surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Enough about Jim Sterling! Lets talk about me for a change!
Do I get it? Huh? Do I?
http://www.destructoid.com/talking-to-women-about-videogames-i-m-not-a-real-gamer--213289.phtml
Do I get it? Huh? Do I?
http://www.destructoid.com/talking-to-women-about-videogames-i-m-not-a-real-gamer--213289.phtml
The customer is always right, if someone pays 60 quid for a game and find themselves inconvenienced or annoyed by an online pass system they are completely within their rights to complain about it or any affect they think it may have on the industry.
We don’t owe developers anything either. Why should I have content I paid for held hostage until I prove to the developer that I bought the game new like a good little boy?
We don’t owe developers anything either. Why should I have content I paid for held hostage until I prove to the developer that I bought the game new like a good little boy?
This isn't just a problem with the Games Industry, it's the problem with the most of the world.
The people who live in jungles, who are supposed to be 'primitive' seem the most advanced. The live peacefully free of fantasy and material possessions, all working together instead of trying to one up each other.
Imagine if everyone acted like that? We wouldn't have people starving on the streets, people dying to the cheer of others and most importantly? We wouldn't have nickle and dime DLC and Online Passes!
The people who live in jungles, who are supposed to be 'primitive' seem the most advanced. The live peacefully free of fantasy and material possessions, all working together instead of trying to one up each other.
Imagine if everyone acted like that? We wouldn't have people starving on the streets, people dying to the cheer of others and most importantly? We wouldn't have nickle and dime DLC and Online Passes!
@Pencoin: Have you ever met those 'people who live in jungles'? This peaceful live is just a fantasy we cast upon them. The natives of my country fought numerous wars against each other before the European colonization.
"Whenever one makes a purchase in a capitalist system, a voluntary agreement is being made."
Not if you are given one choice. Choice includes the freedom to choose. If everyone adopts a shitty business practice, with no other alternative, then it's not quite voluntary. Only if you really squeeze the definition in a literal sense, that then you could just buy no games at all.
But that's not a realistic expectation at all. Nor is quite a great slogan for publishers to brandy about: "Don't buy our game then!"
Little counter productive, innit?
Not if you are given one choice. Choice includes the freedom to choose. If everyone adopts a shitty business practice, with no other alternative, then it's not quite voluntary. Only if you really squeeze the definition in a literal sense, that then you could just buy no games at all.
But that's not a realistic expectation at all. Nor is quite a great slogan for publishers to brandy about: "Don't buy our game then!"
Little counter productive, innit?
To extend the point: When I have to buy my internet from Comcast, it's not necessarily voluntary. It's simply because it's either Comcast or nothing. I am forced into that purchase within the confines of the circumstances because it is the only provider in town. Yes, if we want to be trite and literal, it is voluntary.
But not really.
Capitalism doesn't legitimize monopolies like that. Nowhere would you find such thinking in the words of Smith or Ricardo.
But not really.
Capitalism doesn't legitimize monopolies like that. Nowhere would you find such thinking in the words of Smith or Ricardo.
Rather: The buying of internet is voluntary. The buying of internet from Comcast is not voluntary.
If every publisher adopts an online pass, then that is not voluntary.
The buying of a game is voluntary. The buying of a game with an online pass is not voluntary.
If every publisher adopts an online pass, then that is not voluntary.
The buying of a game is voluntary. The buying of a game with an online pass is not voluntary.
^If every publisher adopts an online pass, that is. Which is the direction we are heading in. Quadruple post yo.
Can people just close their eyes and pretend? Just imagine you get Batman Arkham City, and that Catwoman never existed? That the online portion you didn't want to play wasn't there? That you spent what you thought was appropriate on a product based on what you know?
No?
Ok
No?
Ok
@Tater - Go buy a sandwich from Subway for $5, give the guy a $20, get back a $1, and pretend you got the right change.
@rev: Nice analogy, but totally false. You go into Subway/Gamestop you say I want X and I will pay you Y dollars. I know exactly what is in X. The Online pass is 'bacon costs a dollar extra.'. Everyone is going into Subway going "I bought this sammich from Quiznos, and I want bacon for free, because it is a sandwich!"
@Tater - It's not an analogy. It's more focusing on: "Well, if you don't like something being done, just pretend it doesn't exist."
Except it still does.
Except it still does.
@Rev: You're making the same error that inspired me to write this in the first place. You are demanding that someone else make a product for you in just the way you like, and saying that if it's not available, then it's not fair for you. If all available games come with online passes, then your only choice is to buy them or not. That is an actual choice, and behind your pretense that it's not is a requirement that game developers do what you want instead of what they want.
@ManWithNoName: Best. Comeback. Evar.
@Handy: Correct. We can complain all we like, and justly so in some cases. What we can't do is act like we are owed the games we want.
@ManWithNoName: Best. Comeback. Evar.
@Handy: Correct. We can complain all we like, and justly so in some cases. What we can't do is act like we are owed the games we want.
@Innocuous - You do understand that what you just criticized is the entire foundation of a market economy?
Producers do in fact make products for other people, based on what they want. Why would they make products no one wants? And to sit there and say: "Producers do what they like, and if you don't like it, tough!" is such an ass backwards view of consumer economics. Do you think a Publisher says to himself: "I'm going to drop millions of dollars to develop a game, and if no one wants it, tough shit!"?
All economic actions are motivated and rewarded by what other people want.
And trust me, I can already tell why you wrote it, given its poorly veiled passive aggressive jabs. Not to mention you missed the point of the article entirely: You paid money for a disc and don't get all the content you own. And publishers are trying to make money off of a product they already made money off of, despite doing no additional work.
Producers do in fact make products for other people, based on what they want. Why would they make products no one wants? And to sit there and say: "Producers do what they like, and if you don't like it, tough!" is such an ass backwards view of consumer economics. Do you think a Publisher says to himself: "I'm going to drop millions of dollars to develop a game, and if no one wants it, tough shit!"?
All economic actions are motivated and rewarded by what other people want.
And trust me, I can already tell why you wrote it, given its poorly veiled passive aggressive jabs. Not to mention you missed the point of the article entirely: You paid money for a disc and don't get all the content you own. And publishers are trying to make money off of a product they already made money off of, despite doing no additional work.
