Jimquisition: The Trap Of Gamer Gratitude

[JimB]

While I understand and even to a degree support Mr. Sterling's premise, my particular understanding of etiquette and rote social responses is such that if someone fixed a problem, even on he created, and I did not thank him for that, I think I'd end up paralyzed and completely unable to formulate a response. Maybe I should start preparing a list of responses so I can practice for the scenario. "Now don't do it again," maybe?

 

[Mahoshonen]

I have to disagree with Jim's last point that 'we' (the gaming consumers) are not stupid.

Everything I've seen in the last decade indicates that we are. And I include myself in that generalization.

While I understand and even to a degree support Mr. Sterling's premise, my particular understanding of etiquette and rote social responses is such that if someone fixed a problem, even on he created, and I did not thank him for that, I think I'd end up paralyzed and completely unable to formulate a response. Maybe I should start preparing a list of responses so I can practice for the scenario. "Now don't do it again," maybe?

Okay, cynicism aside, there are such things as degrees. While you don't need to be rude, it is possible to forgive without forgetting. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out if a fix doesn't really address the core problem (like offering a cash shop for a tedious game doesn't alter the fact that the game is tedious).

 

[Demonchaser27]

We reached a point where Publishers just became outright disgusting. Most of the people seem so forget about problems so they can become status quo, if the steps the games industry is going are just small enough to provoce no xbox one reaction.
So what is next, do we have to pay for a patch, or per hour of play time? Thank god for jim and other critics that save from buying games like that

I think large publishing houses are doing what they are to pick up pennies. They can't (or aren't able) to pivot the way a new company or small studio can when it comes to free to play titles. So, they split the difference and try and jimmy it in. They wouldn't still be doing it if it weren't profitable at some point.

I doubt we'll see pay-for-patch, and play-per-hour was actually the 90's and it failed pretty hard...although if the content is rich enough, and the game disposable enough, that model could work. But probably not all that lucrative.

My second to the last sentence was actually irony. But, i think it is time to not just think about the way companies are getting money from us, but also why it has to take hundrets of millions of dollars to make a single game (e.g. 200 mil. for call of fucking duty), that then often also really sucks. I´m thinking about that since I backed Star Citicen during there Kick Starter campain and now they rised like 43 millions. Do they completely spend all that on their game? If they do, is that really necessary and if they don´t do it, is it ok to take money from your customers then. I would be really interested to know where all this money goes too. Christ i just found out that E.T. for the Atari did cost 23 million to make, WTF.

They don't spend all of that money on development. Otherwise we would have massive games that took 6 years to completely build. Would be awesome, but that's not usually it. Most of it is advertising/marketing revenue. At least half of it usually is. Especially for Call of Duty. Its an unnecessary expense usually since one could have done like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls and made an incredible game and just make one or two ads to get it noticed and let the fervently addicted community do the rest. This is how a lot of games worked in the past. There wasn't a ton of advertising in gaming until the early 2000's.

 

[Kekkonen1]

I agree. I had a similar situation with Ubisoft's Child of Light the other day.
I had never used Uplay before, although I've heard MUCH crap about it I thought that now 2 years after it's launch surely most problems must have been fixed right? WRONG! It SUCKED and it took me almost 2 days to be able to play the game I actually bought a few hours before release.

I'll not bore everyone by going into detal but lets just say that Uplay would NOT let me play the game. And when I finally got a hold of a person (had to call some sort of international helpline) and he managed to fix it for me with a work around that should not have been bloody necessery, I could hear it in his voice. He wanted gratitude. He wanted me to say thanks for fixing a broken service that made me unable to play a game I had paid for 2 days in advance. Now I know that he is just an innocent individual, which is why I didn't go off the handle speaking to him, but he still has the unfortunate position of representing the company he works for.

 

[Demonchaser27]

I have to disagree with Jim's last point that 'we' (the gaming consumers) are not stupid.

Everything I've seen in the last decade indicates that we are. And I include myself in that generalization.

I think he believes they are too, but in psychology you learn that by setting up expectations that are really low you find that most people will inadvertently meet them. In classes where the teacher says that most students will fail/do poorly in the class because it is hard, then most students will assess themselves as not being good enough and will fit that mold anyway. If you instead embellish them, but not too much, you can raise confidence and get more of them to seek better decisions.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Did the Sony Vita rep have anything to say about the reprehensible memory card prices?

In regards to this episode, yes, it is pathetic. Two more examples are the Sim Shitty Offline mode and Blizzard closing the Diablo 3 auction house. Oh, they listened to the customers! Hooray!

No. Blizzard was more than willing to leave the auction house up forever since it made them money and they already had everyone's money from the initial game purchase. But something changed - they needed to sell an expansion pack. And the auction house was not making them as much money as they would have lost from people who refused to touch the game because the auction house ruined it. So they removed the auction house - simply so they could make more money.

Did people not get that part?

 

[proghead]

Even worse is the idea that we should want to decrease the amount of time we spend playing a game we paid for. Shouldn't we instead buy missions, map packs etc that increase our playing time? More money = more hours of fun?

You're making a good point there. Instead of spending money on skipping boring shit that was placed there deliberately, spend money to extend the fun parts. Brilliant. So let's all go back to the days where we got expansions for our retail games instead of micro transactions.

Oh, and keep up the good fight there, Jim.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Did the Sony Vita rep have anything to say about the reprehensible memory card prices?

In regards to this episode, yes, it is pathetic. Two more examples are the Sim Shitty Offline mode and Blizzard closing the Diablo 3 auction house. Oh, they listened to the customers! Hooray!

No. Blizzard was more than willing to leave the auction house up forever since it made them money and they already had everyone's money from the initial game purchase. But something changed - they needed to sell an expansion pack. And the auction house was not making them as much money as they would have lost from people who refused to touch the game because the auction house ruined it. So they removed the auction house - simply so they could make more money.

Did people not get that part?

No, I don't think they did, lol.


Its true. If they really cared they would have done something about the auction house immediately. But instead they waited almost two years. You're correct about that I do believe.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I find it completely farcical that these outlets you mentioned REALLY are grateful and championing these micro-transactions.
If so they are fucking idiots. I never come out and call people idiots like that, but just as Jim states, this game was designed from the start to be a grind so that when they introduced the micro-transactions there would be a reason for people to buy them.
This is a paid game with its design twisted to induce further payment in order to access all of the content in a reasonable time period.
This is is asinine and I don't think they will get away with it in the long term. People are smart and they will realize that these publishers are double dipping.

 

[Ichigo]

They don't spend all of that money on development. Otherwise we would have massive games that took 6 years to completely build. Would be awesome, but that's not usually it. Most of it is advertising/marketing revenue. At least half of it usually is. Especially for Call of Duty. Its an unnecessary expense usually since one could have done like Demon's Souls or Dark Souls and made an incredible game and just make one or two ads to get it noticed and let the fervently addicted community do the rest. This is how a lot of games worked in the past. There wasn't a ton of advertising in gaming until the early 2000's.

Some games passed by me without any notice but in my 30 year life as a gamer i normally knew when there was a game I wanted to play. There is always someone who tells you about it so adverticement is actually not necessary, especially now where let´s plays are everywhere or for a game like CoD with a huge fan base (for whatever reason). I mean i don´t even watch TV so i wouldn´t notice adverticement anyway. I just checked some development cost history online and somewhere between 2000 and today games became rediculously expensive to develop.

 

[sorsa]

What is up with your Nazi-erotic stage background? Seriously man, it starter subtle enough to be giggle worthy. But now.. seriously, what in all the fu*ks name?

 

[lukesparow]

Sadly Jim, the people you aimed this video at are actually stupid.
This video probably won't do any good at all.

 

[slimbiggins]

Jim,

Isn't a creating a problem for the sole purpose of selling services to solve it called racketeering? And isn't that really illegal?

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Thank God for Jim for calling out that Kotaku article. It read like a marketing campaign written by someone with absolutely no idea how the product actually works.

No Jim, you're wrong. These people ARE fucking stupid. And this is why I don't have any faith in consumers.

Unfortunately, half of the world's population is below average intelligence. Those are the people that keep companies like EA afloat. They are, after all, 50% of the market.

I still wonder what will happen if and when they finally sink like THQ and people have game libraries trapped on Origin.

Then people will no longer have access to their Origin games.

Valve at least has promised to patch out the DRM if Steam should happen to cease. EA has made no such promise.

That's the scary thing about EA. I have absolutely no doubt that at the end of the day they'll take the money and run if they have to. Someone really should get EA to make a similar promise to Steam's.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

I think it's important to differentiate between a developer trying something new, realizing the feature or play element didn't work the way they anticipated/hoped, and then fixing the problem.

And the behavior on display here where a developer intentionally makes a frustrating game and then proceeds to sell you the method to make the game less frustrating
(Doubly so if the game is already bought and paid for and they're selling you the solution)

 

[Kerethos]

This is the way I see it: It's nothing but blackmail (holding content you paid for hostage until you pay more) - and you should be fined and incarcerated for that shit, not thanked.

It's really not more complicated then that.

 

[GonzoGamer]

This is so true, so very true.
Yet, I've seen it happen countless times.... players being grateful to the developers for fixing game problems.

Heck, sometimes I even stumbled into topics saying "thank you for making this game!!". While I appreciate the enthusiasm, they do not deserve any thank you for making a good videogame. Because it's not like they gave it to you completely free as a gift.

You're right but some games have an obscene amount of content. You don't always get much play for your $60 and while that doesn't necessarily make a game bad on its own I do recognize when I've been given a good value.
Which brings me to Borderlands 2, which did microtransactions right: they sold costumes for the characters for $1 each. You don't need to buy them, they only have an aesthetic benefit, and there were tons to unlock in the game. That's proper microtransactioning.
GTAOnline is kind of skating on the edge of decency with the shark cards. On one hand they do allow people who don't have a lot of time to play, to buy some of the more expensive apartments and cars and all the other dlc has been free. However, their double XP&$ 'weekend' lasted 36 hours and is a rare occurrence. The thing is, if you do have time, there is a shiton of content (both R* & user made) so you never have to play the same job twice if you don't want to. Even if you're saving up for an attack chopper, a tank, and 5 super cars. That's the thing, I'm not really going to buy a shark card but they do have my gratitude for giving me a hell of a lot of entertainment for $60.

 

[shtoops]

I really want an episode "dedicated" to Valve. By that I mean an episode about them. Because I'm curious to see Jim summarize Valve in a video and show me its faults. Because as much as Valve seems more or less incapable of wrong (besides Steam's issues that Jim has mentioned before) I want to know them better.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

"You're not stupid".

Really, Jim? Really? You don't know me very well then. I'm capable of moments of stupidity that would make Steve Carrell's character from "Anchorman" seem positively bright by comparison.

Please also note that, as mentioned by a previous poster, 50% of people are in the bottom half of IQ rankings, yet nobody here thinks that one of those people is themselves. If you guys want some completely unjustified flattery, I guess I could hypothesise that "Escapist" readers - specifically the ones who comment on videos - are naturally so smart that the bottom 50% is seriously under-represented here. But of course!

Anyway, yeah, I agree that people should not be grateful for companies for fixing "mistakes" that were intended in the first place, and also that it's a bad thing that this even needs to be stated.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I think it's important to differentiate between a developer trying something new, realizing the feature or play element didn't work the way they anticipated/hoped, and then fixing the problem.

And the behavior on display here where a developer intentionally makes a frustrating game and then proceeds to sell you the method to make the game less frustrating
(Doubly so if the game is already bought and paid for and they're selling you the solution)

Agree with this. Hell, forget just "thanking" a developer, I'd give Ken Levine a wet snog for "System Shock" and "System Shock 2". (I'd punch him in the nose for "Bioshock Infinite", but that's a whole different story.)

Anyway I think the takeaway that you guys should get from this post is that Ken Levine has at least two reasons to avoid being at places where I'm at.