Jimquisition: BOYCOTT!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Thank you Jim! You have said what a lot of us been thinking for a rather long time.

Plazmatic:
Im sorry, but Jim was wrong on the Left 4 Dead protest, the problem wasn't simply that it was released one year after, it was that it was practically the same game, and that anything else that was added could have been added as an update, and things that weren't fixed in the origional left 4 dead still have not been fixed to this day, were added when left 4 dead 2 came out. and that's just the tip of the iceberg, and if you look, it actually worked, the studio that made the game got kicked out AND they didn't make another game for valve afterwards.

That's some interesting backstory. Particularly given Valve's face of being modder friendly, and it's rather familiar given Dota 2. Look at something someone else has made, buy the rights to it (not necessarily from the people who made it), and profit.

Wewt. Amen brotha.

So incidentally, was there any talk of boycotting Escapist in those OMG!EXTRACREDITZ IS LEAVING ESCAPIST AND ESCAPIST ARE ABSOLUTE BASTARDS threads?

If there was, you know who you are and why are you reading this? :P

This definitely doesn't have anything to do with the whole EC thing. No sir.

Every gamer needs to watch this episode. :3

Plazmatic:
Im sorry, but Jim was wrong on the Left 4 Dead protest, the problem wasn't simply that it was released one year after, it was that it was practically the same game, and that anything else that was added could have been added as an update, and things that weren't fixed in the origional left 4 dead still have not been fixed to this day, were added when left 4 dead 2 came out. and that's just the tip of the iceberg, and if you look, it actually worked, the studio that made the game got kicked out AND they didn't make another game for valve afterwards.

Give it a rest. Time has shown just how right they were in making a second game. If you check the second game you will normally see only a handful of games in each level being played at any time even with the addition of the maps from the first game, the modded maps, and the Mutation rules that change every week, while when the game came out there were probably hundreds of lobbies going on. The first game is doing worse. It may have been a similar game but L4D's popularity certainly wasnt holding up well when the sequel was released, even with the new maps. I would see more people playing Killing Floor.

"I love words, and I hate to see them devalued." I've never agreed with anything Jim has said more than this.

Well, I've commented for a long time that gamers tend to act like a bunch of junkies who gripe at their dealer when he increasingly cuts their fixes with baby powder, but still buy it anyway because they want their drugs.

It's not a perfect analogy, but the problem with franchises like "Modern Warfare" is the peer pressure involved, the FPS fanboys don't want to NOT buy the game for fear that they will be the only one and left out of their online peer circle, never to fully recover. To
be honest I think the gaming industry knows this, and exploits it.

As far as content related boycotts go, I have mixed opinions on that, depending on what they happen to be. In my opinion I think it's pretty ridiculous how the game industry uses existing "brands" and franchises to promote what are pretty much entirely new products. When it comes to things as "stupid" as the character redesigns in "Devil May Cry" or what the newer "Fallout" games look like, I think that there is an overall issue there even if any of the individual cases are themselves trivial. Simply put, the whole point of a series *IS* to produce more of the game, the idea of "[name] [numerical installment number]" is to provide more of something to someone who liked earlier games in the series. Improvements and tweaks are one thing, but entire re-designs are something else entirely. If a game company wants to radically alter a specific character or game franchise, then they should instead be launching an entirely new franchise or product line, or at least a spin-off series that is clearly identified as such.

To put things into perspective, I see no real reason why if the developers think Dante is tacky they don't just develop a new franchise with a new character, rather than changing the entire character and saying "well this is Dante, he's the same guy as before, live with it" which insults the fans, and understandably upsets the people who kept a franchise going for god knows how many installments in order to justify those changes (which allegedly are to make the game "even more popular" despite the length of time it's been around). With "Fallout" my opinion is similar, in what way was "Fallout 3" like the previous games in the series? If they wanted to go there why not launch a new franchise? Of course to be fair, it DOES seem Bethesda is trying to do exactly that with "Rage", albiet after the fact. Personally I look at the old "Ultima" games and how when they wanted to go from isometric top down gaming to a first person real-time perspective they launched a spin off series called "Ultima Underworld" specifically for that reason.

At any rate, the point isn't so much to sell any of these specific issues as being some kind of earth shattering development individually, however cumulatively I think they represent a major problem with the industry. If the industry was to knock it off, and actually launch new franchises as opposed to trying to badly modify existing ones and slot off a lot of the fans, I think everyone would benefit, and that shift in attitude would contribute to seeing more innovation because it would shed the remaining chains those franchise connections put on them. As it is a lot of these radically changed franchises wind up involving the worst aspects of both a franchise, and misguided innovation.

In short, I've come to the conclusion on that issue that someone who talks about boycotting say "Devil May Cry" specifically is a bit of a moron, but someone who talks about boycotting games in general developed with the mentality that lead to that... games that are sequels in name only... is ultimatly pushing for quite a bit, but at least has a meaningful and positive goal that would benefit everyone.

So should I stop boycotting Boycotts?

I stopped buying anything Activision made way back when Prototype was released, and so far I haven't knowingly bought any of their games since.

This includes StarCraft 2, which I did borrow from a friend, and from the looks of things Diablo 3 is also gonna be skipped by me cause they're just asking that I give them too much of my freedom to play a game.

So, yeah, there are people out there who do, in fact, stick to their guns when they say they're not gonna take publishers shit, just so you know.

I am at work and so I haven't watched the video yet but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

As a consumer I buy things that have value to me and skip things that don't. I have no interest in sowing, so I have never bought a sowing machine. Since gaming is an interest of mine I do buy PC games.

That being established I don't always have Internet when I want to play a game. I USUALLY do but I don't always. Also, if a company should go with an "always connected" DRM approach what should happen if they go out of business or shut down their servers? That means my $50 or $60 game is so much worthless code.

That is why I don't purchase games that require an always on Internet connection. I don't mind all DRM and accept that publishers need to stop casual copying. I don't even mind the online passes for gamers buying used. My one sticking point is always on internet requirement and subsequent lack of LAN as well. I don't sign onto boycotts or spam forums telling everyone how I won't be buying the game, I just don't buy it.

This means I miss out a game or two that I am interested in but so be it. As long as there are great developers out there like Runic and others who still allow offline play, LAN play, etc. then I'll have enough content to keep me happy. What do I do if all the publishers start shipping their games as requiring a constant internet connection to play? On that day I guess I'll have a tough choice to make.

Much better video - valid points, well made, without unnecessarily offensive self-aggrandisement.

Well done.

I'm boycotting Diablo 3 and any other game with always-on DRM. Don't give a shit if anybody else does it, but they're not getting my money. And good point about Fallout there. Story was better in olden times, but the engine killed it.

Mr Stirling, you spoke a lot of sense this time. This pleases me. :)

But the trouble with Boycotts is that they nearly ALWAYS fall flat on their faces. Not just because they were launched for the silliest of reasons. But the fact that people are fickle and forgetful at best and hypocritical at worst.

Take the MW2 boycott for example. Most of the boycotters fell from grace because any CoD game is advertised and raved about like it's the second coming of Christ. (Pass the Kleenex! *giggles*) CoD games have an enormous social impact upon gamers, and to try resisting it is pretty hard even at the best of times.

But I have to reiterate your previous points that folks who don't boycott should be more willing to boycott stuff. But those who do boycott should be thinking about whatever it is they are boycotting and they should be asking themselves if they are taking the correct course of action. After all, boycotting for silly reasons only serves to weaken further boycotts for ALL games in the future.

Good show, sir!

You are a brave, brave man Jim. I hope the mob here doesn't turn on you.

This episode actually made me watch all previous episodes, because I just saw "Metacritic is not the problem" and simply thought that no one would be stupid enough to actually blame metacritic for their senseless users.

But yeah the episode, among others, speak very true, its annoying if you fight for something and "vote with your time and wallet" and than someone shouts about boycott and after a week he forgot everything and everything is happy again, it makes me so sick.

I've never boycotted a game/series/whatever, I just avoid giving them any of my cash. I tend to buy pre-owned stuff anyway, or go the free version of any games/websites I can.

Don't know if it has been mentioned thus far, but half of a boycott is not fucking downloading it off some fucking torrent site.

It takes away all meaning from the message trying to be sent. Essentially changing "We won't give you our money because we are agaisnt your business ethics!" to "I want free shit and everything i have said is a smokescreen for it!"

It's like saying you are boycotting McDonalds.... While eating it every time your buddy offers to take you out for a bite. All your moral outrage looks like nothing more then a bullshit smokescreen so your friend will always have to pay for it.

Though i suppose more often that not that is exactly the case...

Those drawings you have are just repulsive. Please don't do them again.

I've always had trouble with Jim's delivery - his tendency to be overly condescending and irritating has made him difficult to watch; even when I agree with him I've wanted to punch him in the face for being an annoying twat. I'm well aware that the substance of an argument should always take precedence, but there is something to be said for delivery.

This episode, however, is the first Jimquisition I've watched to completion and enjoyed. A well constructed argument with excellent delivery. Jim said something that has been on my mind for years - that game developers and publishers only engage in shitty business practices because they know that their consumer base is, for the most part, made up of weak-willed overgrown children, and thus they'll effectively get away with it. It's why we didn't get dedicated servers for Modern Warfare 2. It's why Diablo 3 will be always online. It's why Battlefield 3 won't have mod tools. It's also why Nintendo said "no" in response to Operation Rainfall's reasonable requests (because they secretly know that any serious attempt to boycott Nintendo will fail catastrophically). The dick moves of developers and publishers are getting bigger and bolder, and the orifices of most consumers have simply become more accommodating, as opposed to the more correct response of said consumers screaming "GET THAT FUCKING DICK AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!"

Jim Sterling:
BOYCOTT!

Jim Sterling (AKA the only reason to be alive on a Monday) has come to deliver some more delicious justice from his pantry of righteousness. This week, we look at the community's growing tendency to boycott, the tendency of others to dismiss consumer action, and the reason why both mentalities are at fault.

Watch Video

Hey Jim, what would you say to a boycott of Capcom's upcoming Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 to show them (and hopefully other fighting game companies) that in the age of DLC and patches, re-releasing a game with minimal extra features (what their offering is 12 more characters a spectator mode and some balancing tweeks) is annoying and ultimately pointless

Finally! Unlike Jim's last video of difficulty, Jim actually presented both sides of the argument, something he does so unbelievably rare that that alone is a hoopla. He should know that the Sonic 4 complaints extend far beyond cosmetics and physics and go as far as level design (which was still lacking in the end product, but could have been MUCH worse without the boycott).

I mean, Jim's difficulty video made it seem so cut-and-dry that a game can only have "real" or "artifcial" difficulty because Heaven forbid a game can do both (Devil May Cry, Megaman ironically given that he used it as a counterexample). It was so biased that I thought to end Jimquisition viewing right there. Hopefully, he continues to this more open minded approach and does a bit more homework first in future videos. The videos are rather niche already, no need to alienate people more with blatant bias, right?

Wow, this was almost like an Extra Credits episode.
And I'm not even sure what that means >_>

The closest company I have to boycotting right now is Capcom because they aren't releasing AAI2.

But it's not really a boycott because A. They're not releasing any games I really want anyway, and B. I am gonna buy UMvC3 because of Phoenix Wright.

So yeah...that's the closest I've got to a boycott, and it's really not lol

at this moment i'm in a argument about ultimate marvel vs capcom 3. i find the fact that is released so shortly after the original and the fact that owners of the original are getting nothing plain wrong. my friends have for some reason the idea that i want to boycott the game for those reason. i don't. i just won't support it by buying it in the store, but being a fan of the gerne, i probably will buy it second-handed. am i a hypocrite because of that? maybe.

when it was announced, i thought about to "do" something. but i find boycotting just too much. i already know it will be released either way and i don't have a problem with that, but i do have a problem how it is handled.

Wow. This video was exceptional. Bravo to you Mr. Sterling, a good way to put your two cents on all this boycotting business.

I watched a couple of Jimquisitions a while back and I wasn't impressed. This however was fucking spot on. =) Sums up my opinion on the matter nicely. If you're going to boycott at least make it over something worth while rather than whether you can wear clothing with your armour or not (looking at you Morrowind fans >_>).

I found the jab at the MW2 boycotters to be particularly good. =p

Wow.... I'm shocked... That was actually really well put Jim and not only that you managed to get through the entire thing without coming across like an arrogant tool with a vastly overinfalted ego (well except the little bit at the beginning though at least you had the basic decency to do that in a manner that came across as ironic rather than just nauseating).

Seriously, when you hold off from that I actually find alot of your pieces on here quite interesting and agree with alot of what you say and in this case I think you really have hit the nail squarely on the head.

So yeah, more of this please and less of the 'thank god for me, I'm so great' stuff. It's just not at all funny and ruins otherwise interesting and funny rants on the state of the industry!

Did you say you would boycott it beforehand though? Thats the thing Jim is trying to point out here, 'boycotting' something is a big deal (at least it should be). If you dont agree with what the companies done and complain about it but buy it anyway to play with your mates, thats a LITTLE hypocritical but its a far cry from saying 'Im boycotting this game' and THEN buying it ;)

I'm a few weeks late to the party, but excellent "Boycott" video. I wish I had watched it sooner, it might have helped me more quickly clarify my own thoughts on the issue. Around the time this video came out I started putting together a web site for folks who have decided not to buy Diablo 3. I wanted something where people could pledge publicly to not buy the game, with the understanding that I would check in with them once a month or so to see if they have stuck to their guns. As people join or drop out, the number of protesters are updated in real time. It's an experiment to see just how strongly people feel about the always-connected single-player games, the lack of mods, the lack of LAN-play, etc., and whether we're all talk or not. Personally, I think that it will be easier and more meaningful to take a stand together. Part of the problem with "personal boycotts" is feeling like you're on your own. You have no way of judging the impact you're making. It's realistic to expect that Blizzard wouldn't notice just one person in isolation "voting with their wallet". But they can't help but notice a bunch of us doing so publicly, and re-committing to our pledge month after month. Anyhow, the site's only just been launched, but I'd still encourage you to check it out :

http://www.nodiablo.com

I'd love Australian gamers to boycott due to unfair prices (Call of Duty $100USD) but wouldn't know where to start and I'm worried I'd look like a tool.

I thought it was funny when he said something along the lines of "people are boycotting Diablo 3 because it's too bright", which is actually one of the contributing reasons (along with the strangely character-driven storyline and lack of atmospheric omnipresent music) that Diablo 3 lacks the dark atmosphere that made Diablo what it was.

Not saying I'm going to boycott the game because of it, but writing off things that sound stupid at first because you aren't addressing the deeper reasons is one of the reasons people are so damn unreasonable...

Kagim:
Don't know if it has been mentioned thus far, but half of a boycott is not fucking downloading it off some fucking torrent site.

It takes away all meaning from the message trying to be sent. Essentially changing "We won't give you our money because we are agaisnt your business ethics!" to "I want free shit and everything i have said is a smokescreen for it!"

It's like saying you are boycotting McDonalds.... While eating it every time your buddy offers to take you out for a bite. All your moral outrage looks like nothing more then a bullshit smokescreen so your friend will always have to pay for it.

Though i suppose more often that not that is exactly the case...

Yeah, that's completely stupid. My not buying the game only costs money in the lack of a sale--getting it online does not mean another copy is purchased, and so I'm not making anyone else but the company pay for the loss.

In fact, when it comes to online content, one of the best boycotts you can do is prevent the company from getting money from you while still taxing their servers and taking that bandwidth.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here