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

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

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.

 

[crazyburnerboy8]

I WANT A BULLDOG!!!!!

 

[Thanatos2k]

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]

"...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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"...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.

Spoiler: Dungeon Keeper and Perspective

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.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

 

[CaitSeith]

That last part with the dog pretty much represents how those videogames companies want their consumers to be.