#1 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
#2 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

After all the Ubisoft DRM plans and the Activision dictatorship, we're all facing this shit... 
 
i choose B.

#3 Posted by Breadfan (6586 posts) -

I play games for fun, not because I care about one company's business ethics.

#4 Posted by animateria (3252 posts) -

Hell, buying a game isn't just supporting the publisher, the developer gains a lot of leverage when creating a budget for their next game if the game is successful.
 
Of course this is unless you are under Activision. 
 
But anyways, that's not going to stop me from buying a Blizzard product just because they are associated with Activision.
 
If you know the whole Eidos/Gerstmann episode back in the day, why would you buy Batman Arkham Asylum? Because it's a good game. The developers are the ones who get the credit in the end anyways.

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (34596 posts) -

Fuck the news, man! Who the hell still listens to that crap, anyway? Man, you've seen better days, Huey...

Online
#6 Edited by Jeust (10334 posts) -

Both A and B. 
 
Since dickish moves generally interfere with the final games. Less content, bigger price kind of thing. I for one don't like to get swindled with the games i buy.

#7 Edited by MattyFTM (14243 posts) -

If I was going to base my gaming habits on the morality of publishers I wouldn't play any games. Ultimately the goal of any company is to maximize profit. And different companies have different strategies for achieving this, but their aim is the same - to get as much money as possible out of my pocket and into their pocket. How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies.
 
So yeah, I choose my games based on entertainment value, not moral issues regarding the publishers & developers.

Moderator
#8 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11001 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: THAT'S THE POWER OF LOVE.  (Do I win?)
 
If a game is good, I will probably buy it regardless of any questionable ethics relating to its development. Taking a stand like this just makes you look like a prick (Remember the totally unneeded shitstorm that came out of Shadow Complex's tangential association with Orson Scot Card?)
#9 Edited by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? 
 
@ArbitraryWater said:
" @Video_Game_King: THAT'S THE POWER OF LOVE.  (Do I win?) If a game is good, I will probably buy it regardless of any questionable ethics relating to its development. Taking a stand like this just makes you look like a prick (Remember the totally unneeded shitstorm that came out of Shadow Complex's tangential association with Orson Scot Card?) "

 If thinking of more than our imediate pleasure is being a prick, then by all means. If you accept every shoddy business practice they throw at you, don't you understand that the gaming industry will lose on the overall, both in consumers and in quality?  
 
And talking about Orson Scot Card is as nonsensical as speaking of racism in Resident Evil 5. The guy doesn't have any to do with Shadow Complex, and his views on homosexuality are his own. Will you too boycott and protest almost every religion because of their inability to accept homosexuality too?  
 
This has nothing to do with the gaming industry, it's a periferal matter.
#10 Posted by Pie (6935 posts) -

GAMES!!! 
I dont know if you know this but I love my games!

#11 Posted by MattyFTM (14243 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? "
But if it's interfering with my enjoyment (or my enjoyment:price ratio) I'll be making my purchasing decisions based on my enjoyment, not the moral issues that lead to the decrease in my enjoyment.
Moderator
#12 Edited by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

If you're going to boycott fucking video game publishers because of their unsavory business tactics, then you would be nothing short of a hopeless hypocrite if you don't also strip off all of your clothes, run into the woods, dig a hole with your hands, and bury yourself in it. Then and only then, might you possibly be shielding yourself from shady corporate influence. If you tried to forego buying anything tied to a shady, dickhead corporation, you would be wandering around naked eating grass. Or maybe wearing an imported, $200, handmade hemp poncho, but still eating grass. Or maybe a $5 "organic" tomato that was grown by a shady, dickhead corporation right next to the pesticide-soaked tomatoes but adorned with a sticker that says "organic" and twice as expensive, ha, ha, ha, ha.  
 
Point is, you can't possibly boycott everything. Corporations run our world. Literally. Fine if you're going to do it, but find something a little more significant than video game publishers.  
#13 Posted by AjayRaz (12389 posts) -

i really don't care man. just give me my video games 

#14 Posted by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@MattyFTM said:
" @Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? "
But if it's interfering with my enjoyment (or my enjoyment:price ratio) I'll be making my purchasing decisions based on my enjoyment, not the moral issues that lead to the decrease in my enjoyment. "
Yes, but in the end they come intertwined, as they will try to take advantage of the user isn't it?
#15 Posted by Seedofpower (3909 posts) -
@AjayRaz said:
" i really don't care man. just give me my video games  "
#16 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11001 posts) -
@Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no.
#17 Posted by MattyFTM (14243 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:
" @Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? "
But if it's interfering with my enjoyment (or my enjoyment:price ratio) I'll be making my purchasing decisions based on my enjoyment, not the moral issues that lead to the decrease in my enjoyment. "
Yes, but in the end they come intertwined, as they will try to take advantage of the user isn't it? "
Yeah, I'm not saying that these issues won't affect my enjoyment, I'm saying I'll make my gaming decisions based on my enjoyment, rather than the moral issues themselves.
Moderator
#18 Posted by HaltIamReptar (2028 posts) -

The options are too extreme.
 
However, I am mature so that I can separate personal issues from pertinent details.

#19 Edited by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:

" @Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no. "

Yep, but take into account that if you want to get a taste of all the three factions, you'll have to buy three games, and battle.net suposedly is going to be paid. That is unlike every rts out there even the older command and conquer.
#20 Posted by Semition (731 posts) -

A. I don't buy games too often so it's easy for me to avoid the games with shadier backgrounds.

#21 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? "
does that interfere with your enjoyment that much? does it drop it down from 100% or 90% to 20%? is having to be connected to the internet to play AC2  that much of a problem ?  yes, it could be lame, unbelievable, but i dont think it would cost the game itself. im sure we're all talking about quality products and not any silly ass game
#22 Posted by animateria (3252 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @ArbitraryWater said:
" @Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no. "
Yep, but take into account that if you want to get a taste of all the three factions, you'll have to buy three games, and battle.net suposedly is going to be paid.  "
At least with multiplayer you get the fullness of all three races. What will be missing is the faction stories.
 
But lets put it this way, Blizzard already took too much time on SC2. If they tried to get all three factions stories into one game they'd be developing the game for a couple more.
 
While I'm sure they are content with the profits from WoW, it would be in their best interest to send out SC2 with perfect multiplayer first, and a faction story. I'm guessing they plan on making the additional faction releases as Expansions much like Brood War, expanding on the single player as well as adding more units to multiplayer. I think it's a sound plan and a perfect compromise for their fans as well.
#23 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11001 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @ArbitraryWater said:

" @Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no. "

Yep, but take into account that if you want to get a taste of all the three factions, you'll have to buy three games, and battle.net suposedly is going to be paid. That is unlike every rts out there even the older command and conquer. "
I can still play all 3 factions in multiplayer (The part that actually matters to me, and most everyone else), and I see the other two games as standalone expansions more than anything else. Also, (don't quote me on this) I'm pretty sure the base version of Battle.net will be free while premium maps and such will be paid.
#24 Posted by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @Jeust said:
" @MattyFTM said:

"How they are trying to achieve that is irrelevant, they're greedy & money hungry companies. "

Even if that interferes with your enjoyment? Give you less and ask you for the same price as before or even more? And make you pay in new ways? "
does that interfere with your enjoyment that much? does it drop it down from 100% or 90% to 20%? is having to be connected to the internet to play AC2  that much of a problem ?  yes, it could be lame, unbelievable, but i dont think it would cost the game itself. im sure we're all talking about quality products and not any silly ass game "
It doesn't even because i'm not going to buy it till that is fixed. But while for me it isn't really all that important, it bugs me since it will install some side programs to connect to Ubisoft, and occupy more space on my disk with stuff i'll never use except to play AC2. But for people who don't have their computer connected regularly to the internet it will cost the game itself.
#25 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@HaltIamReptar said:
" The options are too extreme.  "
I could be wrong, but i think extreme options are always better. when u give a 'maybe' option it all goes to hell and the poll becomes pointless IMO, unless that 'maybe' option is essential and i dont believe it is, here. you either do boycott games or you cant resist them.
#26 Posted by Branthog (7332 posts) -
@Br3adfan said:
" I play games for fun, not because I care about one company's business ethics. "
Totally! I mean, who gives a fuck if your the diamond ring on your finger came from the death and rape of thousands of people in a country where corporations and governments took advantage of people who didn't have any leverage? And who cares if six year old chinese girls locked inside a warehouse and beaten daily and earning pennies a week made your sneakers? Who cares if the company that makes the medication you take tests new products out on unwitting poor people around the world to the risk of of the non-consenting test subject's lives? Who cares if a company treats its employees poorly or does everything they can to erode the fair rights of each and every consumer and customer?!
 
The only thing that matters is I gots me some money and I wants to do me some good old 'merican consumin'!
#27 Edited by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@animateria said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ArbitraryWater said:

" @Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no. "

Yep, but take into account that if you want to get a taste of all the three factions, you'll have to buy three games, and battle.net suposedly is going to be paid.  "
At least with multiplayer you get the fullness of all three races. What will be missing is the faction stories.  But lets put it this way, Blizzard already took too much time on SC2. If they tried to get all three factions stories into one game they'd be developing the game for a couple more.  While I'm sure they are content with the profits from WoW, it would be in their best interest to send out SC2 with perfect multiplayer first, and a faction story. I'm guessing they plan on making the additional faction releases as Expansions much like Brood War, expanding on the single player as well as adding more units to multiplayer. I think it's a sound plan and a perfect compromise for their fans as well. "
@ArbitraryWater said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ArbitraryWater said:

" @Jeust: My escape clause in this case is that if the quality is negatively affected, then I won't buy it because it's a bad game. However, nothing about Activision's evil monetization has actually touched the games (yet). Starcraft II will no doubt have some sort of evil microtransaction nonsense, but will that effect how good the game actually is? I'm guessing no. "

Yep, but take into account that if you want to get a taste of all the three factions, you'll have to buy three games, and battle.net suposedly is going to be paid. That is unlike every rts out there even the older command and conquer. "
I can still play all 3 factions in multiplayer (The part that actually matters to me, and most everyone else), and I see the other two games as standalone expansions more than anything else. Also, (don't quote me on this) I'm pretty sure the base version of Battle.net will be free while premium maps and such will be paid. "
But it sounds from the gist of it, that each of the games or expansions will be full priced, and from the news seemed the multiplayer would be paid.  
 
Though they are taking their time with the Starcraft 2. Let's see what it pops out, and if it is worth it. But for now what is asked is steep.
#28 Posted by Azteck (7447 posts) -

I play Grand Theft Auto.
 
Do I have to say anything more than that?

#29 Posted by Breadfan (6586 posts) -
@Branthog: Once Activision starts committing human rights violations maybe I will stop buying their games. 
#30 Posted by Kyreo (4600 posts) -

As much as I wanna say A... I can't lie to myself. 
 
I choose B.  *runsawayintears*

#31 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11001 posts) -
@Jeust: Alright. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
#32 Posted by Jeust (10334 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:
" @Jeust: Alright. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. "
hehehe i agree
#33 Posted by Branthog (7332 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" After all the Ubisoft DRM plans and the Activision dictatorship, we're all facing this shit...  i choose B. "
Unfortunately, that's the way it's becoming in this world. it's difficult to take a stand against anything - as a consumer - because multi-national conglomerates have a wider reach than most people are aware. It's like people who refuse to buy anything from China, because of their human rights practices. Well, good luck finding anything that isn't in some way made in China.
 
Or when someone I knew refused to buy anything from Proctor & Gamble for some actually fairly reasonable reason. That's hard to do when the company makes 65% of everything on every aisle in the entire supermarket.
 
Consumers have "options", but increasingly it's merely the option of "go without", because there are few solid alternatives in most situations. And in many situations, too few people care enough for you to bother sacrificing for a meaningless stand. If it involves anything religious or racist, those people will stand up like a motherfucker and bring a company to its knees. If it involves how it treats third world people, its own employees, devious business practices, secretly including dangerous ingredients, funding "evil stuff", undermining free speech, assisting vile governments and government practices, etc... nobody can be fucking bothered. And as nice as it is to feel like you're living by your principals, it doesn't have much affect when you're one of about five guys that gives a shit.
#34 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

I don't have a problem with companies being a bit dickish and maximizing profit. Profit means more games. And often better games. It's a business. I think people forget that, sometimes. Sure, it would be nice if everyone got along, but let's be honest here: all these guys have egos. Big egos. And big egos don't always work well together. That's true of the business people, the marketing people, and certainly the designers and artists. Even the developers we like have egos, and they're not above being dicks. I think a lot of the anger at Activision, for instance, is misplaced. It's their business, and their job to to make games. If not everyone is on the same page, it's perfectly within their rights to get rid of them. It's tough on the individuals, sure, but business is business.
 
Of COURSE a business is a dictatorship. That's the only way things work. Just look at developers that weren't. They end up creating vaporware, like Duke Nukem Forever. Someone's got to keep the devs on schedule, and producing what is expected. If not ... suffer the consequences. They knew it was a business going into it. If they've got a different vision, they can go somewhere else. It's not their own money they're playing with, but someone elses. If you don't like the environment, start your own indie development company. It's as simple as that.
 
If we're going to start not playing games because someone higher up knocked heads together in a way we don't like, then we'd be playing very few games.

#35 Posted by iam3green (14388 posts) -

i like to play games for fun.  i do not care about what the news people have to say about the game.

#36 Posted by PenguinDust (12414 posts) -

The Orson Scott Card controversy (Shadow Complex) was a bunch of hooey in my opinion.  Why would you not play a game because you don't agree with the politics of a game's writer?  If a game is bad or unoriginal, I can see not playing it, but if it is good, purposely not playing it to a make a political statement is silly. 

#37 Posted by TheGremp (2064 posts) -

B. 
 
I may be more inclined to buy a game if I like the publisher/developer's business style, so I'd buy a Valve game before I buy an Activision game, just because I know Valve is much better at not ripping me off. 
 
But, I wouldn't go so far as boycott a game or company, that's just silly in my opinion.

#38 Posted by BrendenDonaher (89 posts) -

Well I chose B. Simply because I just love playing games. I am aware of this thing where these companies try to make money... because you know... it is their job. 

#39 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

What a totally unbiased and non-manipulating poll you made there.

#40 Posted by StrikerTheLizard (315 posts) -

I won't eat the ricecake if it's made by a nazi.

#41 Posted by armaan8014 (5253 posts) -
@Br3adfan said:
" I play games for fun, not because I care about one company's business ethics. "
#42 Posted by evanbrau (1161 posts) -

A boycott is an extremely serious thing to undertake both on a personal level and if it gains enough traction on a wider level than that. In this industry by boycotting a game you are fucking over the completely innocent people who really can't change things even more.
In short I wouldn't boycott video games because noone is going to die or be oppressed if I don't which is the only thing that has me boycotting anything at the moment.
 Here would also be a great place to post that picture of all those entitled babies in that "boycott MW2" Steam group playing it.

#43 Posted by dbz1995 (4786 posts) -
@StrikerTheLizard said:
" I won't eat the ricecake if it's made by a nazi. "
What if it's a really nice ricecake?
#44 Posted by hinderk (682 posts) -

I wouldn't boycott a video game because of a companies business decisions, but I would start buying their games used.

#45 Posted by sarahsdad (1037 posts) -

I can imagine some hyperbolic point where I would specifically not buy a game based on something the publisher did, but other than that, I don't think I would care that much how the company was run unless the game was crap.

#46 Posted by HatKing (5557 posts) -

Sadly enough some of my favorite games in history have been associated with publishers who aren't well liked.  TimeSplitters 2 was an Eidos title, all of the GTA games are Rockstar who had the bad working practices recently... I'd be missing out if I decided to not play any games a publisher put out just because they were jerks to somebody.
#47 Posted by btman (1038 posts) -

i like to play video games. i dont care about drama

#48 Posted by Alphiehyr (1083 posts) -

A. over here.

#49 Posted by mano521 (1202 posts) -

what matters is that the game they are making appeases me. other than that, whatever