Support NeoGAF

[Acerac]

Voting with your wallet by not buying a game is precisely the same as being an average person and not buying the game. How much do you think a company cares if any one given person doesn't buy their product?

It's for this reason why I think it's absurd that many say there's any sort of real "vote" going on. Unless you're selling the PS2, Wii, or DS the majority of the population has "voted" that they don't want your product; just because doing something is profitable doesn't mean any sort of vote has occurred.

If 20% of people buy DLC for fully priced games they'll continue to be made, there was no vote here.

 

[Maintenance]

It actually does. Do you really think a twitter campaign was the reason MS backed down? I once thought that too, but these companies only care about money.

This topic is EA/Acti/Ubi's wet dream though. Bend over and just take it.

 

[Gsnap]

It only works if everybody else is voting in the same direction you are. If you're in a minority, then of course it doesn't work.

What does work, is voting with both your wallet and your mouth. If you don't buy a game and go out of your way to inform them why you didn't buy it, and if enough people do the same, even if you're just a vocal minority you can make change happen.

 

[Mulgrok]

Voting with my wallet means not buying something i don't want. You would rather I waste money buying crap i don't want, because reasons?

 

[McLovin]

I didn't buy evolve and that seems to be working

Ditto, and I actually forgot that game existed until I read this post
Never got Dead Space 3 either.

 

[theprodigy]

It was a bomb by pretty much any definition.

I'm gonna need some receipts for that.

 

[ShodanMAN]

It works when people do it. It doesn't work when they don't.
Pretty simple really.

 

[ConceptX]

It's one of the most efficient methods of sending a material message when used to an adequate scale of the scale of the business.

But most people who say they won't buy, won't support etc, don't keep their word, and/or end up supporting the company/product either directly or indirectly in other ways.

So, it doesn't work then.

It's actually pretty cut and dry for once.

 

[NullPointer]

I still believe it works, and did in the case of the Xbox pre-180 because pre-orders probably dropped off a cliff.

Where it may not work is with microtransactions like cash in GTAO or accelerators in Assassin's Creed or the batshit insanity that Konami is trying to pull in MGS V. And the reason it may not work with those is that when it comes to whales, they're already only a very small percentage of the playerbase. So even if that vast majority of players don't buy into those digital scams they could still turn a hefty profit.

With that in mind, and this trend of injecting microtransactions into games post-release, after all the reviews have been posted and metacritic scores tabulated, I think we're all just going to watch the flagship titles of this medium turn into their own brands of farmville. Its already seeping into most of the heavy hitter games, and it looks like its only the tip of the iceberg.

We won't discuss the amazing moments in games here, we'll swap notes on how to farm and exploit resources/xp/rep/currencies in the most efficient fashion. Because fun and challenge isn't the name of the game anymore, its progression and unlocks and meters to fill and extrinsic rewards for daily activities and double XP, all the way.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

EDIT: Just read the rules on VG Chartz. Nevermind.

 

[Astery]

of course it works. That's the fundamental driving force. However you can also help increase awareness to public as most wouldn't care or know by stating as objectively as possible on things you view as wrong and why people should also vote with their wallets.

Tho as with life, if other people agree with your viewpoint is a whole another issue.

 

[Tigress]

I still believe it works, and did in the case of the Xbox pre-180 because pre-orders probably dropped off a cliff.

Where it may not work is with microtransactions like cash in GTAO or accelerators in Assassin's Creed or the batshit insanity that Konami is trying to pull in MGS V. And the reason it may not work with those is that when it comes to whales, they're already only a very small percentage of the playerbase. So even if that vast majority of players don't buy into those digital scams they could still turn a hefty profit.

It doesn't work on these because it's not enough not to buy microtransactions. At that point there is no loss to the company to put them in, it doesn't hurt to ask, right? And they'll get a few people at least who will pay so it benefits them with no risk. It would work if people would refuse to buy games that had MTs in them. But that is a lot to ask of people and smart enough companies make the games fun enough even with them that people don't want to give up playing the game (I admit it worked for me on GTA. I even enjoy GTA online though there are definitely areas I think were influenced by MTs but they are not bad enough to ruin the game for me).

I've kinda given up hope (which is what Jim in Jimquisition says is a problem) because most other people simply don't care and just say, "Just don't buy them." That doesn't work. You have to not buy the game. The companies have to see that they will lose sales if they ask.. that it will hurt to ask. And even then, if they get enough "whales", then that offsets those who get offended and don't buy. So sometimes even voting with your wallet isn't enough to overcome the people who will vote a lot more with their wallet. MTs allow the people who don't mind MTs and would use them to have a lot more vote per person than the person who wouldn't buy them. Because one person not buying the game loses them less money then losing out on one person who will spend a ton of money if they do put MTs in.

 

[Kallor]

EDIT: Just read the rules on VG Chartz. Nevermind.

What'd you post? I remember Pachter saying their older numbers are rock solid. Just the weekly shit that can't be trusted. I'm guessing we can't post anything from there though.

 

[Brazil]

What'd you post? I remember Pachter saying their older numbers are rock solid. Just the weekly shit that can't be trusted. I'm guessing we can't post anything from there though.

VG Chartz and Pachter?

Credibility truly knows no bounds.

 

[NullPointer]

It would work if people would refuse to buy games that had MTs in them. But that is a lot to ask of people and smart enough companies make the games fun enough even with them that people don't want to give up playing the game (I admit it worked for me on GTA.

Its even more to ask of people when you can't even be sure if a game will patch these things in at a later date. Look at the insurance being added to MGS V. Why are they just putting that out there now? I think we all know why.

 

[h#shdem0n]

"Vote with your wallet" is the ballad of libertarians and other defenders of the status quo. They realize an industry caters to their desires, and fear losing it when others seek to make it more open to everyone. That's not to say 'voting with your wallet' doesn't work, just that it's not pragmatic to progression, very much the opposite in fact.

Yea. It's often used as a silencing technique. Like, "Stop complaining, just vote with your wallet."

 

[Tigress]

Its even more to ask of people when you can't even be sure if a game will patch these things in at a later date. Look at the insurance being added to MGS V. Why are they just putting that out there now? I think we all know why.

The only way to combat that is for people to put down the game and stop playing. I think they'd notice that all the sudden no one is playing.

But... I expect people would be willing to do that even less than they are to not buy the game. They already got the game and a taste of it and it's harder to put down something you already have gotten into.

And, as I pointed out (a thought that had only occured to me when writing the post), the other problem is MTs allow people who don't mind them and use them to have more vote because the "whales" put so much money into it that it's worth risking losing a set amount of people who won't buy the game (I mean there are articles saying for most games relying on MTs they really are relying on a few people to make most of the money).

I mean most companies these days are dabbling with it. Hell, Bethesda didn't put it in their games but they definitely wanted to dabble in F2P with Fallout Shelter (I feel very worried by that if they are shown that it pays more than what they are doing now ). EA has put a lot of effort into F2P games (not just MTs in their games). MTs work and work so well it's worth it to give the game away in order to get people to pay for the MTs. It seems the only ones who may not want to dabble is the few who are going to cater to tyring to be the "good guys". Smaller developers and companies like CDPR. But there probably isn't as big a market for trying to cater to those who will buy your game because they see you as fighting the good fight (which really is just a marketing strategy in itself. But one I like supporting. I mean companies do have to make money some how. I want to support ways that also benefit me).

 

[The Lamp]

Voting with your wallet doesn't actually communicate much of the right idea. It doesn't explain to companies why you didn't buy their product, so they have to infer, which sometimes ends up being incorrect.

 

[Kallor]

VG Chartz and Pachter?

Credibility truly knows no bounds.

LOL

 

[TouchMyBox]

Voting with your wallet does work.

Recent example: people dismissed Square's silly Deus Ex augmented pre-order system. Publisher decided to pull it.

People dismissed the Xbox One and didn't pre-order it at E3, and Microsoft decided to pull the DRM.

 

[Zing]

My perspective is that there are enough games in existance to entertain me for the next ten years. I am still playing through PSone and SNES games that I missed. I can whether this storm of DLC, micro transactions, DRM, and preorder bonuses until companies start making games that are games again.

So voting with my wallet works just fine for me.

 

[Garlador]

In response to this, in some cases, it's hard to tell what are the right places to deliver feedback in which the companies will actually listen/care.

Like, I would absolutely love to tell the heads of Nintendo to deliver GBA/SNES VC support to the 3DS, but I have absolutely no idea who to email/tweet/etc that will make a difference.

I've actually gotten in touch with many companies before. Nintendo is pretty easy to get a hold of, actually, and I've called them and emailed them about a lot of things.

Microsoft as well was willing to give me a call back after I left them feedback and asked me if I had time to repeat my suggestions to their marketing department so they could take notes (this included things like "backwards compatibility", "more original IPs", "better bundles and more competitive deals", and "more free games"... you're all welcome).

The hardest companies I've found to get a hold of are (unsurprisingly) Ubisoft, Konami, EA, and Activision.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Like any voting it only works if the majority of people vote the same way.

 

[Garlador]

Like any voting it only works if the majority of people vote the same way.

It doesn't have to be a majority...
... Just enough people to put a dent in their wallets.

"What do you mean we only sold 4 million copies? Our predictions clearly showed us selling 5 million! Where did the other million go?"

 

[silvermember]

People dismissed the Xbox One and didn't pre-order it at E3, and Microsoft decided to pull the DRM.

Microsoft pulled it off not because of voting with wallet, it was far too early. They pulled it off because SONY wasn't doing it and was capitalizing not only on specs but also on price.

It wasn't the voting with the wallet entirely, it was its main competitor using that to create a temporary competitive advantage.

Secondly, it also worked because the gaming press and its visitors universally panned it.

So yes, voting with your wallet works IF everybody online and forums is in on it, but it rarely works. For all the complaints you see about DLC for example, it hasn't stopped developers from releasing them.

 

[NullPointer]

Like any voting it only works if the majority of people vote the same way.

If you only need as little as 2% of players to buy into your microtransactions to make them worthwhile, even a majority vote isn't enough.

And if the voting is only effective when it comes to pre-orders or at release, we're still screwed because companies can patch the odious stuff into their games after release, and after reviews.

 

[faridmon]

Unfortunately it works

I bought Crisis Core, therefore SE started to make shitty FF games in that style from thereon.

 

[Rizific]

It works for me 100% of the time. The company doesn't get my money and I don't get screwed.

this is literally how i interpret "vote with your wallet". of course it wouldnt work in the way that OP is describing. too many people are just eagerly foaming at the mouth to get bent over or simply just dont care. it doesnt effect me. because once again, i just simply wont buy.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Voting with your wallet works, it just so happens that others can vote with theirs too.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You're suggesting that not spending money on a product that needs money to live won't discourage the creators or publishers?

This is just a thread to justify bitching about The Man, isn't it?

 

[Pestilence11]

not for the big games, because there is enough of an audience that doesn't follow the news as closely as your average gaffer does. For niche titles a motivated fan base can probably make a dent in sales.

Pretty much this. The majority of the people that buy "AAA games" and probably even a lot of indie games don't follow much if any info leading up to release after they've decided it looks good, based off trailers or what have you. In those cases (majority of the time) voting with your wallet means nothing more than "I'm saving my own money."

 

[JZA]

It's not that "vote with your wallet" doesn't work, it's just that the voters need to be better informed for it to work.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I don't personally believe it works. But that's just me.

The only thing that seems to work now is online outrage before release that affect pre-order numbers.

 

[KelpPlankton]

The problem I generally see is that people go "I hate this thing this game is doing! I'm going to vote with my wallet and not buy the DLC or not Preorder" and they still buy the game.

The only way this kind of thing works is to not give a developer any money for these games. You can't just buy the DLC you think is okay and then not buy the other DLC, you can't buy the game and then refuse to buy the DLC, you have to go "this component of your monetization is unacceptable and I will not be buying the game at all because of it".

And then it only works if a lot of people do it. Which is the other hard part, because consumers generally value brand loyalty over being informed. If it's a series they like, they're going to buy it even if it's doing something they dislike with DLC or microtransactions or other add-on content.

I mean just look at the CoD boycots whenever there's a PC version, people claiming they won't buy the game unless it has player-run dedicated server support. And then every single time, the game comes out and everyone shrugs and goes "well i guess it didnt work" and buys the game anyway. Which is only sending the message "we want this but not enough to not buy the game", a message that lets development teams and publishers know that things like dedicated servers are not actually important to their userbase.

Basically, as an individual, you need to vote with your wallet. But you also need to inform others to do the same. And you need to actually stick with it instead of giving up and buying the game. If there's a part of the game you want them to know you dislike, you need to avoid giving them ANY money, not buy the game and then refuse to buy the DLC.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

People loved Horse Armour

 

[CadetMahoney]

I don't personally believe it works.

The only thing that seems to work now is online outrage before release that affect pre-order numbers.

I think so too.

 

[Atlas AS7-K]

Even the infamous Xbone reversal was something that happened before the console came out, so it wasn't something they reacted to because of poor sales, that was entirely down to them realising what it was offering wasn't something consumers wanted

What caused them to realize that consumers didn't want that thing they didn't understand was the preorders, which they view as sales, so in truth they were reacting to sales. Much more so than the vocal minority scared of going through plastic withdrawl, or the unwashed uninformed masses on FB with the cute ascii fingers.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Not at all because you're just one person in a group of millions. Your dollars mean lots more outside of gaming too, does that stop games from being made? No.

You don't get to pick what some large company spends 80 million on to make in the long run. They get money either way. Did our choice to buy a million or so copies of a certain game make tablets popular?

Why is there so much talk about the death of consoles? It doesn't matter. MGSV could sell a couple more million and Silent Hills and PT get scrapped.

It's hands down the company's responsibility to make that choice.

The people in the industry saying this are part of their management. They only see things that way because they make games and their paycheck comes from it. They aren't some random person who shops around and maybe buys 1 or 2 games.

In large droves it also wouldn't happen. Look at all the apps that are out now. I don't download any of them or buy their currencies. They still make dozens or thousands of those same exact games.

If a whole generation of gamers quit because they didn't like modern day video games then video games would morph towards their new audience or the people they haven't gotten yet. That doesn't mean they'll make what we want them to.

It's up there with voting. Voting is your right and responsibility to do. That doesn't mean your single vote mattered when a group of millions wanted the other person.

The saying, "Vote with your dollars'' singles out the gamer and it only relies on massive movements where millions don't buy your game. Of course something like indie games are hurt worse by this. If you needed 100 people to like your game and you received 200 negative reviews then no one is going to buy your game and you lost profits.

The people in the industry make millions if they did well. They see it as being a larger market and it won't very well please you when you find out how unenjoyable that means.

Businesses like gaming companies are organizations. The field of organizations is not manipulation, it's not about being nice, it's not about feel good sessions, and it's not common sense.

It's a business at the end of the day and it'll move to what profits that business. If anything it has to come from a massive amount of software loss before that change comes. As far as DLC and so forth. They have too many people on board and they're too reliable on making profit from it.

 

[EGM1966]

Look at all those 180 turnarounds with XB1!

Of course it works. Like anything of that nature it only works if it turns out enough people vote though and how they vote.

If you're in a minority you're not going to outweigh the majority: so if 95% are willing to say pay a high price for DLC that you feel anemic the price point isn't going to change.

On the other hand if the reaction is negative enough (people voting with their wallet) then you will see a change.

The XB1 is a large example all by itself. Look at the reveal. Look at MS initially standing their ground when they felt confident the majority would go with them, then look at their reaction when pre-orders and market response showed that in fact the market had voted overwhelmingly against them.

When you figure it's not going to work it then becomes and individual point of principle: do you accept the majority is against you or do you stick to your guns on a personal level?

Mostly I stick to my guns, some won't, both are okay responses in defeat.

 

[NullPointer]

If you're in a minority you're not going to outweigh the majority...

If you're a whale you will, and they do.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I honestly think a number of people are assuming it doesn't work because things they don't like exist. Realistically what % of the gaming buyer power post on this site? of that % how many agree on particular practices? Of that % how many people actually follow through and don't purchase a game because of shitty practices?

In this society majority rules. I've had to accept this to a certain point because I'm a lefty (both politically and physically). If the majority (even the financial majority) decides something is acceptable, it will continue. Vote with your wallet, as many posters have said, means basically avoiding games because of certain practices, saving your money, and buying into developers that cater to your tastes. You're not entitled to be listened to (even if you are right) and you shouldn't be surprised if devs/publishers chase the gravy train.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Look at all those 180 turnarounds with XB1!

Of course it works. Like anything of that nature it only works if it turns out enough people vote though and how they vote.

If you're in a minority you're not going to outweigh the majority: so if 95% are willing to say pay a high price for DLC that you feel anemic the price point isn't going to change.

On the other hand if the reaction is negative enough (people voting with their wallet) then you will see a change.

The XB1 is a large example all by itself. Look at the reveal. Look at MS initially standing their ground when they felt confident the majority would go with them, then look at their reaction when pre-orders and market response showed that in fact the market had voted overwhelmingly against them.

When you figure it's not going to work it then becomes and individual point of principle: do you accept the majority is against you or do you stick to your guns on a personal level?

Mostly I stick to my guns, some won't, both are okay responses in defeat.

I think Microsoft had personal problems coming from the consumers. They had some arrogant staff that made people mad, an online connection that not everyone in the world could take advantage of, and lots of other things.

They were personal complains by a consumer. They literally offended people away from their product.

They announced they were introducing BC for 360 games because they knew it was a way to push the company forward from their huge run last gen.

It didn't mean they're making a certain game now. Right now we have no idea outside of a few couple games MS has already announced. I guess I see this differently. Sure there were some changes made based on some severe personal complaints, but I do not see Microsoft making a particular game because of it. That's just wishful thinking.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

Common misconception: your vote isn't always the vote that wins

 

[Shauni]

You start a lot of threads that I feel are directed specifically at someone or some group or something, at least it feels that way.

But anyway, it's kind of a loaded question. The core question you're really asking is whether it works when the majority of people practice it. Yes, when a majority of people are practicing it, voting with your wallet works. But when it's just a vocal minority, no it doesn't work more often than not. You have to keep in mind that GAF and similar web forums are a very, very small group in the overall scheme of things. The things that outrage people here aren't necessarily the mainstream gaming public give much shit about.

We're basically screaming down an empty hallway on message boards like these, and unfortunately, a lot of people think that the echoes they hear of their own voice are a grand symphony of others screaming in protest as well. Sometimes the voices make it to the top, but most of the time their just echoes that die out before they do anything or matter.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

It ONLY works if there's a majority.

It works either way, the outcome won't likely be what the minority wanted, but that's entirely different.

If you're a whale you will, and they do.

That's a very good point, but then I guess a "whale" counts as majority if the unit of measure is "money spent" vs "people".

 

[Doc_Drop]

We're basically screaming down an empty hallway on message boards like these, and unfortunately, a lot of people think that the echoes they hear of their own voice are a grand symphony of others screaming in protest as well. Sometimes the voices make it to the top, but most of the time their just echoes that die out before they do anything or matter.

Very poetic, and absolutely right

 

[TSM]

I don't understand the concept of "voting with your wallet" when you aren't actually doing so. Voting with your wallet means actually giving the company money. The majority of the population don't buy games and they are not intentionally "voting with their wallets" by abstaining from purchasing any particular game. The best you can hope for is for a company to look at their lackluster sales and make an assumption that something approximating your position may have been involved. There are far too many factors involved in selling games to customers for your "vote" to be The Obvious Reason.

Refunds on the other hand may be a huge motivator for companies to treat gamers more respectfully. They vote with their wallet by buying the game and then show them how they really feel by taking the money back. If refunds became a standard for all platforms you might actually see some sweeping changes across the industry.

It works either way, the outcome won't likely be what the minority wanted, but that's entirely different.

Except that abstaining from purchasing a game puts you in with the vast majority of the population. It's the extreme minority that will actually purchase any particular game. People looking at it your way have it backwards.

 

[True Fire]

It only works if everyone does it. Like Arkham Knight.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Im sure this has been stated but its literally the only thing that does work. The trick is you need to be vocal about it too. Companies will never know about a single person as one person does make a difference but when they do things like post on message boards and raise their concerns they do make a difference.

Its also silly to think that in todays market and the amount of big data available to them that they dont track information like repeat buyers in franchises. If Assassins Creed games trend down on repeat buyers every year they are certainly going to take notice. We need to be aware that they unified accounts we have now can be used in our favour as well.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Voting with your wallet works when a bunch of people vote along with their wallet with you.

Voting with your wallet doesn't work when only a small group of people vote with you.

Most people don't care about microtransactions in games, so you voting with your wallet won't matter much. I think the PS3 is a good example of consumers voting with their wallet at large and getting what they wanted. PS3 didn't really jump off in sales until after they dropped their price down from $500, and Sony was smart enough to launch their console at a more reasonable price point this generation.