Poll: Voting with your wallet

[Igor-Rowan]

You know the concept, the game's great and you want more of it, you buy it in order to support it, the game's not good or stands for something you do not agree on, you refuse to give it your money. The question is does it do anything?

Right now that's the only message the AAA industry is getting from us and the only one we can send them, because reviews don't matter if a game manages to sell. I keep hearing this over and over, and how we must show them the power of the consumer, and I decided to make this topic because for the first time it's actually (kind of) working, with the CoD: Infinite Warfare pre-oder falling short of expectations. I only saw Kickstarters and Early Access games as cases where our wallets do decide the fate of it, but I guess times are changing.

Why do I bring this up just now? A few game series in particular are getting new installments in the near future, and as much as they were loved in the past, there was one point in their history where they took a direction its hardcore fans were less than thrilled about and the success of those installments in particular shifted these series completely of what made them so unique.
The question here is how voting with wallets helps these people? If they support the game, it'll be featured in the new model they don't like, but if they don't support it at all, the series may stop completely even if we have enough proof they can deliver, and in both cases it's a lose-lose.

So yeah, online forums and with articles and opinions are bound to fall in deaf ears, focus testing is a terrible idea, and petitions at Change.org showed time and time again to be useless in these cases; all there is left for us to voice opinions is voting with our wallets. Do you think this sort of tactic actually work? As in, more than people give it credit for, or it's just hopeless we try to get them the idea of the game we want?

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, why not? Companies that produce a product are focused on the bottom line: The money they get. If something they put out doesn't get money, they have to alter their plans. This is basic business and economics, and I know some companies FAIL at it, but it's still a simple rule. You learn what your customers want from what they buy and don't buy, and how much of each.

 

[Igor-Rowan]

Well, why not? Companies that produce a product are focused on the bottom line: The money they get. If something they put out doesn't get money, they have to alter their plans. This is basic business and economics, and I know some companies FAIL at it, but it's still a simple rule. You learn what your customers want from what they buy and don't buy, and how much of each.

I avoided to cite examples because there are far too many to count, but I'll pick one that answers your question. Resident Evil, ever since that spin-off that came out after the fourth one, they focused more on the action than the horror, to which fans were really not pleased with, yet the review scores and sales numbers show no signs of this formula changing. I know that RE is one of Capcom biggest franchises, but what would they do with it if in its current state it were to fail? I will tell you what they'll do, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and the franchise goes down with it, no second guesses, not re-evaluating what may have gone wrong, down it goes.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

If they support the game, it'll be featured in the new model they don't like, but if they don't support it at all, the series may stop completely even if we have enough proof they can deliver, and in both cases it's a lose-lose.

The fact you are counting on goodwill of the company or the series itself is deal-breaker. You are banking on the series'(or company's) good history for the terrible direction that the game is currently heading to.

That sort of thinking is a trap - short term thinking, investment in the company, character, or the series. All the good things come to an end - and another begins anew. If you stopped buying those games altogether, will your favorite parts of the great game perish forever? The answer is no. Next great game that inherits those principles will come sooner... but most likely later. Fortunately, I am patient enough to wait for one.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Customers are not responsible for companies being dumbasses. There are a number of people who might love to see Capcom flounder for some of their mishandlings.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'd like to point out the truth in Pirate's statement. Shadowrun was handled poorly for a while and went under for a fair few years. Nowadays, there's two more editions and some excellent video games.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Does voting with ones wallet work? Of course. Does voting with ones wallet guarantee your results? God no. Much like 'real' voting, you're in direct competition with thousands, if not millions of other people, and they may not share your view.

For example - I detest the DLC practices of the most recent Games Workshop IPs. I hate them enough that I'm completely unwilling to buy any of them, regardless of how awesome everyone says they are. I've voted with my wallet, but, unfortunately, everyone else has decided to vote in opposition, that opposition being 'As long as I get it for free, who gives a shit.' It's a valid position to take, I suppose, but regardless of who's 'right,' I lost - Those games have, as far as I can tell, been massive successes. So that practice will likely continue.

The same goes for game mechanics and the like, of course - If you pay money for a type of game, and a shit load of other people do as well, gaming companies will make it.

 

[Igor-Rowan]

If they support the game, it'll be featured in the new model they don't like, but if they don't support it at all, the series may stop completely even if we have enough proof they can deliver, and in both cases it's a lose-lose.
[/quote
That sort of thinking is a trap - short term thinking, investment in the company, character, or the series. All the good things come to an end - and another begins anew. If you stopped buying those games altogether, will your favorite parts of the great game perish forever? The answer is no. Next great game that inherits those principles will come sooner... but most likely later. Fortunately, I am patient enough to wait for one.

I know it looks like I'm being short-sighted here, but it happened many times, Resident Evil refuses do to horror, Silent Hill forgot how to, Paper Mario decided to focus more on mechanics than story or characters, Spyro became an integral piece in Skylanders that can't have its own game anymore (these are the ones at top of my head, surely there are way more), most of these case are of "fixing what ain't broken", and many of them already went through the benefit of the doubt once, but... yeah, maybe I'm being pessimistic here, maybe I'm not giving these companies enough credit to pull it off keeping their great games, great.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

No. See, people who CARE do not really matter. Successful game franchises are not built on pleasing "fans". They are built on pleasing the unwashed masses, and preferably selling lots and lots of copies to the unwashed masses.

Mega Man is a good example. The simple fact of the matter is that Capcom made a wise decision to cancel Mega Man Legends 3. The game was almost guaranteed to flop. Mega Man has been selling terribly for years, and Mega Man Legends 2 was a flop. Videogame publishers are generally far more sensible than their audiences in terms of knowing what to kill and what to keep alive, sleeper hits notwithstanding. Sleeper hits are often built on the work of passionate fans spreading the good word.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I know it looks like I'm being short-sighted here, but it happened many times, Resident Evil refuses do to horror, Silent Hill forgot how to, Paper Mario decided to focus more on mechanics than story or characters, Spyro became an integral piece in Skylanders that can't have its own game anymore (these are the ones at top of my head, surely there are way more), most of these case are of "fixing what ain't broken", and many of them already went through the benefit of the doubt once, but... yeah, maybe I'm being pessimistic here, maybe I'm not giving these companies enough credit to pull it off keeping their great games, great.

The game series is not eternal. It will always be dead, dying and will die. This also applies to developers as well - Which is why I do not trust in any of them. I personally trust them less - I have seen the ends of many series that I was personally invested in. Sacred, Dungeon keeper, etc.

I implore you to put your trust in "aspect that made the game great". Those things are tangible ideas that I can put trust in, and those ideas will outlive both series and developers. If you know something that made series great, then you would know that it will inspire some people to create something that inherits those qualities.

 

[Elfgore]

It's arguable that people complaining and not pre-ordering managed to make Creative Assembly/Sega to change their DLC policy with the pre-order DLC. Making it a one week free deal instead of pre-order only.

So I'd say as long as enough people do it and if the game is right, it could work in making a company change it's stance.

 

[Saelune]

It can, but it does help to actually complain about it, despite some people who complain about complainers complaining despite the hypocrisy and the fact that doing nothing does less than complaining, even if that doesn't do much more.

People didn't like what AVGN said about the new Ghostbusters movie, but I bet a bunch of people are not going to see it now too cause they felt he made a good point.

 

[Fallow]

Does voting with ones wallet work? Of course. Does voting with ones wallet guarantee your results? God no. Much like 'real' voting, you're in direct competition with thousands, if not millions of other people, and they may not share your view.

For example - I detest the DLC practices of the most recent Games Workshop IPs. I hate them enough that I'm completely unwilling to buy any of them, regardless of how awesome everyone says they are. I've voted with my wallet, but, unfortunately, everyone else has decided to vote in opposition, that opposition being 'As long as I get it for free, who gives a shit.' It's a valid position to take, I suppose, but regardless of who's 'right,' I lost - Those games have, as far as I can tell, been massive successes. So that practice will likely continue.

The same goes for game mechanics and the like, of course - If you pay money for a type of game, and a shit load of other people do as well, gaming companies will make it.

I did the same, so you're not entirely alone.

 

[deadish]

"Even Dust, When Piled up, Will Become a Mountain." - Japanese proverb

 

[Bat Vader]

No. See, people who CARE do not really matter. Successful game franchises are not built on pleasing "fans". They are built on pleasing the unwashed masses, and preferably selling lots and lots of copies to the unwashed masses.

Mega Man is a good example. The simple fact of the matter is that Capcom made a wise decision to cancel Mega Man Legends 3. The game was almost guaranteed to flop. Mega Man has been selling terribly for years, and Mega Man Legends 2 was a flop. Videogame publishers are generally far more sensible than their audiences in terms of knowing what to kill and what to keep alive, sleeper hits notwithstanding. Sleeper hits are often built on the work of passionate fans spreading the good word.

CD Projekt Red listened to fans and pleased them and The Witcher series is an incredibly successful franchise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe listens to it fans and the MCU films are some of the best comic book films to date.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

For the individual, I'd say it hardly makes a difference. I mean, I voted against Diablo and Battlefield because of always online, but that doesn't change shit because their servers were overloaded at launch with people trying to play, and BF3 was one of the highest pre-ordered games in history. Sooooo.....

With microtransactions and stuff, and anti-consumer DRM, I try to put my money whose practices I support, which means I spend more on GOG than I would in other places sometimes, just so it helps prove that you don't lose money to piracy, but from making shitty games. Sometimes it means I end up spending more, but that's my little "contribution". Doesn't make an iota of a difference though, CD Projekt can keep what they're doing and everyone can keep doing what they're doing regardless. So I voted no.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It depends, really. Collectively, yes, if enough people support/boycott something then change will happen. Obviously companies aren't going to produce products no one wants to buy unless they're terribly managed.

Does that mean you have any meaningful influence over the outcome? Ahahahahahahahaha ... not even slightly. Unless you have influence over the purchasing habits of large numbers of other people your choice in the matter is so profoundly meaningless that it might as well not exist. Your individual purchasing decision has so little impact that no company would even be able to detect it were it to change.
Some people might be bothered by the bleakness of such statements, but I like to look on the bright side of such matters; you can buy what ever the fuck you want without guilt of personally ruining society, because you are a meaningless blip of an existence that does not prop up the entertainment industry.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Some people might be bothered by the bleakness of such statements, but I like to look on the bright side of such matters; you can buy what ever the fuck you want without guilt of personally ruining society, because you are a meaningless blip of an existence that does not prop up the entertainment industry.

And that's why I like Voting with the Wallet.

It means that, on the large scale, truly incompetent products will be weeded out, and on the small scale, no-one is going to bother me if I like C&C Red Alert 3, because I'm just one tiny blip.

 

[Gamerpalooza]

Voting with your wallet has an impact. It can be seen from many companies that thought they could never do wrong or that their core audience was expendable if they sought to "expand".

Blizzard, Capcom, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, and Square-Enix to name a few.

 

[Nazulu]

Of course it does. The less money they make the sadder they are. These scummy types part of these big company's want to find a way to suck every single person in, so when they don't reach some demographics it eats at their soul.

Realistically, it won't always work, but when it does, it hits really fucking hard. And promoting good work and business practices may make it come more often and used by other company's when selecting the friendlier choices.

 

[Something Amyss]

Same as any election, each individual accomplishes very little with their vote. That's why it's so valuable to spread information in one's own favor; and those who know what's good for them don't gamble on lies that can be debunked.

*looks at US politics* Seems like very little is accomplished en masse.

Voting with your wallet is worse. In an election, there are effectively a fixed number of choices. Even with a write-in, you're still writing in on an official tally.

Not buying a game for a reason is useless in and of itself, because they can't tally it effectively. It also gives companies wiggle room. How often do publishers blame bad sales on piracy rather than their shitty game? The logic is straightforward: I didn't buy the game. Therefore, I must have really wanted it and illegally acquired it.

On the other end, a game that fails to sell well for any reason often leads to the determination gamers simply don't want that kind of game anymore, and it's better to make another generic first person game that will sell 15 million. Voting with your wallet is a concept that doesn't scale well to software, where the markets are often fairly monopolised (not in the anti-trust sense, mind).

Most often, nothing gets accomplished. But then, "vote with your wallet" is usually more of a silencing tactic. So it functions as intended.

Voting with your wallet has an impact. It can be seen from many companies that thought they could never do wrong or that their core audience was expendable if they sought to "expand".

Blizzard, Capcom, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, and Square-Enix to name a few.

Some of the biggest names in the business are included there. Nintendo's one of the most antiquated, anti-consumer companies on the market right now and all they need to do to smash sales records is release a new Mario Kart or Zelda game. In fact, this is another large problem with voting with your wallet. It tends to get drowned out when the consumer is so quick to say SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.