William Usher: "Game Journalists Are Anti-Consumer, Not Bethesda"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

William Usher, a games journalist who is fairly popular among the GamerGate community, recently published an opinion piece regarding Bethesda's decision no longer provide early review copies to game journalists.

http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/10/editorial-game-journalists-are-anti-consumer-not-bethesda/15301/

Discussion Questions
* What are your thoughts on Mr. Usher's editorial?

* Are you surprised to see Mr. Usher, a games journalist himself, arguing against early review copies?

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many games journalists "inject politics" into gaming when it isn't necessary?

* Do you believe that retailer-specific content, on-disk DLC, DRM, cut-endings and season passes are "anti-consumer," as Mr. Usher suggests?

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists haven't done their job in criticizing (above listed) "anti-consumer" practices?

* Do you agree that many games journalists took an anti-consumer position on the Mass Effect 3 ending, Diablo 3 DRM, Aliens: Colonial Marines "false advertising" and the No Man's Sky controveries, by attacking gamers as "entitled"?

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many sites were anti-consumer in their decision to "lie" about the GamerGate movement?

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists have been anti-consumer and/or dishonest in pushing the claim that video games and/or gamers are sexist?

* Do you believe game journalists are "entitled" to early review copies from publishers?

* Do you agree that a significant portion, if not outright majority, of games journalists are unethical or "pro-corporate," instead of advocating for consumers?

I invite William Usher to blow me. I'm a freelance gaming journalist, and I'm anti-consumer? Fuck you buddy. Bethesda is trying to make money? Why the fuck should I care? Jesus fucking Christ, corporate apologists act like we all need to bend over backwards to accommodate every last shitty business practice these people pull out, and it's all ok because they're trying to make money.

Oh, but he's not trying to defend them (Except he is, because he says it's not anti-consumer when it is) it's just that gaming journalists are all anti-consumer. Every. Last. Fucking. One. Of. Them. Which is why he mocks the idea of there being good ones twice. Oh he then says there are some good ones, but in an off hand way. And towards the end of the article he basically says that journalist are anti-consumer because they aren't all marching in lockstep in panning No Man's Sky. In other words "How dare they have an opinion that doesn't match mine!" And then he brings up Gamergate, making it impossible for me to take him seriously and making it all come off like he's got a chip on his shoulder. And he mockingly imitates people who would disagree with him. Seriously, fuck him. "how many of them stood up for you when the media lied about the gaming community being a den of misogynists?" "They're anti-fact!" Yeah, except you. People can trust you, because you're the last fucking DJ.

In short, man throws a temper tantrum and tries to make it sound profound.

Ha Ha HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Damn that is stupid. This move by bethesda helps no one but bethesda. It's bad for the consumer. I know GG loves it though and that is why you have their pet reporters bending and twisting to paint this as anything but what it is.

Netscape:

* What are your thoughts on Mr. Usher's editorial?

"I'm going to defend an anti-consumer move because it hurts games journalists, praise me"

* Are you surprised to see Mr. Usher, a games journalist himself, arguing against early review copies?

Given his history, not remotely.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many games journalists "inject politics" into gaming when it isn't necessary?

No. At worst, it's a writer on the Internet being pretensius. Because that's worth burning the whole thing down over.

* Do you believe that retailer-specific content, on-disk DLC, DRM, cut-endings and season passes are "anti-consumer," as Mr. Usher suggests?

No, maybe, no, yes, no, in that order, allowing for specific examples that are the opposite, based on context. Although I'm thinking there's no nuance in Mr. Usher's view.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists haven't done their job in criticizing (above listed) "anti-consumer" practices?

Consdiering I regularly see written screeds and 20 minute YouTube videos talking about and arguing about those very things from games journalists on a regular basis, I have to wonder what flavor of hater-aid Usher is drinking.

* Do you agree that many games journalists took an anti-consumer position on the Mass Effect 3 ending, Diablo 3 DRM, Aliens: Colonial Marines "false advertising" and the No Man's Sky controveries, by attacking gamers as "entitled"?

...there were games journalists defending Diablo 3's always online requirement and defending Aliens: CM in general? I call bullshit. And demanding that ending to a game be changed because you don't like it is acting entitled. The question is on whether or not you think that entitlement is bullshit. And lastly, for NMS: having played it, it's fine for what it is. Always be wary of the latest game made by a small team promising the moon. And certainly don't send death threats over it, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many sites were anti-consumer in their decision to "lie" about the GamerGate movement?

... Supposing for a brief, ludicrous moment that statement was accurate, how would that be anti-consumer?

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists have been anti-consumer and/or dishonest in pushing the claim that video games and/or gamers are sexist?

Given that large number of sexist moments or game design choices in games, and the lengths *some* "gamers" go to defend them at every opportunity, no.

If you don't like that sort of analysis of games, feel free not to patronize those sites. Surely, given you represent the will of the majority, those sites will flounder.

* Do you believe game journalists are "entitled" to early review copies from publishers?

No, but I'm not going to pretend that this move is in anyway good for consumers. I remember the days of hilariously rushed reviews, trying to be the first out on the net, and I remember how worthless they could be. Only a blinkered idiot would think that going back to that is a pro-consumer move.

* Do you agree that a significant portion, if not outright majority, of games journalists are unethical or "pro-corporate," instead of advocating for consumers?

Yes, I find the likes of William Usher to be pro-corporate. What does the consumer stand to gain by this move on Bethesda's part?

erttheking:
I invite William Usher to blow me.

Hey, maybe his next article could be "JOURNALIST WRITES OPINION PIECE, INTERNET ERUPTS IN CRUDE SEXUAL TAUNTS". And were he one of these KotaGon types, it would be.

OT: Usher has a solid point. The vocal majority of "games journalists" have openly declared their enmity to the gaming public at large and are trying to use their supposed clout to interfere with these entertainment products in ways that public doesn't agree with, as per Johnny McIntosh's calls to use reviews to shame developers into pandering to their ideology. I don't see how cutting out the "meddle man", as it were, could objectively be viewed as "anti-consumer". It's just removing a party that has no legitimate stake in the transaction between the suppliers and the consumers from parasitically distorting it. No savvy consumer should base their purchasing decisions on the slanted say-so of these hostile ideologues anymore. It's Current Year!

Certainly Bethesda themselves are not in the "pro-consumer" business, but who would seriously think that anyway?. The consumer can and will have to simply wait for the game to come out and consult the general opinion of the inevitable early adopters. We can't all do the prudent thing.

Not much more to add than "Usher's right on the money". Oh, and possibly "again".

So much for the "pro-consumer revolt" actually standing for pro-consumer positions... Anything to take a swing at games journalists eh guys?

I'm so glad there's someone like Usher to stand up for the overdog. To look out for the big guy. To champion the ones who don't need it.

/very much sarcasm.

Is that a game being advertised in the background? I can't see a name (so if it is, it's a crap advert), but am curious about what it is.

Edit: doesn't matter, found it. It's some game for UBIsoft (that famously pro-consumer company...)

Follow up question: is it ethical to advertise the game of a company that uses the practices you're denouncing?

Avnger:
So much for the "pro-consumer revolt" actually standing for pro-consumer positions

Exactly what pro-consumer position is not being stood for, here?

...So No True Scotsman: Journalist edition? I mean, seriously, dudes going 'GAME JOURNALISTS ARE THE DEVIL oh but not me, you can totes trust me, I'm the honest one' like... nah mate, that is the opposite of engendering trust. Plus when you can only bang the drum going 'LOOK AT HOW BAD KOTAKU IS' then... uhhh... congrats mate, did you know water is wet too?

Also, just gotta say, it's startling how you can tell where people happen to fall on the GooberGoot line by how they stand on this article just from a reaction alone. Fuckin' christ guys, try to vary your responses a little more, maybe provide something a little more indepth than 'HE'S COMPLETELY RIGHT' or 'WHAT A BASTARD'.

...man, What a bastard.

erttheking:
I'm a freelance gaming journalist, and I'm anti-consumer?

Did you do any of the "bad things" that the article makes mention of?
If not, then you have nothing to worry about, as you're "one of the good ones".
If so, then yes, that is the point the author is trying to make.

The author explicitly stated that there were "some good ones" out there. His point was not to paint ALL games journalists with the same broad brush, but merely to show a barrage of examples that demonstrate his argument.

The author even says:

Yes, there are some good journalists out there, but the ones that go to bat for the consumer [are] all small time.

So I don't understand why you're saying the opposite.

he says it's not anti-consumer when it is

After reading the article, I don't believe you.

it's just that gaming journalists are all anti-consumer. Every. Last. Fucking. One. Of. Them.

May I direct you to the quote above, where he says that there are some good jorunalists out there?

Oh he then says there are some good ones, but in an off hand way.

Off-hand or not, he still said it.

It sounds like you're sensationalizing his article to make it sound worse than it is, because what I'm reading from the author, and what I'm reading from you sound like two different things.

"how many of them stood up for you when the media lied about the gaming community being a den of misogynists?"

In your capacity as a freelance gaming journalist, did you? What have you written on the subject?

Wrex Brogan:
I mean, seriously, dudes going 'GAME JOURNALISTS ARE THE DEVIL oh but not me, you can totes trust me, I'm the honest one' like... nah mate, that is the opposite of engendering trust.

I didn't see his article that way at all. He didn't call anyone "not a real games journalist" or even say "I'm different".

What he did was list many examples of games journalists doing a disservice to gamers by participating in, or failing to stand up against, anti-consumer practices. He used those examples to make his point, an observation drawn from the data he collected.

Can you argue against any of the examples he brought up? Because that, to me, is what his point is based on.

Houseman:

Wrex Brogan:
I mean, seriously, dudes going 'GAME JOURNALISTS ARE THE DEVIL oh but not me, you can totes trust me, I'm the honest one' like... nah mate, that is the opposite of engendering trust.

I didn't see his article that way at all. He didn't call anyone "not a real games journalist" or even say "I'm different".

What he did was list many examples of games journalists doing a disservice to gamers by participating in, or failing to stand up against, anti-consumer practices. He used those examples to make his point, an observation drawn from the data he collected.

Can you argue against any of the examples he brought up? Because that, to me, is what his point is based on.

Can I argue against his examples? Of course. Am I going to? Fuck no. I figure after saying 'GobberGoot', the level of investment I have in this dumpsterfire should be incredibly obvious. Going all Academia Ad Nausium against some rando journalist is... somewhere around #500 on the list of shit I'd do if I didn't have 500 better things to do.

Wrex Brogan:

Can I argue against his examples? Of course. Am I going to? Fuck no.

The way I see it, if you aren't going to discuss the examples, then you aren't actually discussing the issues, and lose all credibility when it comes to criticizing the author.

This is just my opinion, and you aren't obligated to do anything of course.

Houseman:

Wrex Brogan:

Can I argue against his examples? Of course. Am I going to? Fuck no.

The way I see it, if you aren't going to discuss the examples, then you aren't actually discussing the issues, and lose all credibility when it comes to criticizing the author.

This is just my opinion, and you aren't obligated to do anything of course.

Oh man, if I cared about your opinion that'd be scathing criticism, but given I've seen how you post around these parts...

Good use of passive-aggressiveness at least. The 'you aren't obligated to do anything' was a bit heavy-handed, but good effort.

I thought he was claiming to be pro-consumer?

My thoughts on the article? He's right on the money with regard to most major game media and journalists and their very anti-consumer behaviors. Time and again consumer response has been misrepresented, maligned and even demonized by the people who's responsibility is not to play defended for the game companies against unhappy consumers, but rather to represent the interest of the consumers for viable, accurate and relevant information about the gaming world. Calling gamers entitled for being unhappy with a game's ending, or trying to downplay the false advertising of games like No Man's Sky, especially after they themselves openly helped hype the shit out of them, is very anti-consumer, and it is a very common occurrence in the mainstream gaming media to do so.

It raised a good point about why the gaming media deserves advanced copies as well, given that it fails to use them as an accurate and reliable source to inform the public in the first place. It raised a number of good examples to stress that fact, and argues it well.

The point overall that the major gaming media is anti-consumer is a solid one and supported nicely. It is a shame to see so many here didn't even bother to read or address the actual points made and instead rushed to rally against the article for other reasons, including ones entirely fabricated in their own heads.

Smithnikov:

Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many sites were anti-consumer in their decision to "lie" about the GamerGate movement?

So only GamerGate were game consumers?

You, GamerGaters who buy that, and Mr. Usher can respectfully go to Hell for this statement, sir.

You are misrepresenting what they said.

You leaped to a conclusion based entirely on your own open hatred against something, then declared outrage at what you pulled out of thin air. No one is saying or arguing that only gamergate are consumers and it is dishonest of you to assert or imply so solely to make an excuse to tell them to go to hell.

Gamergate was formed by consumers, but no one made any statement about it being the entirety of consumers. Game media lying about gamergate is easily anti-consumer by openly being dishonest about the details of the event in order to sway opinions as opposed to doing their job and duty in accurately informing the gaming consumers. Saying the media's response was anti-consumer can be done without any sort of claim that gamergate is the only game consumers out there, regardless if you personally thing gamergate is evil incarnate. Your deliberately misconstrued assertion of what they are saying, that of "only gamergate are game consumers", is not intellectually honest of you. Your outrage at your own misrepresentation is wasted energy.

Bouncing this back to the topic at hand now.

Game journalists who downplay, undermine or misrepresent consumer concerns are openly anticonsumer. This can mean many things from widespread attacks on general consumers who dislike a business practice (such as defending DRM by calling or implying the consumers are would-be thieves), to more selective focus on consumers unhappy with specific decisions (such as the anti-consumer trend in covering the ME3 ending controversy by calling gamers entitled for wanting what was promised, by the developers and repeated by the media who reported on those promises), to just broad misrepresentation of specific groups of consumers (such as calling the consumers upset by the media's attacks on Character Design in Dragon's Crown juvenile horny teens). When the media ignores the responsibilities of their job in order to aid a company's PR, they cease being a representation of the vested interest of consumers for reliable, relevant and accurate information, and instead harm consumers by taking advantage of the position they hold and the reach their voices have. Their actions are against the point of their job and the interests of the consumers. They are Anti-consumer.

This does not required every single consumer out there be affected, and indeed if it did then there is no single example that would be defined as anti-consumer as nothing swings wide enough to hit every single consumer. Indeed, because of the consumer reaction nature that was gamergate, the media's intentional misrepresentation of the consumers who participated within it, and the media's outright lies about those consumer's motivations in order to downplay the validity of the original concerns and even attack the ones raising the concerns, the major gaming media's response to gamergate is easily definable as anti-consumer. Does not even require anyone claim strange absolutes that only gamergate is considered consumers.

Houseman:

Avnger:
So much for the "pro-consumer revolt" actually standing for pro-consumer positions

Exactly what pro-consumer position is not being stood for, here?

More information provided to consumers regarding the products being sold is never a bad thing. Cheering for this move simply because it will cut off review copies some of the people GG has a hate boner (a subset of gaming journalists) for is equivalent to cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

GG is again taking the stance (as with Operation Disrespectful Nod) that they know whats best for the rest of the gaming world. In this case, it's supporting this decision on review copies due to 'unethical' journalists. Some of us like reading reviews prior to launch and use them as a one way to get some understanding of what a game might be like. If you don't, good for you. Don't advocate for the rest of us to be screwed over because of your personal opinion though.

tldr: Just because you revel in the problems this will cause games journalists doesn't mean you get to ignore the negative impact it will have on gamers being informed prior to something's release date.

Games journalists aren't anti consumer.

They aren't pro consumer either, they're pro games journalists. They work for their own gain, their field just happens to include us. For as long as they offer useful content they will continue to subsit.

The issue is that lately the gamers feel less use is served by this journalism, so the loss of them garners little more than a meh reaction.

I have never had a problem with game reviews not being reviewy enough. I don't really get why some people hate them so much they want them to go away.

Netscape:
William Usher, a games journalist who is fairly popular among the GamerGate community, recently published an opinion piece regarding Bethesda's decision no longer provide early review copies to game journalists.

http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/10/editorial-game-journalists-are-anti-consumer-not-bethesda/15301/

Discussion Questions
* What are your thoughts on Mr. Usher's editorial?

It's bullshit whining that spends no time focusing on the fact that Bethesda releases half-finished, dysfunctional games on decrepit engines and now are trying to make it impossible for you to get a forewarning because some game journalists said mean things.

* Are you surprised to see Mr. Usher, a games journalist himself, arguing against early review copies?

I'm surprised that anyone would because early access for reviewers is the standard in a host of mediums and I don't understand why games should be an exception aside from Mr. Usher's own absurd personal hangups.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many games journalists "inject politics" into gaming when it isn't necessary?

Sure, I mean he's obviously doing that in this very article. Don't know what that has to do with Bethesda being a bunch of cowardly and deceptive shits though.

* Do you believe that retailer-specific content, on-disk DLC, DRM, cut-endings and season passes are "anti-consumer," as Mr. Usher suggests?

Yeah, and so is releasing half-tested games and trying to make impossible for people to know about it before release then loading your game up with day one and pre-order dlc.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists haven't done their job in criticizing (above listed) "anti-consumer" practices?

No, he's a fucking moron, game journalists talk about it more than most anyone else.

* Do you agree that many games journalists took an anti-consumer position on the Mass Effect 3 ending, Diablo 3 DRM, Aliens: Colonial Marines "false advertising" and the No Man's Sky controveries, by attacking gamers as "entitled"?

ME3, maybe. Diablo 3 I saw complaints from journalists about, I saw plenty complaining about Aliens and No Man's Sky, and it should be noted that not doing early releases for anyone makes it impossible for anyone to get their hands on stuff like this before it becomes a garbage fire, even GG heroes like TotalBiscuit. Once again, dude is a moron.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that many sites were anti-consumer in their decision to "lie" about the GamerGate movement?

I don't fucking care about it.

* Do you agree with Mr. Usher that games journalists have been anti-consumer and/or dishonest in pushing the claim that video games and/or gamers are sexist?

I believe it makes him a whiny baby with no sense of dignity that can't stand up to the slightest moral challenge.

* Do you believe game journalists are "entitled" to early review copies from publishers?

No. Every game developer ought to do it though, and they ought not expect my purchase for at least two months after release if they don't have the fucking balls to let someone see their product before it goes on the market.

* Do you agree that a significant portion, if not outright majority, of games journalists are unethical or "pro-corporate," instead of advocating for consumers?

Well, at the very least Mr. Usher is clearly showing that he is.

Edit- You know what, I'm drunk and feel like ranting a bit, so imma expand a bit here. The goddamn moral cowardice on display here is astounding. Some journalists disagreed with you about your little campaign, call a game or some behavior around it wrong in some way, or whatever minor criticism he thinks is so goddamn earthshattering and his response is that those people are all horrific monsters? I have had people I deeply respect question and disagree with core principles of my morality for half of my goddamn life and this guy is prepared to dismiss the idea of games journalism over such a petty challenge to his world view? He is a goddamn infant. The insignificant prick needs to grow a pair and realize that while people are saying mean things about him for liking shitty titty games actually important things are happening, that the world does not revolve around him and his clearly insignificant genitals. If someone challenges you, the courageous thing is to consider it and learn from it. The simple and acceptable alternative is to ignore it. The childish and immature method is to whine and complain and to brand your critics as devilish conspirators working to bring you down. As long as your livelihood is not at stake, which I severely doubt Mr. Usher's was, I do not think such incessant whining is warranted.

nomotog:
I have never had a problem with game reviews not being reviewy enough. I don't really get why some people hate them so much they want them to go away.

I think some people just like having an enemy to fight. Makes them feel like they're doing something important and worthwhile.

Avnger:

More information provided to consumers regarding the products being sold is never a bad thing.

The journalists are supposed to be the ones providing consumers with information. They still can, but they'll actually have to buy the game now, at least from Bethesda. I still don't see the problem.

Cheering for this move

Who's cheering?

GG is again taking the stance (as with Operation Disrespectful Nod) that they know whats best for the rest of the gaming world. In this case, it's supporting this decision

Says who? Do you have any evidence that "GG" supports this decision?

If the problem is that "the pro-consumer stance of getting reviews early" is not being stood for, that's not a stance, it's a privilege. Nobody is under any obligation to get anything for free. Nobody is under any obligation to get anything early. Consumers are not entitled to receive a pre-release review. It's nice, sure, but it's a privilege.

Netscape:

* Do you agree that many games journalists took an anti-consumer position on the Mass Effect 3 ending,

Oh right, I forgot how fucking hypocritical this was. That's right, if you were against ME3's ending and people disagreed with you, that was anti-consumer. Because we had a right to demand a better ending

Of course it's not anti-consumer if you're against people who think games can be sexist, because ME3 ending being crap was a viewpoint you held, therefore that makes it right, and you don't think games are sexist, which means everyone who thinks that thinks gamers are sexist. Because gamers have no right to demand that an artist change their work, it's their artistic integrity and we can't force our views on it.

Fucking hypocrite. And I say this as someone who was on board with the idea of an extended cut. There's something I've been thinking for awhile now. A lot of people's moral stands and ideologies have an odd tendency to morph to best fit their situation. A lot of people's views on an artist changing their work always seems to directly correspond with if they like the work or not.

StatusNil:

erttheking:
I invite William Usher to blow me.

Hey, maybe his next article could be "JOURNALIST WRITES OPINION PIECE, INTERNET ERUPTS IN CRUDE SEXUAL TAUNTS". And were he one of these KotaGon types, it would be.

OT: Usher has a solid point. The vocal majority of "games journalists" have openly declared their enmity to the gaming public at large and are trying to use their supposed clout to interfere with these entertainment products in ways that public doesn't agree with, as per Johnny McIntosh's calls to use reviews to shame developers into pandering to their ideology. I don't see how cutting out the "meddle man", as it were, could objectively be viewed as "anti-consumer". It's just removing a party that has no legitimate stake in the transaction between the suppliers and the consumers from parasitically distorting it. No savvy consumer should base their purchasing decisions on the slanted say-so of these hostile ideologues anymore. It's Current Year!

Certainly Bethesda themselves are not in the "pro-consumer" business, but who would seriously think that anyway?. The consumer can and will have to simply wait for the game to come out and consult the general opinion of the inevitable early adopters. We can't all do the prudent thing.

He does seem like the type of whiny crybaby who would do that.

No, he doesn't. Journalists have declared enmity to the gaming public? I must have pissed that part. I keep finding it funny that people keep telling me that gaming journalists have alienated gamers, because I've never felt particularly alienated in the past few years. If anything, judging by the way Usher brought up gamergate, he seems to be championing the idea that being against gamergate is being against gamers. Something that is utterly laughable since the majority of gamers don't even know what that whole mess is, something I deeply envy. Trying to support games the public doesn't want? I'm sorry, am I not part of the public anymore? Do my opinions not count? My friends and I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of the criticisms journalists had about gaming, do we just not exist? Have we been divorced from the public and into our own little category? Because that seems to be what you're implying, that no people who agree with journalists on the state of gaming exist. How is it anti-consumer? Because consumers had a resource that could inform their purchasing decision limited. We gained nothing and had something limited. We came out of this situation worse than when we went in. It was anti-consumer, and don't act like it wasn't just because it doesn't inconvenience you personally. I wanted to buy Dishonored 2 early, but I wanted an informed opinion and now I have to wait. I am a consumer that has been inconvenienced by this development. No consumer should ever base their purchase on these "hostile" ideologues ever? Tell that to the people who base their purchases on what Total Biscuit says. Oh sure, he does first impressions and not reviews, but he's still got "Youtube's #1 game critic" plastered on the top of his channel, and critic/ reviewer, po-ta-to/po-tah-to. But people are ok with him because he agrees with them and doesn't challenge their world view. Oh, and despite that, he's against this on a whole.

Don't try and underplay this, no one gains anything from that. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "people are just gonna have to wait" we all know that isn't going to happen, people are going to be impulsive about a game that's been hyped up, and I for one don't blame the people that will potentially get suckered, I blame the people who stand to gain from the suckering.

erttheking:
How is it anti-consumer? Because consumers had a resource that could inform their purchasing decision limited.

I'd say "delayed". It isn't "limited" at all. People just have to wait longer for reviews to come out.

I wanted to buy Dishonored 2 early, but I wanted an informed opinion and now I have to wait. I am a consumer that has been inconvenienced by this development.

I want Dishonered 2 NOW, but it's not out yet! I'm being inconvenienced! Bethesda is anti-consumer! /sarcasm

I don't think it works that way. Early reviews are privileges, not rights. You got used to having this privilege and now you feel bad that it's going away. Having a privilege suddenly taken away from you feels bad, sure, but it's not necessarily "anti-consumer" just because you feel inconvenienced.

That's like if I deliver free cookies to your house every week for several years, but then suddenly stop. It's not "anti-" anything just because you miss your free cookies.

Houseman:

erttheking:
How is it anti-consumer? Because consumers had a resource that could inform their purchasing decision limited.

I'd say "delayed". It isn't "limited" at all. People just have to wait longer for reviews to come out.

So the burden of responsibility falls entirely on the consumer? How delightfully pro-consumer of you.

Revnak:

So the burden of responsibility falls entirely on the consumer? How delightfully pro-consumer of you.

The responsibility for doing what, exactly? Making an informed decision? Hasn't that always been the burden of the consumer? Doesn't the consumer have to take it upon himself to seek out these reviews and decide whether or not a purchase is right for him, regardless of when these reviews come out?

Houseman:

Revnak:

So the burden of responsibility falls entirely on the consumer? How delightfully pro-consumer of you.

The responsibility for doing what, exactly? Making an informed decision? Hasn't that always been the burden of the consumer? Doesn't the consumer have to take it upon himself to seek out these reviews and decide whether or not a purchase is right for him, regardless of when these reviews come out?

And what if the company is pushing pre-orders? Exclusive content you can only get by committing to buy BEFORE you can possibly be in any way informed as to any issues?
Game companies want your money on or before day one, and want to make those purchases to be informed ones impossible.

Fox12:
I thought he was claiming to be pro-consumer?

GamerGate cares about as much about consumer rights as they do about free speech (i. e. only to the extend they can use it as a club to bludgeon them filthy EssJayDubbelyew libscum cucktards with).

Windknight:

And what if the company is pushing pre-orders? Exclusive content you can only get by committing to buy BEFORE you can possibly be in any way informed as to any issues?

That, in itself, is an anti-consumer practice. It does not become suddenly bad when pre-reviews are disallowed.

erttheking:
I wanted to buy Dishonored 2 early, but I wanted an informed opinion and now I have to wait.

I can tell you right now that the "informed opinion" is going to be that Dishonored 2 is just super. Cara Ellison is "working on the story" after all. Unless she got fired, in which case it's deeply problematic.

You're welcome.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked