Jimquisition: The Trap Of Gamer Gratitude

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
http://www.vg247.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-gamers-are-free-to-resell-digital-games/
Yes I just read this. We really need these kind of protections in America, badly. This essentially says, outside of what Steam or anyone else says, you own your copy of the game.
 

MeTalHeD

New member
Feb 19, 2014
60
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
grigjd3 said:
the hidden eagle said:
grigjd3 said:
A significant portion of games journalists have become more connected to publishers and developers than gamers. This often results in a media that has a very skewed viewpoint.
And a divide as between them and their readers as well.How many games journalist flatout attacked their readers in the past year?DMc and ME3 are perfect examples of the gaming press choosing their cushy connections with the game publishers/developers over the people who keep them relevant.

If this were actual journalism then all of them would be fired for taking what is essentially bribes.
An honest assessment is that we are a commodity that the games journalists trade. Since we basically refuse to pay for the journalism ourselves, websites need to be funded by ads and if you're a games website, you're most likely customers for ad space comes from producers of games. So the customer in this trade is the game publishers and the commodity being sold is our eyes. These websites need to be nice enough to us to keep us coming back but that's like saying a lumber mill needs to be nice to trees.
And this is why game journalism is a joke,they're essentially PR for the game publishers and developers who give them ad revenue.Real journalists are supposed to be for the people and not the ones who give them money in exchange for a good article.
As a journalist (not gaming, but a community journo) I keep hearing this thing coming up that journalists are cosying up to the likes of developers. It's like someone writing car reviews then getting a car free for better reviews. Sure, a car is WAAAAY pricier, but whatever section of the industry we're in we have to be as independent as possible. No free lunches, no brown envelopes slipped under the table for "positive" stories, and most of all no screwing the people you're writing for.

Your audience depends on you to be their voice when companies take advantage, governments refuse to budge and when you're giving them consumer-related advice. Consumer journalism probably has it the worst because of all the freebies the journalists get (movie tickets, games, books, hotel stays etc) but we SHOULDN'T be for sale. If a journalist is for sale, then all they are is an advertising salesman.

We once had an American journalism lecturer visit us for a talk about trends in her country. She said a common argument where she came from was that when journalists received free stuff (some have received cars for free) they claim "It's just a gift like if a friend gives you one" - as if the companies are suddenly their friends. Because an editorial department decides on how it will manage said freebies, you could end up at a media company which relishes and welcomes them, or in one that regards them with suspicion. In other words, there are few laws, if any, which govern that behaviour. If the newspaper's editorial team says it's okay for you to accept free games, movies, trips or cars, then the journalists gladly benefit from them. They then become a PR extension of whichever company gives them free stuff and if the editor-in-chief is okay with it (they could be cashing in too) then what should be unbiased voices soon start to sound exactly like company PR talk.

In the case of games, they are entertainment media. This means that scoring a free game is a bonus when they cost $60 a pop. Journalists aren't earning top dollar for their work (some have to scrape by on meager salaries) so much like a corrupt police officer or teacher will be tempted by a bribe, journalists see an opportunity to score a salary and some freebies on the side. Legally there is nothing wrong if the editorial department is okay with it (otherwise it can be seen as some form of fraud or misrepresentation), but morally it is a sticky area you shouldn't get yourself...uh...stuck in. Your reputation as a journalist and as a media company is at stake. How many games have been praised by online reviewers only for gamers to express opposing views? On Metacritic I often see games that are given 8 or 9/10 dropping by a point or two by the gamers. I am not saying there is always bias, but which tends to give a more honest account? The actual consumers or the reviewers who are far closer to the corporates than your average gamer?

MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
This. I agree here because while consumers should do everything in their power to make sure they are educated about what they are purchasing (research online, asking second or third sources for input and understanding what you're paying for), often companies take advantage of peoples' ignorance. Punishing the consumer for falling for a company's dirty tricks, clever marketing or downright lies is victim blaming. You don't HAVE to buy their product but there are too many cases of people being ripped off because companies are aware of how to market even terrible products to boost sales. They know they're selling bricks made of shit, but they'll market it like it's natural and healthy for the environment, for example.

Again, I have little sympathy for someone buying something blindly - as in they are ignorant on the subject and didn't bother to find out more - it still does not excuse a company selling bad products or conning people out of their money. Companies do it all the time and when consumers realise they've been screwed it can sometimes be a laborious process to get their money back. If however you had nowhere else to turn to (elderly who want to buy a computer, for example, and there aren't family members or friends who can help) and you got screwed, then I feel for you.

No matter how nice the people in the store are, they are not your friends. They are trying to make money and they are encouraged to be nice so you can trust them. They don't care about you no matter how much they smile and seem cheerful. In fact, even when you are rude and difficult they will put up with it for your cash. You could practically throw a tantrum in the store and they will try to accommodate you as long as you buy their product. The difference is when a company grows to such a degree that they don't even bother showing any care. This is the case with large corporates. Once they don't HAVE to be nice, they stop because they're making too much money anyway - they're showing their true colours. Do you think EA cares what you think? They will only be "nice" when it affects the bottom line.

We used to be able to trust game developers more than this, though. Perhaps we the gamers are to blame for allowing this shenanigans to happen in the first place...
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Demonchaser27 said:
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
http://www.vg247.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-gamers-are-free-to-resell-digital-games/
Yes I just read this. We really need these kind of protections in America, badly. This essentially says, outside of what Steam or anyone else says, you own your copy of the game.
Reselling digital games makes absolutely no sense though. It definitely makes no financial sense for the people selling the digital games to allow it.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
The_Kodu said:
I really don't like this practice.

I will say I don't think a gamer is stupid, I do think people can be though.
{insert the Men in black quote here)

More than the gamer though I think Publishers and certain big companies are stupid. Stupid enough infact to try and crap a pay to win system into a game and make it so progression in the full priced game is tediously slow unless you pay for boosts. I also think Publishers are stupid enough that once one of them tries it, all of them will start doing it and all of them will go running over that financial cliff together.


COD says it needs to charge more for DLC
Battlefield charges the new higher DLC cost

COD launches a subscription based COD elite service
Battlefield launches Battlefield premium

COD claims it needs to sell for a higher price in retail shops
Battlefield lists itself at the new higher RRP to.


Also more worryingly companies are getting better at hiding how manipulative their free to play restrictions and mechanics are. Looking at you Hearthstone, looking at you....

This definitely a disturbing model in the industry. Its no more competition. Its just price/product matching which is never good for the customer.
And as for Hearthstone.
I'm certainly not defending it or saying its okay, but yeah all card games either are or become pay to win. Its why I don't play card games anymore.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Demonchaser27 said:
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
http://www.vg247.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-gamers-are-free-to-resell-digital-games/
Yes I just read this. We really need these kind of protections in America, badly. This essentially says, outside of what Steam or anyone else says, you own your copy of the game.
Reselling digital games makes absolutely no sense though. It definitely makes no financial sense for the people selling the digital games to allow it.
Well I guess the thing is that whether a business wants to allow it or not isn't the point. Its what's fair. If you buy something, digital or no, its a product. It needs no service nor attached work hours from the company. If you sell your copy that's your choice. Their governments realize this.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Demonchaser27 said:
Thanatos2k said:
Demonchaser27 said:
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
http://www.vg247.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-gamers-are-free-to-resell-digital-games/
Yes I just read this. We really need these kind of protections in America, badly. This essentially says, outside of what Steam or anyone else says, you own your copy of the game.

Reselling digital games makes absolutely no sense though. It definitely makes no financial sense for the people selling the digital games to allow it.
Well I guess the thing is that whether a business wants to allow it or not isn't the point. Its what's fair. If you buy something, digital or no, its a product. It needs no service nor attached work hours from the company. If you sell your copy that's your choice. Their governments realize this.
I pay 50% or less for my digital games. That is the tradeoff I happily make for the ability to not resell my game. I pay less, I get less movability on my game license. Sounds fair to me.

Look - you have never owned your copy of a game. Ever. Not on a CD, not on a cartridge, not on a floppy disk. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago. You need to come to terms with that, or sue in court to change it.
 

DoctorImpossible

New member
Jan 18, 2013
100
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
No Jim, you're wrong. These people ARE fucking stupid. And this is why I don't have any faith in consumers.
This is the thing. It leaves a discerning & intelligent consumer feeling rather helpless amidst the onslaught of dumb motherfuckers who apparently have the spare cash to throw out the window for ridiculous shit like this.

It won't be my fault when the whole stupid industry collapses, assholes.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
DoctorImpossible said:
canadamus_prime said:
No Jim, you're wrong. These people ARE fucking stupid. And this is why I don't have any faith in consumers.
This is the thing. It leaves a discerning & intelligent consumer feeling rather helpless amidst the onslaught of dumb motherfuckers who apparently have the spare cash to throw out the window for ridiculous shit like this.

It won't be my fault when the whole stupid industry collapses, assholes.
It's worse than that. It's like getting kicked in the balls and then thanking the person for kicking you in the balls. I will certainly accept no responsibility when games are sold to us 1 level at a time on top of an initial $60 investment.
 

Aitamen

New member
Dec 6, 2011
87
0
0
See, I know it's part nostalgia, but at one time there were devs who didn't shit on players...

Remember Ultima 1's space section, created because, to quote, "If the disk isn't full, the game isn't done." from Lord British? (Yeah, I know Ultima 4 is an even better example, fuck off)

Or hell, EA allowing the Genesis version of Starflight to be awesome *and* fairly cheap, when they considered charging extra for the book, and then not only didn't, but dropped the price five bucks to show that not only were they sorry for *considering it*, they wanted people to be able to enjoy the game even more freely?

*That* is the EA I grew up with, and the history I know of gaming... and it makes me sad that, because of the pricetags on modern games, you don't see that in the "mainstream industry" anymore...

But hey, there's always indie...
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
Demonchaser27 said:
Thanatos2k said:
Demonchaser27 said:
MrFalconfly said:
Creedsareevil said:
Look out for the consumer?!

I say the consumer needs to learn to look out for himself.
There is one simple truth that is ESPECIALLY true to americans :
Businesses are not your friend. Businesses do NOT HAND OUT MONEY FOR NO RETURN. NEVER. Even Donations are just measures to work the TAX.

People need to carefully check if the business is treating them FAIRLY because that is the best you can expect from a business.
Of cause the consumer should exhibit a certain amount of skepticism when buying products.

But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be held accountable for shite like this.

There is a reason that EU has extensive consumer protection laws (including the classification of games as property, and not a license).
http://www.vg247.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-gamers-are-free-to-resell-digital-games/
Yes I just read this. We really need these kind of protections in America, badly. This essentially says, outside of what Steam or anyone else says, you own your copy of the game.

Reselling digital games makes absolutely no sense though. It definitely makes no financial sense for the people selling the digital games to allow it.
Well I guess the thing is that whether a business wants to allow it or not isn't the point. Its what's fair. If you buy something, digital or no, its a product. It needs no service nor attached work hours from the company. If you sell your copy that's your choice. Their governments realize this.
I pay 50% or less for my digital games. That is the tradeoff I happily make for the ability to not resell my game. I pay less, I get less movability on my game license. Sounds fair to me.

Look - you have never owned your copy of a game. Ever. Not on a CD, not on a cartridge, not on a floppy disk. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago. You need to come to terms with that, or sue in court to change it.
When I buy physical goods at half off I still get to own those. Price doesn't really matter. You and I just have a different understanding of what fair is. And fighting corporations in court isn't the most viable way to do this. I already explained that. Not all movements or rights were obtained through suing. This one likely won't be either. It'll just phase in slowly.
 

BoomingEchoes

New member
May 12, 2014
14
0
0
I've got strong negative feelings towards Mike Fahey and things he's written in the past, but Kotaku (as a site) writing a fluffy puff piece on such a crap industry trait, like microtransactions, saying thank you to the big company that gave it to us over how it's awesome for a game that we'll not only forget about in less then 6 months,is, however, of no surprise to me. It's just good business for them to keep EA happy (not to fuel or fan any "they get paid off" hogwash; it's just a fact that keeping EA happy is good for them).

I don't find them or what they have to say necessarily indicative of the whole of gamer opinion in any case, anyone who thinks they are is, well, drinking Kotaku's Kool-Aid with a huge ladle.

I know far too many people who will be fine sitting there plugging away at a game to unlock things if they like the game that asks that of them. Problem becomes if EA's purposefully made a game that doesn't really warrant wanting to plug that kind of time into, and to coerce people to spend real money they dangle everything in front of your face for months before unleashing a system to simply spend money instead of time. Basically playing that keep away game people play with their dogs, with actual people. There may be nothing illegal about that, but it doesn't mean it's right either. Dogs can bite back, after all.


(and realizing it could be construed as the same, it's not anything like an MMO shifting it's model from subs to f2p to keep the game going --PvZ:GW was designed to have microtransactions, they announced that at E3 along with the game, but they were held back for whatever flimsy reason EA has for withholding them; an MMO that the devs change course to save should never have had that intention to start with)
 

endplanets

New member
Mar 18, 2011
104
0
0
Not a single picture of Syndrome from The Incredibles here. For shame Jim.

http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/Incredibles/Syndrome.jpg

This reminds me of when ME3 got a "better" ending. Its less about "thanks" and more "about time"
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Oh... here I was thinking people were thanking game developers/publishers for something they should be doing... instead of thanking them for continuing bad trends. Bad move, guys.
 

Howling Din

New member
Mar 10, 2011
69
0
0
There /is/ a single word to describe what they're doing. It's become a little shop, but still. The word for it is racketeering.
 

Kruidan

New member
Jun 20, 2014
1
0
0
I was really looking forward to PvZ Garden Warfare but now I'm not sure if I should buy it. The game looks like a lot of fun and I do have a lot of free time with which to unlock what I want rather than paying for it, but this had made me wonder if this is one of those cases where I should vote with my wallet and simply not purchase the game at all.

This is why I try to avoid exposure to games I'm really interested in, I was going to happily purchase PvZ this week but now I have to consider if it's actually worth it rather than buying it because I like PvZ and the game caught my interest from the word go.