Why protest when you're only hurting yourself?

I get more enjoyment out of having integrity and following my own principles than I would whatever product I'm missing out on with boycotts.

There are plenty of games out there to play and I'm not going to just take bad business practices just to play another one.

In an industry like this, where games are shifting more towards large franchises and a games as service model, with publicity being done by Youtubers and streamers more than advertising campaigns, I think that companies are underestimating the power that the consumer holds at the minute.

If you make an awful name for yourself or offer a substandard product, chances are that a popular content creator is going to be affected by it since there are so many of them with many specialties. It will take a lot of work to repair your image when said image is being propagated by consumers who sometimes get millions of views per month.
 
Zakalwe said:
Why do you boycott when it's almost certain your boycott won't make a change and you're only limiting your own access?
Click to expand...
Because I don't want to support business decisions I don't agree with.
Surely it's better to pick and choose your battles, or to get involved and try to give the feedback that may help steer things in a certain direction?
Click to expand...
I can provide feedback without giving the company/organization I want to boycott any money.
 
I don't like EA, yet they make some games I truly love. Mass Effect, Dead Space, BF, Dragon Age and others. I will never boycott them and deprive myself of the games I really enjoy. It wouldn't make a lick of difference anyway. I will say that I do try and wait for a used copy sometimes to get the game cheap just to get a little rabbit punch to EA's kidney.

*shrugs*
 
Its a matter of principle. I can take it if I don't play some games. Its not like I don't have a huge backlog.

I decided to boycott origin after the spyware shitstorm. Sure they've since changed the EULA, but it was an asshole thing to do and they shouldn't have tried it.

I boycotted all GFWL games. Now GFWL is gone. I'm happy.

I boycott uPlay just because its a stupid DRM thing that doesn't work most of the time.

Admittedly steam did some shitty things back in the day too, but I got into steam late, only when it had matured (relatively) into a nice service.

Its sad to see our standards lowered. Game-breaking bugs and subsequent patches were never a thing, but I suppose the convenience of the internet has mellowed us all. Microtransactions were never a thing either. I still shun early access, but I have friends having a blast on Rust.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I want my hobby to progress in a positive direction. Not a single cent of mine shall go towards practises I abhor.
 
Zakalwe said:
Why do you boycott when it's almost certain your boycott won't make a change and you're only limiting your own access?
Click to expand...
"Boycotting" is not the same thing as "Choosing not to purchase" something. People around these parts seem to confuse the two all the time. I choose not to purchase certain games because some issues (often publishers' fault) are inconvenient, annoying, or sometimes just plain disgusting. And some issues (like a game being on Uplay or Origin) are inconvenient enough that I hesitate in my purchasing decision. Sometimes I end up buying a game on one of those services, sometimes not.

But in none of those cases would I refer to my decision as a "boycott."

Surely it's better to pick and choose your battles, or to get involved and try to give the feedback that may help steer things in a certain direction?
Click to expand...
A sale is a sale is a sale. Once you've bought something, that's it. Your ability to "steer things" is gone since you no longer have any leverage. Worse, I would also have to compromise my own standards of convenience and expense. Why buy something that I'm less than happy about buying? Especially when there are plenty of alternatives.

We are lucky to live in an era in which there are more great games than anyone has time to play. And there are more ways to play them on more different platforms than ever before. Why put up with inconvenient or gross business practices when there are plenty of much better alternatives?
 
"Some things are set".

Why would you think it odd for someone to stop giving money to something they are no longer interested in?

"You're only hurting yourself".

In the long run, one might be hurting themselves far more by saying nothing.
 
conman said:
"Boycotting" is not the same thing as "Choosing not to purchase" something. People around these parts seem to confuse the two all the time. I choose not to purchase certain games because some issues (often publishers' fault) are inconvenient, annoying, or sometimes just plain disgusting. And some issues (like a game being on Uplay or Origin) are inconvenient enough that I hesitate in my purchasing decision. Sometimes I end up buying a game on one of those services, sometimes not.

But in none of those cases would I refer to my decision as a "boycott."
Click to expand...

Actually, you've just explained the very definition of the word 'boycott', which simply means "to abstain from buying or using". The protest part is further refinement, but the foundation of the word is this.

conman said:
A sale is a sale is a sale. Once you've bought something, that's it. Your ability to "steer things" is gone since you no longer have any leverage.
Click to expand...

A sale makes you a part of their active consumer base, and perhaps a critique from an active buyer could be seen as having more wieght as many of the people protesting might be written off already.

I don't know how they put weight to these things, and neither do you. But saying the ability to influence has been removed simply because you've invested money is absolutley false.

Boycotts are not the only way to influence.

conman said:
Worse, I would also have to compromise my own standards of convenience and expense. Why buy something that I'm less than happy about buying? Especially when there are plenty of alternatives.
Click to expand...

There often aren't alternatives. There are plenty examples such as the want to finish a trilogy or to try a specific game but not being able because of principles.

The ME3 boycott by my friend for example, he can find another similar experience but unless he compromises his principles he will never see the end of the trilogy. There is no specific alternative here.

conman said:
We are lucky to live in an era in which there are more great games than anyone has time to play. And there are more ways to play them on more different platforms than ever before. Why put up with inconvenient or gross business practices when there are plenty of much better alternatives?
Click to expand...

See above.
 
I would only be hurt by avoiding certain games (e.g. Origin exclusives) if there was a scarcity of games, but on PC, there never is a scarcity of games anymore.

I've got a 250+ game backlog just on Steam, and at the next Steam sale, that will grow a fair amount guaranteed. At this point, I am looking for reasons to narrow the number of games I am interested in purchasing. Not playing well with Steam, the best and most comprehensive service available, is a good enough reason.

If Titanfall were the only interesting game coming out for a while, maybe I'd be tempted, but it's just one of many now with more coming all the time.
 
I'd say that a large scale boycott (aka low preorders) of the Xbox One did make a pretty big difference in 2013
 
Imperfected said:
So, your theory is that people should only boycott things they weren't going to buy to begin with?

Yes, boycotts of Origin do change things. The lower sales numbers for games released on Origin as opposed to Steam discourages companies from doing Origin-only releases. You think EA wouldn't try to sweet-talk companies into releasing their games as "Origin Exclusives" if they had enough market share to do so?

Yes, boycotts of Steam do change things. The fact that people exist who will not play Steam games means that a market exists for competing, no-DRM services. There would be virtually no reason for these services to exist if there weren't Steam boycotters.

Yes, boycotts of SimCity do change things. EA failed to hit their sales targets for the game - especially the expansion and add-on content - and are adding offline play as a direct result of that. The fact that so many people refused to play the game because of its onerous online component is actually causing that component to be removed. How much more direct cause and effect could you ask for with a protest action?
Click to expand...

Are these really boycotts or just people choosing not to purchase things from Origin, for example? I don't buy anything on Origin because I have no interest in them. People don't buy games on Steam because some prefer no DRM alternatives like Gog. This is a bit like saying I'm boycotting McDonald's if I choose to have KFC for lunch instead.
 
It's about my personal principles and values.
And I'm not 'hurting myself'. I'd be hurting myself if I caved in against what I stand for to play a flipping videogame.
 
Can't imagine why big publishers/developers don't care about gamer feedback. It's not like those gamers are going to actually follow through on their complaints, since the allure of playing the latest and greatest outweighs any other factor. See: SimCity preorders, broken launch, shitty forced multiplayer (yes I know that's been altered one year later), people swearing to not preorder EA games, wait a couple months, BF4 preorders.

Reminds me of politics - if you complain about the current status quo in politics but constantly vote for the same politicians, you waive your right to complain. Same thing with games - if people don't have issues with X or Y, more power to them. But if someone does have issues with certain games or companies, choosing to not support them, that's their right. It's called backbone.

Boycotts may not make a big splash in the water overall, but that doesn't mean it's not still important to a person to stick to their principles. OP's message seems short-sighted and overlooks longer-term implications. EA is the worst company three years in a row now? I'd say that all those blind preorders over the past couple years, after people swore the company off for previous blunders, contributed to their "who gives a shit what the gamers think/want?" mentality. And that's not limited to EA, of course, but it's the easiest example.

If a person cannot survive without playing certain games, even if buying those games conflicts with their buying philosophy/principles, that tells us how much power the big gaming companies and their marketing have over people.
 
Ive seen a lot of people trying to perpetuate the narrative that expressing disgust at certain practices and doing boycotts its pointless and they should stop doing it, I dont understand why they are so focused on people being as apathetic as they are if they supposedly they dont care that much in the first place? Reminds me of the people saying that Ps4 was gonna get DRM so we should shut up, why this insistence on trying to eliminate all discussion in a game discussion board? Ive seen it pop up a lot since the Xbox One bullshit and it honestly makes me distrust anyone that starts it.

On the boycott thing, I simply stop having interest in a game that features something I dont like or care, im not hurting myself when I do a list of pro and cons and there are more cons, especially because its my money we are talking about, thankfully there is plenty of variety to go around in the industry so if EA decides go cloud server with the next Sim CIty again ill have Cities in Motions, Anno and all shorts of alternatives that are equally good.
 
Zakalwe said:
Actually, you've just explained the very definition of the word 'boycott', which simply means "to abstain from buying or using". The protest part is further refinement, but the foundation of the word is this.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. A boycott always has a political foundation. It's done in an organized and deliberate way as a form of consumer protest. "Abstaining from buying" something is just that: abstaining from buying something. It's not a "boycott" if I choose not to buy a bar of soap because it's too expensive. It's not a "boycott" if a choose not to buy a car because it drives funny. It's not a "boycott" if I use less electricity because I'm trying to lower my utilities bill.

As I said, there's a fundamental misunderstanding here (and elsewhere on the net) about what constitutes a "boycott," and I think it's a sign that true political action has been devalued in many parts of the world. Choosing not to buy a game does not constitute a boycott. At all.

A sale makes you a part of their active consumer base, and perhaps a critique from an active buyer could be seen as having more wieght as many of the people protesting might be written off already.

I don't know how they put weight to these things, and neither do you. But saying the ability to influence has been removed simply because you've invested money is absolutley false.
Click to expand...
You can believe that if you like. But if you're talking about the publisher-driven side of the games industry, all decisions come down to money. Game consumers have proven themselves time and again to be incredibly fickle about issues, especially when they buy a game and then say "never again" and then buy the next game in the series anyway. Just look at Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty for two big examples.

Simply making a good and heartfelt argument isn't enough. Those people making the game might take it to heart, but they're also beholden to the folks signing their checks. We can hope that those with the money care about our opinions, but chances are, they only see us as numbers on sales reports.

There often aren't alternatives. There are plenty examples such as the want to finish a trilogy or to try a specific game but not being able because of principles.

The ME3 boycott by my friend for example, he can find another similar experience but unless he compromises his principles he will never see the end of the trilogy. There is no specific alternative here.
Click to expand...
Perfect example. I played the first two ME games. I didn't play ME3. It was an easy decision for me that I don't regret in the slightest. I lost interest because of EA's practices and because the series had already been on shaky creative ground. In my experience, the two go hand in hand. I have a hard time thinking of an example of a game that was released in a shady business practice way that wasn't also a game that suffered from serious creative difficulties. That makes it an easy decision for me.

And all else being equal, I will suck up my annoyances and just deal with a bad platform (like Origin or Uplay) in order to play a good game. But like I said, I can't think of a game where this was the case. Bad business practices and bad game design go hand in hand. There are indeed many alternatives.
 
I haven't bought a game from Capcom since they cancelled Mega Man Legends 3... Games I would have bought if they hadn't? Latest Ace Attorney, RE6, and I may have dipped my toes into Monster Hunter for the first time (I did give the 3DS demo a quick whirl, but didn't invest any real time into it since there was little point). That's easily $100 from me they didn't get there... and even more down the line.

That said, with how they plan on doing business from here on out, I'd probably have boycotted them sooner or later.

I like to SAY I boycott EA as well... but really it's more just they never release a game I want to play...

As for "hurting myself"... I'm a father of 2 kids... my gaming time is limited. It's not like I lack plenty of options for me available time. I'd rather spend my time and money on games from companies that better fit with my ideals or at the very least don't feel like are F***ing me over.
 
In the specific case of Titanfall and Origin, there are more than enough games already in existence and coming in the near future to play. It's not as though gamers are going to be sitting around bored if they avoid this game. I'd argue that a person is actually gaining a net positive effect by boycotting the game, as it gives them an opportunity to play a backlogged game, or any other superior game from the past, as well as lowering the "paradox of choice" effect when they shop for a new game.
 
This thread starts from two false premises: the first false premise is that by renouncing to some games you're damaging yourself, and the second (and worse) is that the things we protest by not buying are just minor nuisances.

The first is false because of the sheer size of the games industry: if i boycott the xbone, i can buy a PS4, if i boycott Origin i can buy everything i want on Steam, if i boycott Modern Warfare i can buy about a million other shooters from 20 years of first person shooters. This premise is true only if purchases were entirely marketing driven, so then you HAVE to buy Assassin's Creed, the yearly COD, or whatever has been artificially pushed on you, the most glaring example being Titanfall. If one belongs to this segment of the gaming audience, i don't think they can even conceive boycotting or having any choice at all, and it's sad when this type of audience joins actual boycotting creating the impression that everybody will cave or isn't serious.

The second is false because the boycott matters are not trivial: i'm boycotting Diablo3's expansion because Diablo3 was a heart-raping piece of shit, playing that would give me physical displeasure. I boycott Origin because i want to be on the laughing side when some horrible EA decision comes to fruition (it will, it's a matter of time). I boycott xbone because their power-fantasies were basically hurting my pleasure in collecting games. I boycott every microtransaction game because i study game design and i don't like sodomy.

I boycott stuff because it increases my available time in actually enjoy games and directs my purchasing power toward entities who will keep rewarding me with awesomeness, instead of, you 'now: eating shit.


Edit: and i didn't even need to point that boycott actually works: origin will forever be maligned, COD on pc is all but a juggernaut, microtransaction shit gets lambasted daily, and xbone had to be completely revised and it's still the only console i can physically see sitting on store shelves in Italy.
 
OP's like this always are alway surreal.

Its like I'm watching an episode of the wire and a Hopper is preaching to addicts on the way it is...what ya gonna do?..do without? why you wanna hurt yourself like that, this is what you get,accept it! Aint nothin gonna change fools.


Boycotts are great, public outcry is great, expressing why you don't like a product or service and yelling at the clouds why, is great.

Why does this always come up around EA? well some of us remember things
I remember EA forcing all their multiplayer games thru their own or partners servers ..then shutting them down in less then 2 years,if not enough are using them , but not providing an alternative for those that still would like to play like peer to peer.

I remember EA releasing Tiger 2012 (i think it was 2012)for pc and it ended up being being an offline abomination of Tigerwoods online while EA Shrugged and said so what, while pretending it was a new game like the console versions.
The list really is endless of horrible consumer decisions by them over and over.

Its about trust and respect ..as a customer EA isn't a company I trust to put the consumers needs even in the top 5 of their reasons for doing something and due to that I don't feel they respect us as customers and I don't respect them as a company.
 
Waluigilicious said:
Probably a rare case but I'm boycotting Dr. Luigi because of its pricing. I really want it and want to play it, but it should be cheaper.

Will it have an effect? Probably not. But if someone like me (who buys most mario games) passes on this game, then I like to imagine that a lot of people will.
Click to expand...

In that case I'm 'boycotting' it too, although I thought I'd made a simple decision not to buy based on its value proposition.
 
Because this is a consumer-based industry. If one feels like x company doesn't deserve that money, it's their right because it's their fucking money. Some reasons may be less... concerning than others, some may even seem silly to you or me, but it's their money and their right.

For example, I don't want an Xbox One (for many different reasons). Am I really going to be hurting that badly when I have every other major gaming platform except the Vita? Something tells me not, which brings me to...

conman said:
We are lucky to live in an era in which there are more great games than anyone has time to play. And there are more ways to play them on more different platforms than ever before. Why put up with inconvenient or gross business practices when there are plenty of much better alternatives?
Click to expand...

This. There are so many great games that come out so frequently, no one will have the time to finish them all. So I doubt anyone will be missing out that much if they pass on a few games.
 
Xis said:
Why vote when your vote is statistically meaningless?
Click to expand...

Imo that kind of thinking is dangerous and not even true for many games.

If publishers could get away with what they wanted even the most niche game would nickle and dime just as bad as the big AAA games

The fact is that most games have to keep their playerbase happy, what the main question is does enough of the playerbase care about the issue to effect sales of a game. If none of this mattered then MS wouldn't have altered the DRM on the Xbone or had it's hands slapped over MTs on Forza 5.

What I find sad is the ppl feel helpless and just buy the game regardless when they have the option of buying a used copy or waiting until sales. Or worse lie to themselves and defend shitty practices because it's a series they love. (Persona / SMT fans over MTs)
 
I love how the OP assumes people are "hurting" themselves because they're not playing the latest overhyped AAA release.
 
Zakalwe said:
Why do you boycott when it's almost certain your boycott won't make a change and you're only limiting your own access?

Surely it's better to pick and choose your battles, or to get involved and try to give the feedback that may help steer things in a certain direction?
Click to expand...

First and foremost many people have ideals and principles, as lots here have stated. Second, one has to be ready to sacrifice something to gain something, that's obvious.

Third, you know OP, fact is we can never be sure of what is really set in stone, what efforts are futile, what complaints may have an effect. For example many thought that Microsoft would've never backed off its always online stuff: they were dead wrong.

You don't choose your battles, simply because not protesting something which is bad for consumers, just because you'd hurt yourself or because you feel it's futile, means sending the message that the industry can do whatever it wants: at least this way they KNOW there is people unhappy and that not everybody is eating their bullshit, even though those lost sales might not affect them.

Blearth said:
I play what I want to play. I could give a damn about the implications.
Click to expand...

Worst, gaming-related, thing I've read on this forum since I've become a member. For real.
 
Boycotts do work, and I do what I want and don't buy for any reason I like. I'm certainly not hurting myself.
 
conman said:
No, it's not. A boycott always has a political foundation.
Click to expand...

Semantics, and the dictionary definition agrees with me. Let's try to stay on track.

conman said:
You can believe that if you like. But if you're talking about the publisher-driven side of the games industry, all decisions come down to money. Game consumers have proven themselves time and again to be incredibly fickle about issues, especially when they buy a game and then say "never again" and then buy the next game in the series anyway. Just look at Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty for two big examples.
Click to expand...

And I don't buy those games because they're boring, because they do nothing but tweak and re-release content. I also don't like to support lazy development. I also know that my decision isn't going to influence things, and that the only way for the CoD train to de-rail is for someone to introduce some serious competition and force the devs to up their game.

Ironically, Titanfall may be an opportunity for that. So perhaps a conflicting principle here?

conman said:
Simply making a good and heartfelt argument isn't enough. Those people making the game might take it to heart, but they're also beholden to the folks signing their checks. We can hope that those with the money care about our opinions, but chances are, they only see us as numbers on sales reports.
Click to expand...

Right, and the numbers also likely tell them that boycotts don't matter in certain instances. So boycotting Titanfall because of Origin is going to be written off for the same reasons. The game is going to sell. Origin is going to keep happening.

Principles are important, but so is being realistic.

conman said:
Perfect example. I played the first two ME games. I didn't play ME3. It was an easy decision for me that I don't regret in the slightest. I lost interest because of EA's practices and because the series had already been on shaky creative ground. In my experience, the two go hand in hand. I have a hard time thinking of an example of a game that was released in a shady business practice way that wasn't also a game that suffered from serious creative difficulties. That makes it an easy decision for me.
Click to expand...

This point is a little precarious as you acknowledge your interest had waned anyway due to the series being on "shaky creative ground". If the creativity had been on par with your expectations, or even exceed those, could you honeslty say the decision to boycott would have been so simple?

I know you're probably going to say "yes", but it would have been interesting to see in practise.

conman said:
And all else being equal, I will suck up my annoyances and just deal with a bad platform (like Origin or Uplay) in order to play a good game. But like I said, I can't think of a game where this was the case. Bad business practices and bad game design go hand in hand. There are indeed many alternatives.
Click to expand...

What's the alternative to Titanfall? And I mean a shooter with similar budget and scale?

BF4 is EA.
CoD is something you have issue with.
The PC is pretty starved for big budget shooters that haven't already been played to death by many of us.

And, as I said, if a certain series happens to end exclusively on a platform you have no interest in interacting with, there is no alternative way to experience the conclusion.

There certainly is not always an alternative.
 
Jesus what a stupid premise.
Why would i support something that i don't approve/like? If i "boycott" something (*cough cough* EA *cough cough* ) means that i actually prefer not to play/use that thing rather than playing by the rules of the one who made that thing.
I think that the bad sides overcome the good ones therefore I'm not hurting myself if i feel better not buying something rather than the opposite.
The situation doesn't change? Well that either means that majority of the people either don't care about what i consider problems or are not aware of them and their consequences.

Watching how many people in gaming forums (aka probably well informed people on these themes) in the end always buys those products makes me think that they are more happy playing those games with said problems rather than trying to make companies more consumer friendly.

But this is something a concept that you can apply everywhere not only in the gaming industries,
 
Me ignoring EA overall might not make EA go away, but it certainly makes my life *MUCH* more fun and happy, so there is that. They could throw an Origin sale where all you need to do is register and recieve ALL of their games for free, and I would not do that, because I have that little interest in their games at this point. (Yes, all of them). Ubisoft is similar, the only two exceptions being Might and Magic X and the new South Park Game.

We all have our own realities. It is okay if it only partially match. DLC's, yearly iterated "AAA" early acce...I mean experiences are fine, but I do not have to spend one minute with them. Good for you if you do.

Also: "What is the alternative to Titanfall" - why need an alternative? No one is putting a pistol to your head to buy a new game. Plenty of relevant FPS games are still out there. As long as games like Counter-Strike exist, there is no need to pretend that there is a constant need for new games and if we miss one wave, we would somehow have to feel bad.

I have found that the biggest factor in the ongoing onslaught of AAA games is that the publishers somehow managed to convince the players that they actually *need* to play "new" games every month/year, no matter what the existing game pool might be. That is a false premise, and it is bought by the majority of multiplayer-focused players.
 
It's not really "hurting" me to avoid using a service I dislike, paying more for a game than I want to or things of that nature. There are other alternatives out there and I'll give my money to those developers.

Also think boycott is too strong a word for anything to do with videogames. lol
 
OP is basically asking why have morals, when you can just pick and choose your reaction to any situation so that it favors you the most.

I answer: that is a shitty world to live in.
 
_hekk05 said:
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I want my hobby to progress in a positive direction. Not a single cent of mine shall go towards practices I abhor.
Click to expand...

Boom - summed it up for me right there. In order for some of the things we don't like appearing in our games to stop appearing, publishers/devs have to see the market moving away from them.
 
sheaaaa said:
Are these really boycotts or just people choosing not to purchase things from Origin, for example? I don't buy anything on Origin because I have no interest in them. People don't buy games on Steam because some prefer no DRM alternatives like Gog. This is a bit like saying I'm boycotting McDonald's if I choose to have KFC for lunch instead.
Click to expand...

If you don't buy a specific game because it's on Origin and that - installing and running Origin, setting up and logging into an Origin account, etc. - is too much of a hassle compared to the amount of enjoyment you expect to get out of that game, that's one thing.

If you choose to not buy any Origin games specifically because they are on Origin, despite the fact that you otherwise would be predisposed toward doing so - as many people have expressed with relation to Titanfall - then that is a boycott by any other name. I suppose if you want to get into semantics, a boycott implies you are trying to convince others to also not purchase the product in a vocal manner, but that's the only functional difference.

The only instance where people are using "boycott" incorrectly here is when they refuse to buy a specific product for such reasons, but then proceed to buy other products from the same company in spite of such. If you refuse to buy Battlefield 4 because it's a buggy mess, that's just smart consumerism; if you refuse to buy any EA games for a protracted period or until some measure is met because Battlefield 4 was released as a buggy mess, you are (in effect) boycotting them.

That's why there's an important distinction between someone not buying a game on Origin because Origin is one of many factors they weighed in the decision, and a person flatly refusing to buy any game that requires Origin, or between someone saying "I'm going to buy the GMG version of this specific game rather than the Steam version" and someone saying "I will never buy any games on Steam."
 
Can't change it, so don't fight it and give in?

What a defeatist, loser attitude.



edit: glad to see the general backlash in this thread. good showing GAF
 
NinjaCatfish said:
If you're 'boycotting' a game, you probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
A boycott is just a way to make the decision to not buy a game sound like something way more important than it is.
Click to expand...

A boycott is to publicly make a point about why you're not buying something so that policies can be changed.
 
I haven't bought a Konami product since 2012 soooooo I guess I'm boycotting?

lol idk, I'm just not buying shit from them until they release something worth a damn.
 
Everyone's allowed to spend their money how they see fit. I just think some people get incensed over some pretty unimportant stuff. I could see if you're mad about major problems in the industry and you don't want to support stuff like microtransactions in full-priced retail games, but a lot of people don't like the hair color of a protagonist and make a huge deal out of it.

Again, they're totally free to do whatever they want and that's fine, but I think people who would deny themselves of a decent experience over something so silly are a little bit masochistic.
 
zoukka said:
OP is basically asking why have morals, when you can just pick and choose your reaction to any situation so that it favors you the most.

I answer: that is a shitty world to live in.
Click to expand...

Heh basically. I find the entire premise of the OP to be illogical.

Not everyone 'boycotts' a game or company because they think it will make a huge difference. They do it because they don't want to support that game or company with their money. When a lot of people boycott something, well, it does get noticed and the company does have to listen. That's where I say, "You should have listened in the first place, and you're only listening now because you're worried about your profits."

Another thing the OP fails to realize is that people choosing what to buy or not buy IS picking and choosing their battles. That IS their feedback. Money is all these companies care about. People DO get involved and provide actual feedback, but at the end of the day the wallet is the best tool for making oneself heard as a consumer.
 
Zakalwe said:
I write this as I'm still amazed to see comments such as"using Origin?, I really wanted to play this game but no pruchase from me!".
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is crazy. I've had bad experiences with Origin. I no longer wish to use the service, so, I won't.

Bamelin said:
I put my money where my mouth is.
Click to expand...

Basically.

Zakalwe said:
My questions are these:

Why do you boycott when it's almost certain your boycott won't make a change and you're only limiting your own access?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's "almost certain" your efforts won't make any changes. This is sort of along the lines of The Voter's Paradox, just because 1 vote doesn't mean much at the end of the tally, that doesn't therefore mean it's not worth making your vote. If enough people want change, and vote for it, change happens.

Surely it's better to pick and choose your battles, or to get involved and try to give the feedback that may help steer things in a certain direction?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I'm doing by not supporting Origin. I give feedback when I can, but the best feedback is how much money a game is making. If people keep buying crap, we will keep having it handed to us.
 
The rationalizations of destructive behavior here is no different to that of a heroin addict.

Games publishers know well the psychology of its consumers and in turn act in grossly anti consumer fashions because they, quite simply, don't have to worry. The addicts will keep coming back. No matter how bad they behave, no matter how many times they jack up prices, no matter how much content they withhold for piecemeal dlc, no matter how much they erode the concept of ownership, no matter how many times they screw you, you will keep coming back.

Just like the junkies get the violent dealers they deserve so do the pathetic core gamers and their big budget aaa mega publishers.
The street junkie, at least they support local businesses.
 
Another great post by StuKen.

I've typically bitten my tongue on this topic as I don't want to be too inflammatory, but it's nice to read others see things the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why are we always talking about Sony and Microsoft in the console war when Nintendo is the only clear winner?
2 3 4 5
207
10K
saintjules replied
[Game Developer] ZeniMax staff lambast chaotic Xbox layoffs: 'It's difficult to work when you're looking at a graveyard'
News Business  2
89
1K
T-0800 replied
Why is Sony pouring time and money into Chinese game studios when Tencent can just buy them whenever?
15
437
Loomy replied
  • Locked
GOG is giving away 13 adult games to protest censorship
4
421
MrTroubleMaker replied
Help me, PCMR, you're my only hope!
2
88
5K
Bojji replied
Top Bottom