erragal said:No. A reasonable consumer can look at a product and how it's distributed and say "Ok I choose not to buy this because of this reason."
An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator. Why would any human being ever expect that? It's cognitive dissonance; you are saying that you should only do what's best for yourself and the content creator should only do what's best for you. That makes no sense? Why do people expect that? Are people really that entitled in this day and age? It's awful.
x-Lundz-x said:Yes they are, some people as evidence in this thread think that content creators should spend millions of dollars developing games and then just hand them over on a silver platter for free because"we just want you to play our game". I mean, how dare a company develop games I want to play but at the same time want to make a profit.
commissar said:That thread was not about Rage, but simply an opinion on the matter, no?
Enco said:If you like the game then cool. If you're doing it mainly to support the devs then you're being stupid.
Mithos said:The retailer you bought from was the one supporting the devs, FYI, not a single cent/dime whatever you payed for the game was sent to the devs/publishers.
Unless of cause you bought it from the devs/publishers own webshop?
Reuenthal said:This is an obvious strawman. There is nobody here denying companies from making a profit or requiring that they give games for free. You might disagree with some people's not liking some specific profit strategies that they see as not consumer friendly, but that is completely different.
Striek said:I don't buy used games. I don't sell my games. I have HUNDREDS of games from this generation across all platforms + steam. I mentioned resale value because consumers should always be in control of the content they purchase.
The lengths people go to to rationalise getting dicked over is AMAZING.
Woo-Fu said:If it is side content that nobody cares about that same set of nobodies aren't going to buy an online pass to get it after picking up the game used.
erragal said:No. A reasonable consumer can look at a product and how it's distributed and say "Ok I choose not to buy this because of this reason."
An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator. Why would any human being ever expect that? It's cognitive dissonance; you are saying that you should only do what's best for yourself and the content creator should only do what's best for you. That makes no sense? Why do people expect that? Are people really that entitled in this day and age? It's awful.
Hard to tellFersis said:I was being ironic -__-
Which means im very good at irony! YAY!Enco said:Hard to tell
That's good to hear though haha.
What is with this alarmism?SneakyStephan said:Tell me Striek, what incentive does any content creator/working man etc have to deliver a good product if they have no guarantee that the money for it will end up in their hands , but will end up in the hands of any other random content creator/worker.
Why the fuck would you even try then, then your new priority would just be to exist as creator, market to get your piece of the pie, and spend as little as possible doing so.
The industry is doing a good enough job on it's own to corrupt itself like that, they don't need your help.
Enthousiasts/talented people need to be nurtured, the untalented/jaded money grabbers DON'T need a piggy back.
Basically this, well summed up. Also your second post in this thread had a very reasonable suggestion, I forgot to mention.Reuenthal said:This is an obvious strawman. There is nobody here denying companies from making a profit or requiring that they give games for free. You might disagree with some people's not liking some specific profit strategies that they see as not consumer friendly, but that is completely different.
This is my last post on this, because your arguments keep getting more and more ludicrous.erragal said:That's a philisophical viewpoint that doesn't fit with the society you live in. Our society allows ideas to be protected by their original creator; in doing so we give the creator the control over the methods and limitations of distribution. If consumers are in control of the content they purchase than no content would ever have any value and everything would be pirated. Your philosophy is completely incongruent with the way the real world works.
You only believe you're being 'screwed' because you've convinced yourself you have the right to a high resale value on your content that you didn't create. This makes no sense; why should someone that creates content ensure that the people who buy it can resell it with no money ever coming back to the original creator? Do you believe it's your awesome sales skills that are ensuring the value of that content? Or maybe it's the actual created content; you're 'dicking over' the creator of that content by not giving them the proceeds of your resale is what's actually happening.
WanderingWind said:No, sorry. A consumer is wholly concerned with establishing terms that are favorable to himself. In what reality has that ever not been the case? When you make a purchase with limited funds, you are 100 percent, absolutely, trying to find what's best for yourself.
...and people, stop throwing around entitled, please. It's becoming the new "straw man" in that it's a term rarely used correctly, and is never conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.
They aren't consumer unfriendly, it has zero effect on what the consumer gets.Reuenthal said:This is an obvious strawman. There is nobody here denying companies from making a profit or requiring that they give games for free. You might disagree with some people not liking some specific profit strategies that they see as not consumer friendly, but that is completely different.
Striek said:This is my last post on this, because your arguments keep getting more and more ludicrous.
You realise that the society you believe I desire, the one you believe isn't congruent to the way the real world works, is the exact same one we've been living in for...oh... hundreds of years. Through dozens of media formats.
Yes we're giving up control in the digital era. Doesn't mean we have to fucking like it.
K' Dash said:It's funny to see people shitting on others for buying second hand when these are the same scourging cheapassgamer.com or wating for >$30 bomba on every AAA game, therefore they become the shit they hate.
In this instance, people without online who buy this game new are affected.SneakyStephan said:They aren't consumer unfriendly, it has zero effect on what the consumer gets.
neorej said:And here I was, hoping for an always-online DRM.
Well, this bullshit is close second.
The #1, best, buyer's incentive to get a game new, to me, personally is still an old-school classic:. I wish more games did went back to that. But maybe that's just me.make your game so good it's worth the damn money
K' Dash said:It's funny to see people shitting on others for buying second hand when these are the same scourging cheapassgamer.com or wating for >$30 bomba on every AAA game, therefore they become the shit they hate.
Yeah , I already agreed that that is a load of bull. =)StuBurns said:In this instance, people without online who buy this game new are affected.
StuBurns said:In this instance, people without online who buy this game new are affected.
Zzoram said:Does this mean every PC buyer gets it since you can't buy PC version used?
If this was content for the multiplayer, I'd literally have no complaint, because it means you have to be online to care about it. I'm sure this content will be pretty worthless and probably highly repetitive, so I doubt anyone is missing out, but still.NBtoaster said:It's just something else being added to the pile of things you miss out on by playing offline (online mp, patches, dlc). I don't see the amount of online exclusive content decreasing any time in the future.
erragal said:I never said that a consumer shouldn't want to establish terms that are favorable to themselves. Not once was that criticized. If you re-read my post it clearly states my issue is with people expecting content creators to establish terms that are favorable to the individual people complaining.
How is that not the very definition of entitled? That's exactly what it means. Individuals complaining that people with no connection to them are not catering to their desires. That is entitlement. Nothing unreasonable about that comparison. Can you address what led you to believe this isn't a display of entitlement?
BobsRevenge said:I'm not going to buy the game when it comes out, but even if I did I'd probably be too lazy to download the content. Same thing happened with Mass Effect 2. I just don't care enough, and frankly, feel weird about taking advantage of these things.
Especially when it's silly stuff like better equipment for the SP campaign. No thanks.
edit, saw your edit heheAcullis said:asdfasdfs i read your post wrong
There are preorder bonuses too, including the double barrel shotgun, an id staple all should have.Snkfanatic said:No kidding, I don't understand the whole "lets give players game breaking equipment since they preordered or bought day 1". It really stands out in racing games
Oh man the gt5 pre order cars were such a dumb idea, well the people deciding to skip half the sp by using them were stupid.Snkfanatic said:No kidding, I don't understand the whole "lets give players game breaking equipment since they preordered or bought day 1". It really stands out in racing games
Remember when you got a copy of a game it didnt have content locked away if you got it used or borrowed it?-PXG- said:So instead of locking out online content you're locking out offline content....
Devs actually make money on Steam sales.someguyinahat said:Don't say it so loudly. Sooner or later, they'll add online passes or locked "sewer content" to people who bought the game in a steam sale.
Actually its more funny because not a single person in this thread has indicated they are annoyed because they were planning on buying the game used. I re-read the thread and yep, not a single one. In fact, only one person even mentioned that they may buy it used. Some people merely assumed that anyone not pleased was a gosh-darned dirty used game buyer.K' Dash said:It's funny to see people shitting on others for buying second hand when these are the same scourging cheapassgamer.com or wating for >$30 bomba on every AAA game, therefore they become the shit they hate.
StuBurns said:If this was content for the multiplayer, I'd literally have no complaint, because it means you have to be online to care about it. I'm sure this content will be pretty worthless and probably highly repetitive, so I doubt anyone is missing out, but still.
Then what on earth made you quote my post about second-hand buyers and argue against it like you were one of them if you're not? My entire point was second hand buyers weren't customers of the company and you made a comment about if they're not customers of the company they're another company's customers instead.Ken said:Thanks for assuming that I always buy second hand games, never support developers, and as a result have no rights to express my thoughts on the topic.
Suairyu said:Then what on earth made you to quote my post about second-hand buyers and argue against it like you were one of them if you're not? My entire point was second hand buyers weren't customers of the company and you made a comment about if they're not customers of the company they're another company's customers instead.
Seriously. What possessed you to quote me if you're now offended that I (quite naturally given your rhetoric) assumed you'd actually be counter-arguing my actual argument?
I think that's true yeah. And it's not like they're tricking people. If you can't get online and you buy this game new, you will be aware you are missing content in both the single player and the whole multiplayer, at that point does the product still seem attractive to that person, I think most the time it will certainly be yes, for the few who it isn't, that's fair too.NBtoaster said:For a whole year my PS3 wasn't connected online so I know how annoying it was to miss out on sp content (eg trophy patches, game tweaks), but I think we have to accept that we are heading to a future where online access will be assumed by most devs and by catering to always-offline folk they are limiting what they can do.
NBtoaster said:For a whole year my PS3 wasn't connected online so I know how annoying it was to miss out on sp content (eg trophy patches, game tweaks), but I think we have to accept that we are heading to a future where online access will be assumed by most devs and by catering to always-offline folk they are limiting what they can do.
WanderingWind said:No, you didn't say "individual people complaining." You said "An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator." Let's not revise things, okay?
Yeah, a consumer is definitely going to be looking for what is favorable to themselves, not to the company that produced whatever. It is not the consumers responsibility to look out for the company's bottom line - no more so than it's the company's job to look out for the consumer's secondhand sales profit potential.
And no. I'm not going to explain how a consumer looking out for themselves is not entitlement. It really ought to be apparent why it's not. Again, where did you get your view of the customer/company relationships from? Of course it's the company's job to cater to the customer. They're not "individuals" who just exist in a vacuum in which the evil consumer is just making demands from nowhere. They exist to make money off the customer and in return, the customer has a right to certain expectations. That's not entitlement. Period.
...I honestly can't believe I had to type that last paragraph. I'm going to hope I misunderstood you.
Yeah, I saw that and was genuinely offended. Which is awkward, because I didn't think of myself as that nerdy before, but apparently it's true.StuBurns said:There are preorder bonuses too, including the double barrel shotgun, an id staple all should have.
erragal said:You did misunderstand. You're not reading what I'm saying at all; you're just trying to see me saying something I'm not.
Let me say it again: The problem I have is with INDIVIDUALS (IE: An unreasonable person) complaining that THEY (the unreasonable person) EXPECT (Here's the entitlement) the content creator to do things that the INDIVIDUAL (Unreasonable person) wants them to do that are against the content creator's best interest.
Your implication that it's the content creators job to cater to the customer but the whole point is that you aren't a customer if you aren't paying them money (Buying used). There's also a greater responsibility as the content creator to make sure your creation isn't devalued. You also have the right as a content creator to choose to distribute your product in the manner of your choosing.
You even acknowledged exactly what I said: "no more than it's the company's job to look out for the secondhand sales profit potential". Aren't there people in this thread asking for that? How is that not being entitled? I explained it before: It's entitlement -EXPECTING- someone to do something for you that goes against what would be best for them; I'm not sure how you can't see that.
It's not just about money either. This issue extends past paid for content as well. I feel very strongly about the rights of content creators and find it offensive that people think the rights of a 'customer' that isn't paying any money trump those of an individual or group that put the work/creativity into actually producing something of interest and value.
Everyone thinks they're a customer if they're simplyinterested in a product at all. That doesn't make you a customer; it makes you a potential customer. If you disagree with the way a company is choosing to distribute their product then you are no longer a customer and aren't a part of their market segment. They aren't catering to you and expecting them to is entitlement. Expecting everything you're interested in to be distributed in a manner that is best for your situation is entitlement (Isn't port begging banned on this board for a reason? It's the same mentality.)
Where we can have a discussion is whether the content creator is making the right decision. Are they alienating too many potential customers by choosing to restrict used game sales? That's a real conversation. Not this crap about 'treating customers badly'; you haven't purchased the game at all.
I don't even shop on Impulse anymore. My distaste for them runs so deep that if they take over something I greatly enjoy, I immediately start ignoring it completely. And I feel bad about that because Stardock is such a great company.InsaneLuchador said:Why am I down with anything that gives gamestop the finger?
Woo-Fu said:If it is side content that nobody cares about that same set of nobodies aren't going to buy an online pass to get it after picking up the game used.