in the first place. This doesn't just happen in a vacuum. You can't cut corners, take out features, and "monetize" your users and expect the games to be okay and the industry to go untarnished. Especially when there are plenty of examples, past and present of games that were fantastic games. And before the old "you aren't owed a game" comes out, these companies aren't owed money or appraisal for what they do.

So far, these calculations have always come up in the companies' favour. While there's definitely some stupidity involved somewhere along the line, because these things keep happening and the cycle between them seems to be getting shorter and almost all of them appear to be really simple things to fix or things that should never have been issues to begin with, at the base it's less stupidity and more cupidity that's at fault.
And they (calculations) will continue to come up in their favor alone and no one else's for as long as they are allowed to be 'selfish' as you said earlier. They can't be allowed to screw people and lie to them and it just "be okay" simply because its a company. Playing to victim blaming doesn't work.

I completely understand that our current "economic system" (if it can be called that) allows lying, cheating, and manipulation but it certainly doesn't make it okay or justified. And a lot of us here will continue to fight it until something is done about it. Personally I would love to see the day when its no longer allowed to manipulate people at all in the market.
 

SnowWookie

New member
Nov 22, 2012
21
0
0
hydrolythe said:
SnowWookie said:
"The video game industry thinks you're an idiot... and you're not"

When it comes to the average gamer, all evidence would seem to point to the contrary. EA, Ubisoft (and let's not forget Activision!) keep pulling this shit and people keep buying their games. A glance at the top selling games and you're bound to find multiple games by these guys in the top 20 on any given week
But you also forget that this forum is only used by a minority. The majority sees the games they sell through their adverts on TV.
Which is my point. The majority of gamers (like the majority of people) *are* idiots.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
1,135
0
0
The entire crux of Jim's rant seems to be "gamers are smart but game companies think you're dumb", but then his rant goes and basically proves the complete opposite point.

I hate to tar all gamers with a large brush, but if these companies continue to release broken and problematic games that don't do what they're supposed to do, then apologize and say they'll fix it next time but NEVER do, but people KEEP buying them by the millions, over and over and over again, who are the dumb one(s) here?

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, it sounds to me like it's the gamers here who are the crazy ones, not the companies. The companies have simply figured out that they can continuously get away with it.
 

immortalfrieza

Senior Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
1,533
49
23
Country
USA
gamegod25 said:
This. The real issue is not that video game companies keep doing this blatantly exploitative crap, they're just taking the path that gets them the most benefit with the least amount of effort, just like every other person on the planet. The REAL problem is that there's pretty much an endless wellspring of idiots out there that don't know or don't care that they're being screwed over who will still buy their games, most often referred to as blind fans and/or casual "gamers". The actually smart, actual gamers out there that actually give a damn about their entertainment and thus boycott when the industry pulls that sort of crap are in the end a microscopic minority compared to the endless legions of lemmings who will buy into this crap year after year, and it's those legions that the industry is going to listen to. It's yet another case in human history of the uninformed and stupid masses screwing it up for everybody that isn't uninformed and stupid.

As incidents like the ME3 ending and Xbox One debacle have shown, a video game company has to screw up to absolutely epic levels for anything resembling a united front that might actually hurt the company's bottom line and thus possibly accomplish something to appear. Things like that should be happening on a routine basis whenever the video game industry steps out of line, but that's not what happens. As long as the many many idiots continue to drown out the voices of the intelligent it will not only stay as bad as it has been but will continue to get worse.

Hell, that's pretty much the world in a nutshell.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
uanime5 said:
1) How exactly was the console version better? Are you referring to smart loot because they introduced that on the PC version before they released the console version.

2) Why would anyone buy the console version when they could play the PC version and chose not use the auction house?

3) Blizzard closed the auction house before the expansion came out because they didn't want people to sell expansion items on the auction house.

4) Why would anyone buy the console version of a game they already had? If they wanted to start from level 0 with no items they could have simply made a new character.
1. No always online DRM.

2. Because the console version didn't have always online DRM, a feature Blizzard claimed was impossible to implement. Another blatant bald faced lie.
Citation needed. When did Blizzard ever say they couldn't make a version without always online DRM? Versions that require always online DRM to prevent the auction house being abused don't count.

3. Why did it take 7 months again? Again - SEVEN. MONTHS. All they had to do was flip a switch and block everyone from clicking the button. Or go a little further and revoke all outstanding auctions and return the items to their owners. Not complicated at all. But they didn't do that - because it made them money.
If they removed the auction house before introducing Reaper of Souls (RoS) then new players would be at a disadvantage because players who had access to the auction house would have better equipment than them. However by removing the auction house shortly before RoS was released they allowed players to buy some good level equipment before all the level 60 equipment became less valuable because you could find better 70 equipment.

You also ignores that RoS had the Mystic to reduce the problems caused by the removal of the auction house.

Thus it's clear that the auction house wasn't removed before RoS was released in order to make the game as fair as possible for all players.

4. Because it was better than the PC version at that time for reasons previously mentioned.
You failed to provide any evidence to back up those reasons.

They got their money from the PC people so they didn't care about them - UNTIL, that is, they needed to sell them something again (the expansion).
Care to provide any evidence that Blizzard did get any significant amount of money from the auction house.

Then suddenly having the game destroying auction house feature would have made them less money so they removed it.
Citation needed. If they were making money from the auction house then they would have made more money from the auction house if they introduced new items. People who didn't like the auction house would have just ignored it, they wouldn't have refused to buy RoS.

They admitted their mistake and then kept on doing what they were doing.
So they removed the auction house, then somehow kept doing what they were doing? What are you talking about?

By the way, they might not even be patching future editions on the console:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/13272817274?page=3#57
Well it's difficult to patch a game when the player is always offline. You also ignores that patching games on consoles is more difficult than patching it on PCs because console games aren't installed on consoles.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
uanime5 said:
Thanatos2k said:
uanime5 said:
1) How exactly was the console version better? Are you referring to smart loot because they introduced that on the PC version before they released the console version.

2) Why would anyone buy the console version when they could play the PC version and chose not use the auction house?

3) Blizzard closed the auction house before the expansion came out because they didn't want people to sell expansion items on the auction house.

4) Why would anyone buy the console version of a game they already had? If they wanted to start from level 0 with no items they could have simply made a new character.
1. No always online DRM.

2. Because the console version didn't have always online DRM, a feature Blizzard claimed was impossible to implement. Another blatant bald faced lie.
Citation needed. When did Blizzard ever say they couldn't make a version without always online DRM? Versions that require always online DRM to prevent the auction house being abused don't count.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/09/blizzard-reaffirms-that-diablo-3-for-pc-will-not-have-an-offline-version/

For people who didn't care about the auction house or battle.net integration and didn't want it in their SINGLE PLAYER GAME, they were SOL. Blizzard could have made an offline mode that disallowed an offline character access to the auction house. They didn't.

3. Why did it take 7 months again? Again - SEVEN. MONTHS. All they had to do was flip a switch and block everyone from clicking the button. Or go a little further and revoke all outstanding auctions and return the items to their owners. Not complicated at all. But they didn't do that - because it made them money.
If they removed the auction house before introducing Reaper of Souls (RoS) then new players would be at a disadvantage because players who had access to the auction house would have better equipment than them. However by removing the auction house shortly before RoS was released they allowed players to buy some good level equipment before all the level 60 equipment became less valuable because you could find better 70 equipment.
Disadvantage over who? So what? People in Diablo 2 had amazing hacked equipment. (Dual-Isted Oculus for the win!) People in Diablo 1 duped things left and right (Godly Plate of the Whales for everyone!) No one cared. The fact that the auction house was the easiest and trivial way to improve your character is exactly why it broke the game.

4. Because it was better than the PC version at that time for reasons previously mentioned.
You failed to provide any evidence to back up those reasons.
Yes I did. It has a single player mode, a feature desired by a huge number of people. Simple as that.

They got their money from the PC people so they didn't care about them - UNTIL, that is, they needed to sell them something again (the expansion).
Care to provide any evidence that Blizzard did get any significant amount of money from the auction house.
http://rpg-exploiters.com/diablo-3-diablo-series/discussing-the-profits-of-diablo-3s-real-money-auction-house/

Then suddenly having the game destroying auction house feature would have made them less money so they removed it.
Citation needed. If they were making money from the auction house then they would have made more money from the auction house if they introduced new items. People who didn't like the auction house would have just ignored it, they wouldn't have refused to buy RoS.
Think of it this way. Millions of players stopped playing Diablo 3 soon after purchasing it for $60. Documented fact. Many of them quit because of the auction house ruining the game. Now Blizzard needed these players to purchase the expansion, so they discontinued the auction house which, while it was making them money, would not have made as much money as the increased sales from the expansion from people who swore off the game because of the auction house. Also it really WAS ruining the game.

They admitted their mistake and then kept on doing what they were doing.
So they removed the auction house, then somehow kept doing what they were doing? What are you talking about?
They announced they made a mistake, then kept on doing what they were doing for SEVEN MONTHS. Over half a year of which they could have disabled the auction house but didn't. Because it was never about doing the right thing with the auction house - it was about the money, as always.

By the way, they might not even be patching future editions on the console:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/13272817274?page=3#57
Well it's difficult to patch a game when the player is always offline. You also ignores that patching games on consoles is more difficult than patching it on PCs because console games aren't installed on consoles.
Uh, what? My console games get patched all the time. You start the game, and if you're connected to the internet, it notifies you an update exists, you download the update, and it installs it locally. Patching on the console is the same as on the PC. Where have you been?
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
787
0
0
"...while making as much money as possible..."

"...because these companies think gamers are stupid..."

In my opinion, there's the root of the problem. Gamers keep buying into it, so the companies keep selling it. Here's a thought: these companies are, in my opinion, putting into practice the very behavior I often see gamers evince in online economies, namely, find every way possible to exploit the system and prey upon the lazy stupidity of other gamers to make sales.

*****, cry, complain all you want, but I will simply repeat the mantra I have said multiple times (though I haven't said it in a while): a company hears and understands only two sounds, the creak of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing. All other sounds are considered noise to be ignored. I should probably add some specificity to this mantra to say "a Triple-A game company", as there actually are some companies out there (the smart, successful ones with extremely high customer satisfaction ratings) who DO listen to customer complaints and address them without the need to see the revenue stream dry-up before they are sent into a crisis reaction to understand why no one buys their shit anymore. Of course, there are companies that don't even listen to and understand the wallet creaks and slaps; these companies usually die a painful, if sometimes protracted, death.

Honestly, my advice is to stop buying from EA and Ubisoft, quit bitching on about them, and move on to better games. Just ignore them as an existent entity, paying attention only enough to make sure you're not buying a game from them. In my opinion, EA and Ubisoft are unrepentant, and, as such, we as gamers should just cease raising our blood-pressure about them. Don't even talk about them, at all, neither the company nor their games. Let those companies suffer the agonizing, protracted death of inevitable bankruptcy and oblivion. Don't even go on about how you want to show them the way to improve in the hopes that they'll get better. They won't because they have no reasoning or motivation to do so. Reserve energy and effort for better companies and better games.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,789
0
0
Obligatory Peter Molyneux posting! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/zippydsmlee/PeterMfableIAMGOD.jpg

------

That aside this and lack of gameplay depth is what has been driving me away from gaming.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
6,903
0
0
Not really a dog guy but that is one damn adorable dog. I can't believe I watched that whole ending.

The game industry is learning lessons all the time: most of those lessons are in how much gamers will put up with or even make excuses for them. Of course MS tried that opening stunt with the XBone, they thought they could get away with anything after selling people a defective console for half a generation...and people kept buying a lot of them. I was scared the XBone was going to be a cardboard box with xmas lights twinkling in it. I bet you there are fanboys who would've actually paid $500 for that.
 

Roxor

New member
Nov 4, 2010
666
0
0
Our reaction to a corporation attempting to apologise should be rejection, not acceptance. We should be taking offence at the fact that they would even try.

We're a collective case of battered spouse syndrome. We need to be woken up to the fact that those apologies from corporations are entirely insincere, always have been, and always will be.

Until we adopt that attitude, we will deserve every piece of crap the bastards dish out.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
7,693
0
0
uanime5 said:
If they removed the auction house before introducing Reaper of Souls (RoS) then new players would be at a disadvantage because players who had access to the auction house would have better equipment than them.
Sorry, but I laughed my ass off at this. Not for any reasons you intended, I assure you, just my own insanity.

When I first read that, it sounded like you just cited the digital equivalent of "penis envy" as the main reason why Blizzard wouldn't fix something.

geizr said:
"...while making as much money as possible..."

"...because these companies think gamers are stupid..."

In my opinion, there's the root of the problem. Gamers keep buying into it, so the companies keep selling it. Here's a thought: these companies are, in my opinion, putting into practice the very behavior I often see gamers evince in online economies, namely, find every way possible to exploit the system and prey upon the lazy stupidity of other gamers to make sales.
Yup, they're exploiting what they believe is excess demand and nothing more. When market growth outpaces their growth (relative to market share), that tells them that someone, somewhere is making money that they aren't. So they seek out who or what is making the most, and try to copy them: aka, "Tit-for-tat" (game theory, as in the actual economic "game theory", not that annoying web show).

To demonstrate what I mean and reinforce what you said, I'll use EA's recent comments about Dungeon Keeper as an example.

Right now, one of biggest moneymakers are those exploiting the shit out of the mobile Freemium market, where the most financially successful games aren't really games but things resembling games owned by companies run by assholes (read: King and co).

If I had to guess, Dungeon Keeper wasn't trying to be a fun game so much as it was trying to ape the success of crap like Clash of Clans; which itself is just an elaborate Pay2Win scheme hidden behind what looks like a competitive strategy game.

All the same elements are in place; In this model, Money is time, and time is Power. You need Power to compete.
Either sit around for weeks hoping you don't get raided into the dirt while trying to build up, or pay real money to rapidly acquire power.

Of course, Dunegon Keeper failed miserably while Clash continues to succeed. Why? I dunno. I'm not psychic, but if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say EA's awful reputation was a major contributor. The public is likely more aware of EA's bullshit due to their history (two time winner of the Golden Poo), while Supercell as a company is scarcely a blip on the outrage radar despite making a horrible, yet inexplicably popular "game".

So when EA finally admitted to Dungeon Keeper's failure...they cited reasons no customer (or any sane person) expected.

To EA, the mistake wasn't in exploiting a horrible Pay2Win scenario; Clash of Clans continues to get away with that bullshit to this day. From EA's perspective, the issue is that they didn't exploit the players correctly.

Which is why the response they gave to us sounds incredibly detached.

"We innovated too much" sounds self-congratulatory to anyone with a soul, but from their perspective, with the corpspeak translated, means "We pushed the customer too hard too fast, but our long term business model is correct."

"The market wasn't ready for this yet" sounds insane, since no gamer wants to be "ready" for the horrible price gouging offered. But from EA's perspective, again, the complaints are just another sign that they pushed the envelope too quickly.

Next time, I expect them to pull the same shit, only they are going to initially offer better up front while eventually introducing the Pay2Win bullshit they want to exploit in easier to swallow increments.

This practice isn't without precedent. Companies already managed to pull that off for price-gouging DLC schemes.

(*Oh, and it's no coincidence that the same argument was made for Always Online by the now infamous Adam Orth. Large companies know the kind of clout they can wield over the market, and will try to pressure the market into accepting things that are strictly worse for it. Essentially, it's an effect stemming from "monopolization" of a market, or more accurately, one that's slowly degenerating into an oligopoly.

The USA telecoms market is a good example of a market deep into that process; if I want broadband, my choices are shitty DSL, or overpriced shitty cable. Cable companies in particular are doing everything they can to stifle competition and development because they have an oligopoly.

In fact, net-based services are expected to jump in price across the board for no other reason than extortion due to the death of net-neutrality; a feat only made possible by corruption and a lack of competition.

On the cellphone provider front, well, I can't even buy a new supported phone now from my provider at a reasonable cost without "upgrading" to a smartphone...which includes an extra $360 USD/year for a shitty data plan. My options relative to my needs are being eliminated solely to pressure me into paying extra for shit I don't want or need.)

They aren't listening to customers anymore; they're just trying to trick or pressure them into buying a worse deal.
I'd say expect the lies, boasts and claims to become more outlandish the longer this absurd process continues. Of course, it only continues because the market foolishly keeps these assclowns in business. Speaking of..

Honestly, my advice is to stop buying from EA and Ubisoft, quit bitching on about them, and move on to better games. Just ignore them as an existent entity, paying attention only enough to make sure you're not buying a game from them.
..I completely agree to stop buying their games (something I put into practice; I haven't done any business with EA, Ubisoft or Blizzard for 4 years now; 7 years for EA) but I don't believe in remaining silent.

If even one gamer becomes more informed of the increasingly deceptive and exploitative practices of the AAA industry, it is worth the effort.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/09/blizzard-reaffirms-that-diablo-3-for-pc-will-not-have-an-offline-version/

For people who didn't care about the auction house or battle.net integration and didn't want it in their SINGLE PLAYER GAME, they were SOL. Blizzard could have made an offline mode that disallowed an offline character access to the auction house. They didn't.
And what exactly would stop these offline games from hacking their data, making very good items, then selling these items to other player using the trade window? Unless you could prevent player using the non-auction house version interacting with people using the auction house version the problems I mentioned will remain.

If they removed the auction house before introducing Reaper of Souls (RoS) then new players would be at a disadvantage because players who had access to the auction house would have better equipment than them. However by removing the auction house shortly before RoS was released they allowed players to buy some good level equipment before all the level 60 equipment became less valuable because you could find better 70 equipment.
Disadvantage over who?
I clearly stated it would disadvantage new players, specifically anyone who bought the game after the auction house was closed but before RoS was released.

So what? People in Diablo 2 had amazing hacked equipment. (Dual-Isted Oculus for the win!) People in Diablo 1 duped things left and right (Godly Plate of the Whales for everyone!) No one cared.
Remember when Blizzard tried to clamp down on this back in Diablo 1 by removing duped goods. If seems that Blizzard cared.

The fact that the auction house was the easiest and trivial way to improve your character is exactly why it broke the game.
Something that was resolved by introducing smart loot and making legendaries more common, not by removing the auction house.

Yes I did. It has a single player mode, a feature desired by a huge number of people. Simple as that.
Got any evidence to back up this claim. Unless the majority of people bought Diablo 3 for this reason it's clear that it wasn't a major problem.

I suspect that most people bought the console version because they didn't have a gaming PC.

Care to provide any evidence that Blizzard did get any significant amount of money from the auction house.
http://rpg-exploiters.com/diablo-3-diablo-series/discussing-the-profits-of-diablo-3s-real-money-auction-house/
This article is nothing more than speculation and isn't backed up by any data. Again do you have any evidence that Blizzard got a significant amount of money from the auction house.

Think of it this way. Millions of players stopped playing Diablo 3 soon after purchasing it for $60. Documented fact.
Care to provide the documentation showing that millions of players stopped playing Diablo 3 soon after purchasing it. Unless you have the sale figures showing how many copied of D3 were sold every month and how many people were playing it every month this isn't a documented fact.

You'll also need to provide evidence that people didn't stop playing D3 because they'd completed it. After all in the vanilla D3 there weren't paragon levels so once you'd beaten Diablo on inferno difficulty there wasn't any real reason to continue playing. It wasn't until later that paragon levels were introduced to give people a reason to continue playing.

Many of them quit because of the auction house ruining the game.
This is your speculation. It would not become a fact unless you asked a significant number of people why they quit playing Diablo 3 and they listed their main reason as the auction house.

I suspect that initially people quit because there was little to do once you completed inferno.

Now Blizzard needed these players to purchase the expansion, so they discontinued the auction house which, while it was making them money, would not have made as much money as the increased sales from the expansion from people who swore off the game because of the auction house.
You have not provided any evidence that the auction house was making a significant amount of money.
You have not provided any evidence that people stopped playing because of the auction house.
You have not provided any evidence that more players would buy RoS if the auction house was removed.

So your entire claim is baseless.

They announced they made a mistake, then kept on doing what they were doing for SEVEN MONTHS. Over half a year of which they could have disabled the auction house but didn't. Because it was never about doing the right thing with the auction house - it was about the money, as always.
I already explained that they kept the auction house so that new players during these seven months wouldn't be disadvantaged. After all no one is going to by Diablo 3 when it will be nearly impossible to gear yourself as well as people who had access to the auction house.

You also failed to provide any evidence to back up your money claim.

Uh, what? My console games get patched all the time. You start the game, and if you're connected to the internet, it notifies you an update exists, you download the update, and it installs it locally. Patching on the console is the same as on the PC. Where have you been?
Just a few problems with your claim.

1) A PC game is installed on your PC, so a patch can replace one file with another file resulting in very little additional memory being used.

A console game has all the information on the disk, so any changes require a new file to be downloaded onto the console. This will take up more memory that the PC counterpart.

As a result replacing the data for all the skills will take up little memory on a PC but will take up much more on a console. This makes it harder to release major patches for a console.

2) Some PC games have some of the content online so that the player doesn't need to install as much on their PC. This means that you can only play part or all of this game offline. However if a console game can be played offline then all the information has to be on the disk. As a result some changes to the PC game can be made without the player needing to download anything, something that can't occur for a game that can be played offline. So once again a console player will need to download more patches than a PC player.

3) Most PCs have more memory (larger hard drive) than a console, so you can more easily add additional content to a PC version than a console version. It's also easier to add more memory to a PC.

Thus patching a console game is slightly more difficult than a PC game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
If you really care - then don't let offline characters use the auction house. Not difficult.
I already explain why this won't work unless you can prevent these offline characters trading with online characters.

I clearly stated it would disadvantage new players, specifically anyone who bought the game after the auction house was closed but before RoS was released.
What do you even mean by "disadvantage"? Diablo is not a competitive multiplayer game. It is COOPERATIVE. The state of other characters confer no disadvantages to you.
In a cooperative match the enemy difficult is increased based on the number of players. So if one player is much weaker than the others in their team it will make fighting much harder for the rest of the team.

You also ignored that these players will have a disadvantage while brawling (player vs player combat).

Blizzard was never successful in fixing the dupe bug in Diablo 1, a dupe so easy anyone could do it. So how much did they really care?
They cared enough to try and stop it in Diablo 3 by requiring that the player was always online.

Got any evidence to back up this claim. Unless the majority of people bought Diablo 3 for this reason it's clear that it wasn't a major problem.
Where have you been? Did you miss the whole always online DRM outrage? Did you miss the whole servers crashing during launch Error 33 fiasco? This was a big deal. Or are you feebly trying to downplay it instead?
Hatred of DRM isn't hatred of the auction house. Either provide evidence that people stop playing Diablo 3 because of the auction house or admit that you're wrong.

Also the problems with servers were fixed within weeks of Diablo 3 going live so they can't be why people stopped playing Diablo 3.

This article is nothing more than speculation and isn't backed up by any data. Again do you have any evidence that Blizzard got a significant amount of money from the auction house.
Oh I get it. You're one of those people who just discounts any evidence given no matter how much it destroys your argument. Cute.
What evidence are you referring to? The article just said that Blizzard hoped to make money from the auction house, yet provided no evidence that Blizzard made a significant amount of money from the auction house. It doesn't destroy my argument in any way but instead highlights the lack of evidence in your claims.

By your logic if this article proves that Blizzard made money from the auction house then Square's claims that Tomb Raider will be financial success must mean that it was a financial success.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Diablo-3-Player-Count-Drops-Big-Time-Consumers-Fed-Up-44005.html

Remember how Diablo 3 broke sales records? Yeah. Now make up some nonsense about how this isn't evidence..
While this shows that the number of players dropped, however it prove any evidence regarding why they dropped. So your claim that this drop was due to the auction house, rather than the lack of late game content, is still unproven.

You have not provided any evidence that the auction house was making a significant amount of money.
You have not provided any evidence that people stopped playing because of the auction house.
You have not provided any evidence that more players would buy RoS if the auction house was removed.
The evidence is there. You just ignore it because you disagree with it. Kind of sad, but self delusions are powerful things and not easily broken.
If the evidence was there you would have posted it. So far all you've provided is the following:

1) An article written by a gamer who claims that Blizzard hoped to make money from the auction house but no evidence that Blizzard actually made a significant amount of money from the auction house.

2) Evidence that people stopped playing Diablo 3 but no evidence regarding why they stopped playing it.

3) Nothing to prove that sales of RoS would have been lower if Blizzard hadn't removed the auction house.

So in short you have consistently failed to prove that the auction house was harming Diablo 3 in any way.

Just a few problems with your claim.

1) A PC game is installed on your PC, so a patch can replace one file with another file resulting in very little additional memory being used.

A console game has all the information on the disk, so any changes require a new file to be downloaded onto the console. This will take up more memory that the PC counterpart.

As a result replacing the data for all the skills will take up little memory on a PC but will take up much more on a console. This makes it harder to release major patches for a console.
What are you babbling about? More memory? What? The patch is saved locally on the hard drive of the console, and loaded when the game loads (or loaded when needed by the game from the hard drive). It doesn't take "more memory" than on a PC. Hell, it doesn't even take more disk space than if the patch were applied to a PC game!
Try reading what I wrote. A PC patch replaces existing information on a PC's hard drive, so the overall increase in memory/disk space is minimal. A console patch has to add more information to a console's hard drive because it can't overwrite the information on the disk. Thus a PC patch will always be smaller than a console patch.

2) Some PC games have some of the content online so that the player doesn't need to install as much on their PC. This means that you can only play part or all of this game offline. However if a console game can be played offline then all the information has to be on the disk. As a result some changes to the PC game can be made without the player needing to download anything, something that can't occur for a game that can be played offline. So once again a console player will need to download more patches than a PC player.
Uh.....what? A PC game that can be played offline needs all the content to be local, SAME AS A CONSOLE. If you want to play version 1.04 without being connected to the internet, you need to download it locally, both on the PC and on a console!
And PC games that have to always be played online don't have all the information on the hard disk, they have some information on the hard disk and some on a server. Did you really believe that everyone downloads all of World of Warcraft onto their PC when they install this game?

3) Most PCs have more memory (larger hard drive) than a console, so you can more easily add additional content to a PC version than a console version. It's also easier to add more memory to a PC.
This has absolutely nothing to do with patching. Memory and hard disk space has NOTHING TO DO WITH PATCHING.

You have no idea what you're talking about. None.
Hard disk space is a type of memory (RAM isn't the only type of memory a computer uses). Hard disk space is related to patching because you can't release a console patch if it will take up too much space on the console's hard drive (mainly because people won't download it).

Try researching computers next time.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
453
0
0
uanime5 said:
Thanatos2k said:
If you really care - then don't let offline characters use the auction house. Not difficult.
I already explain why this won't work unless you can prevent these offline characters trading with online characters.
So do that too. Not difficult.

In a cooperative match the enemy difficult is increased based on the number of players. So if one player is much weaker than the others in their team it will make fighting much harder for the rest of the team.
It doesn't make it harder. It just doesn't make it easier. You are completely able to beat the game using only stuff that you find on your own. By design this is true.

You also ignored that these players will have a disadvantage while brawling (player vs player combat).
Has PvP even been implemented yet? I remember Blizzard promising it soon after release and then 7 months after release they were still making excuses about why they couldn't do it. Another pack of lies by the Diablo 3 team.

PvP is optional anyways and not part of the core game, so again who cares?

They cared enough to try and stop it in Diablo 3 by requiring that the player was always online.
Do you know why? Because IT MADE THEM MONEY NOW. That's why they suddenly care, because they wouldn't be able to extract money from dumb people as easily if they allowed it.

Again, it's always about the money.

Hatred of DRM isn't hatred of the auction house. Either provide evidence that people stop playing Diablo 3 because of the auction house or admit that you're wrong.
You asked for evidence that most people stopped playing the game. I gave it to you. Now you're throwing a tantrum. Stop it.

While this shows that the number of players dropped, however it prove any evidence regarding why they dropped. So your claim that this drop was due to the auction house, rather than the lack of late game content, is still unproven.
There's lots of reasons people quit. The auction house was just one big reason among them. This is UNDENIABLE.

Try reading what I wrote. A PC patch replaces existing information on a PC's hard drive, so the overall increase in memory/disk space is minimal. A console patch has to add more information to a console's hard drive because it can't overwrite the information on the disk. Thus a PC patch will always be smaller than a console patch.
Not always. Tons of PC games add patch files on the side that get loaded dynamically. This is a much safer way of patching after all because it allows the user to roll back trivially.

Additionally, patches are usually a handful of megabytes (read: negligible space) unless they contain new content, which would increase the amount of space added by the patch by around the same amount on console or PC regardless of whether it's replacing files. So yeah, you're spouting nonsense.

And PC games that have to always be played online don't have all the information on the hard disk, they have some information on the hard disk and some on a server. Did you really believe that everyone downloads all of World of Warcraft onto their PC when they install this game?
What does this have to do with anything? This is exactly the same on the console for a multiplayer game.

Hard disk space is a type of memory (RAM isn't the only type of memory a computer uses). Hard disk space is related to patching because you can't release a console patch if it will take up too much space on the console's hard drive (mainly because people won't download it).

Try researching computers next time.
I'm a programmer - I think I know when you're full of it. The size of the patch has nothing to do with the ability to patch something, the method of which you patch something, and the ease of which you patch something, all of which are now identical between consoles and PC. And with the newer consoles having plenty of disk space this is completely irrelevant, like most of your arguments. You're flailing wildly. You are flat out wrong but clearly you'll never admit it, so don't bother replying again. I certainly won't be.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,309
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
uanime5 said:
Thanatos2k said:
If you really care - then don't let offline characters use the auction house. Not difficult.
I already explain why this won't work unless you can prevent these offline characters trading with online characters.
So do that too. Not difficult.
Since it means that any offline character can never be used in the online version it may result in people who play in offline mode never playing online (especially if they spent a lot of time finding gear for their offline character).

In a cooperative match the enemy difficult is increased based on the number of players. So if one player is much weaker than the others in their team it will make fighting much harder for the rest of the team.
It doesn't make it harder. It just doesn't make it easier. You are completely able to beat the game using only stuff that you find on your own. By design this is true.
I already explained that having one player who's less geared than everyone else does make it harder because everyone else will have to deal more damage to compensate for the weaker player.

You also ignored that these players will have a disadvantage while brawling (player vs player combat).
Has PvP even been implemented yet? I remember Blizzard promising it soon after release and then 7 months after release they were still making excuses about why they couldn't do it. Another pack of lies by the Diablo 3 team.
Brawling has been optional for months. They implemented it before smart loot and Reaper of Souls.

PvP is optional anyways and not part of the core game, so again who cares?
People who enjoy PvP combat.

Do you know why? Because IT MADE THEM MONEY NOW. That's why they suddenly care, because they wouldn't be able to extract money from dumb people as easily if they allowed it.
Care to explain why Blizzard has tried to prevent the players from hacking or duping items in all 3 Diablo games when they only made money from Diablo 3. Could it be because developers don't like players magically creating equipment.

Hatred of DRM isn't hatred of the auction house. Either provide evidence that people stop playing Diablo 3 because of the auction house or admit that you're wrong.
You asked for evidence that most people stopped playing the game. I gave it to you. Now you're throwing a tantrum. Stop it.
No I asked for evidence showing that people stopped playing because of the auction house. You provided a link that showed people stopped playing, then pretended that people stopped playing because of the auction house since you don't have any evidence to back up your claim that people stopped playing Diablo 3 because of the auction house.

Either provide evidence to back up your claims or admit that you don't have any evidence.

While this shows that the number of players dropped, however it prove any evidence regarding why they dropped. So your claim that this drop was due to the auction house, rather than the lack of late game content, is still unproven.
There's lots of reasons people quit. The auction house was just one big reason among them. This is UNDENIABLE.
Since you've failed to provide any evidence that the auction house was responsible for players quitting it's clear that your claim can be easily denied. Your dislike of the auction house doesn't mean other people disliked it.

Additionally, patches are usually a handful of megabytes (read: negligible space) unless they contain new content, which would increase the amount of space added by the patch by around the same amount on console or PC regardless of whether it's replacing files. So yeah, you're spouting nonsense.
Unless the new content is on the server, then the patch will be much larger for the console than the PC.

And PC games that have to always be played online don't have all the information on the hard disk, they have some information on the hard disk and some on a server. Did you really believe that everyone downloads all of World of Warcraft onto their PC when they install this game?
What does this have to do with anything? This is exactly the same on the console for a multiplayer game.
I'll make it simple for you.

1) Content on the server doesn't have to be on the console's disk or hard drive.

2) Content on the server can only be accessed if you're online.

3) If most of the game's content is on the server you can't play this game offline.

So if most of the game's content is on a server you can't have an offline mode unless the player downloads all the content that's on the server. For something like World of Warcraft this will take up much more space than the game's 20 GB size.

Hard disk space is a type of memory (RAM isn't the only type of memory a computer uses). Hard disk space is related to patching because you can't release a console patch if it will take up too much space on the console's hard drive (mainly because people won't download it).

Try researching computers next time.
I'm a programmer - I think I know when you're full of it. The size of the patch has nothing to do with the ability to patch something, the method of which you patch something, and the ease of which you patch something, all of which are now identical between consoles and PC. And with the newer consoles having plenty of disk space this is completely irrelevant, like most of your arguments. You're flailing wildly. You are flat out wrong but clearly you'll never admit it, so don't bother replying again. I certainly won't be.
If you were a programmer you'd know that the hard disk's space is a type of memory.

A PC patch will always be smaller than a console patch because a PC patch can overwrite the files installed on the hard drive, while a console patch cannot overwrite any files located on a disk. If you were a programmer you'd be aware of this. You'd also be able to explain how patches worked, rather than claiming that everyone who points out the flaws in your arguments must be wrong.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
2,817
150
48
That last part with the dog pretty much represents how those videogames companies want their consumers to be.