Support NeoGAF

[HotHamBoy]

There's been a lot of talk about the ugly practices of publishers when it comes to fuckery in games these days. Most recently I've read a lot of conversation about the gross microtransactions in NBA2K18, the loot boxes in LotR: Shadow of War and even the Amiibo-exclusive difficulty for Metroid: Return of Samus.

A big part of the conversation involves refusing to buy the game all-together because people don't agree with those practices.

In principle, I agree with the "Vote With Your Wallet" sentiment with any product that does not deliver to your standards, but I wonder who it really hurts when it comes to video games.

Let's assume it's the Publisher pushing things like microtransactions and deciding what content should be withheld for DLC and how Season Passes can be implemented. I have to imagine these ideas are not the Developer's, they just want to make as good and fun a game as they can. They don't profit from these practises, the publisher does.

Do we remember the bullshit with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and how it came out that SE blindsided Eidos Montreal in the final crunch weeks with requests for microtransaction implementation? I'm sure that kind of thing happens all the time.

These practices get more aggressive and insulting all the time. At this point the major pubs want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to selling premium games with F2P models. And they must be getting it both ways or they wouldn't continue to creep in more bullshit.

But if we choose not to buy these games, if these games review poorly specifically because of bullshit forced by publishers, doesn't that just ultimately hurt the developers and the franchises? Publisher CEOs aren't going to take the blame. They'll blame the devs, the devs will be dissolved or put on shit projects. No bonus for you. If people don't buy the first new 2D Metroid in 13 years because of Amiibo-exclusive DLC, is Nintendo going to think "maybe we shouldn't have pushed that?" or are they going to conclude that people must not actually want more 2D Metroid?

The people at the top aren't gamers, they're lizard people. They'll blame everyone below them, they'll say shit like "gamers don't want to play as women."

Publisher's eat developers. They buy them and they sink them and they do the same with beloved franchises. I really don't know that "vote with your wallet" even works with big AAA games that are going to grab a lot of whales.

Anyway, it's your money so do what you want with it. But I just think the spite is being focused at the publisher and ultimately effects the developers and IP more.

 

[Ludger Kresnik]

Games tend to be expensive and people are usually under no real obligation to spend money on them, so imo "voting with your wallet" is just about the simplest and most reasonable thing to do if the product they're delivering isn't what you're looking for.

 

[Greedings]

So I should buy a game I don't want? What's the logical conclusion of your argument?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I vote with my steam reviews because people apparently think they matter.

 

[HotHamBoy]

So I should buy a game I don't want? What's the logical conclusion of your argument?

If you don't want it don't buy it.

Mainly I just think it's futile to not buy a game simply to make a statement.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Every dev not big enough to self-publish is getting screwed, so don't worry about it too much. We're making entertainment products and there's no need to pay for products that don't entertain you.

Voting with your wallet is a lot more civil than harassment lol

 

[Nightbird]

Since I often see the "vote with your wallet" line as means to shut down discussions or complaints about certain things, this just means that I have to complain more!

You're right. Purchasing alone will only hurt the developers. We have to be loud and clear as to why we did it on top of that

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

Voting with your wallet is the only power you have. Publishers don't want your approval, they want your money.

Taking that away is the only thing that will really get thier attention. The simple reality is that corporate culture has only a single goal: exponential growth. The goal is never to make great games and great profits, it's to constantly increase profits in whatever way is possible. This is why the scummiest, most desperate and underhanded money grabs invariably come from a handful of the most obscenely wealthy publishers.

The flip is this: if they want growth something has to give. They have take the next step to ensure growth and the most cost-effective means will always be tactics like micro-transactions, piecemeal DLC, consumables, cosmetics, pre-order incentives and exclusivity deals.

If you buy from a corporate you're buying into that profit-first culture and eventually you will hit up against practices like these.

 

[yaffi]

I buy a game if/when I want it, I get DLC if/when I want it. Though I usually go for the complete edition, or whatever it's called, down the line. I don't do microtransactions with real money involved.

It might sound harsh, but I don't owe anyone anything; not the publishers and not the developers of a game. They aren't my friends or people I know. I don't have to help or support them, other than spending money on a game I want, or not.

It's an entertainment industry. It's the same thing with movies, books and/or music.

If publishers draw the "wrong" conclusion from that, be it as it may.

 

[antennaehead]

"Vote with you wallet" is a flawed argument to begin with. Some despised practices (like microtransactions) often doesn't rely on majority of customers - so even if thousands of players decide to "vote" by not bying any lootboxes or whatever, a single "whale" could still make MT profitable to the company.
And even then, a simple action of "not buying" doesn't provide any meaningful message to the developers/publishers. Feedback (whether positive or negative) is much more important and powerful tool in the hands of customers.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I buy a game if/when I want it, I get DLC if/when I want it. Though I usually go for the complete edition, or whatever it's called, down the line. I don't do microtransactions with real money involved.

It might sound harsh, but I don't owe anyone anything; not the publishers and not the developers of a game. They aren't my friends or people I know. I don't have to help or support them, other than spending money on a game I want, or not.

It's an entertainment industry. It's the same thing with movies, books and/or music.

You're absolutely correct in your own feelings, I'm not taking that away from you.

This is a public forum so I have to address everyone at once even if I know this is really just a conversation for people sensitive to artists trying to make it in a difficult and cutthroat industry.

 

[Stygr]

Honestly i dont care, look at Shadow of War, Monolith is a talented developer, but they are under one of the worst publisher when it comes to SEASON PASS, MT and DLCs, i loved Shadow of Morodr, but this time i'm gonna pass, i'll wait for the complete edition at 10 bucks, yes i feel sorry for Mobolith, but my hate for WB practices is bigger.

 

[Striek]

Assuming voting with your wallet worked (aka enough people did it), of course it would impact the publisher directly.

Whether or not an individual studio feels the sting or not is quite irrelevant. If they're developing a game I don't like then why would I care if the publisher moves them onto different projects or dissolves the team (and presumably replaces them with another team). Video games are a hit driven business.

Same with IP. If an IP I cherish is suddenly raped and pillaged in the name of ever-greater profits, and it is no longer a product I want to support, then not finding a market might risk killing the IP but being successful would just result in further products I do not want.

Lots and lots of IP, publishers and developers have came and gone. If you don't put out products people want to buy you deserve to go out of business. Publishers and developers will work out what people want exactly through voting with your wallet (economics).

 

[CecilRousso]

It's really not my thing to worry about as a customer, if developer might or might not suffer because I vote with my wallet. My main concern in that role is to get the products I want, packade in a way that's I'm comfortable with. Here and now.

So I'm not going to buy Sonic Mania with Denuvo, that I'm very uncomfortable, because of the poor devs. If they want my money, they need to push against the publisher as much I need to. Especially when it's most likely they don't get anything extra from the sales if their game has a traditional publisher, and their future product might be something I don't want anyway, for a multitude of reasons.

The only relevant thing, that's in my control, is my judgement of their current product. Give me what I want now, or I'll give my money to someone else.

But they are of course well within their right to not give a f*ck about my money, cause they might get someone elses money instead.

 

[yaffi]

You're absolutely correct in your own feelings, I'm not taking that away from you.

This is a public forum so I have to address everyone at once even if I know this is really just a conversation for people sensitive to artists trying to make it in a difficult and cutthroat industry.

Yeah, I get it.

It's just hard for me to relate. At least when it's about the gaming industry.

I might've thought differently in the past.

 

[THEaaron]

The thing is that I as a customer am absolutely NOT responsible for the path between publisher and developer. If I don't like the practices of a publisher I won't buy the game because of the love to the developer behind it.

You are limited in how the signal is interpreted, but you are obliged to send it.

 

[nopenopenope]

.

 

[Axass]

Vote with your wallet doesn't work because "stupid" people far outnumber the wise ones, and "stupid" people are ready to put up with the shittiest practices to get the product they want, without any regard for the fact that it will kill the industry and be detrimental to the consumers in the long run.

It happened with DLC, season passes, physical figurines, micro-transactions, always online, pre-order bonuses, DRM, loot crates, ridiculous day one patches, intrusive ads, pay to win, games as services, paid online multiplayer, and it'll keep happening until gamers wisen up.

Publishers are anxious to see how far they can push their ridiculous practices because they seem to have struck gold in this particular industry, since none of the above would fly in movies, tv shows, anime, music, books or any other freakin' entertainment field.

 

[Eumi]

I don't know about everyone, but I don't buy games strategically in order to maximise the impact it'll have on the lives of the people who make them.

I buy a video game because it looks fun and I want to play it.

If a game comes out and I don't want to buy it I couldn't care less whose fault it is that I don't want to buy it.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

There's basically no scenario where refusing to buy a game in protest doesn't hurt the developer, but I don't see any way around that. Unless you have Nintendo, who is super protective of its development teams, but I don't think any other publisher does that.

 

[Greedings]

I don't know about everyone, but I don't buy games strategically in order to maximise the impact it'll have on the lives of the people who make them.

I buy a video game because it looks fun and I want to play it.

If a game comes out and I don't want to buy it I couldn't care less whose fault it is that I don't want to buy it.

This. I'm not playing some grand strategy game where I'm trying to change the system. I'm buying games I think look fun, then playing them.

I've even spent money on DLC and microtransactions before! I'm EVIL.

 

[DrunkShogun]

Buying a game even if it has bad practices or isn't a well made game is giving justification to publishers to continue doin what they are. The only thought I might put is if I know a good game has a small fanbase and will probably need support for it to be a hit.

 

[pa22word]

I vote with my steam reviews because people apparently think they matter.

This is defo true. A mixed or lower review average on steam will absolutely bomb it's sales more than even a metacritic score.

My thing is though they stopped counting nonsteam client purchases on the review averages, and lol I am not paying sticker price for a pc game in 2017 come on now. So I don't really ever get the chance to review one way or the other anymore.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Real talk: I don't care and neither should you.
I don't care why a game is bad and I don't have to. It doesn't have to matter to me why a game is broken or buggy, no matter how understandable it is. This is the same.
For example, I don't care at all about the microtransactions in Shadow of War. At all. They could remove them and it wouldn't change my opinion on the game at all. I think the game looks fun and if the reviews hold up I might buy it, maybe now, maybe later.
I won't pretend to be outraged by them and not buy a game I would otherwise maybe buy.
Other people obviously care enough about them so they won't buy it. Both are fair approaches.

How the publisher reacts is not my concern tho.

 

[Darkwater]

This has been really on my mind since Bethesda announced it wouldn't be supplying anyone with review copies before release anymore. I disagree with this. I want to vote against them with my wallet, but I want to vote for id Software, Arkane Studios and MachineGames, which are daughter companies of Bethesda.

Wat do?

 

[eizarus]

OP. Games are entertainment. If I know a product is bad and wont entertain me (relative to what I'm paying for it), then why should I purchase it? The only message that sends to pubs and devs is "hey, you know that shitty product you forced shitty practices like lootboxes into? Well here's £50 you bastards".

You've also gone ahead and criticised reviews that mark a game as bad... What the fuck is wrong with you?

All your attitude does is says to a Publisher "I like what you're doing, give me more". And believe me, money talks louder than words, so you can drop whatever idea you've got that buying and then complaining will help.

 

[shira]

The people at the top aren't gamers, they're lizard people. They'll blame everyone below them, they'll say shit like "gamers don't want to play as women."

FYI these companies are publicly traded.

They need to show growth and profit every year.

The next game has to sell more and profit more. With Gamestop and bestbuy trade in programs either you do microtransactions, online play, or dlc.

 

[Zafir]

Voting with your wallet doesn't really work on big games, because you can't control everyone.

I think making yourself heard works better, if you can get enough people to make a 'stink' of it, more people will notice/not buy and the publisher will realise why people aren't buying.

Real talk: I don't care and neither should you.
I don't care why a game is bad and I don't have to. It doesn't have to matter to me why a game is broken or buggy, no matter how understandable it is. This is the same.
For example, I don't care at all about the microtransactions in Shadow of War. At all. They could remove them and it wouldn't change my opinion on the game at all. I think the game looks fun and if the reviews hold up I might buy it, maybe now, maybe later.
I won't pretend to be outraged by them and not buy a game I would otherwise maybe buy.
Other people obviously care enough about them so they won't buy it. Both are fair approaches.

How the publisher reacts is not my concern tho.

I mean maybe for SoW. However in NBA2k it absolutely does affect the game. You use VC for everything, including player progression. Unless you want your character to be constantly fumbling passes, missing shots etc until you grind out the 200+ games required.

Edit:
Since people don't bother to read the full thread before doing an hot-take post, regarding of why I posted that image:

I'm fully aware how the Steam group member list works. It proves my point of you can't control everything. I'm not making any commentary past that, I don't play CoD (never have).

 

[mikelarry]

How i see it, it takes more work complaining and providing feed back. voting with my wallet is much easier and while the devs may suffer under thier current publisher there are options for them to go indie/kick starter etc and if i like thier work and practices i can support them

 

[pa22word]

Voting with your wallet doesn't really work on big games, because you can't control everyone. See -

I think making yourself heard works better, if you can get enough people to make a 'stink' of it, more people will notice/not buy and the publisher will realise why people aren't buying.

I mean maybe for SoW. However in NBA2k it absolutely does affect the game. You use VC for everything, including player progression. Unless you want your character to be constantly fumbling passes, missing shots etc until you grind out the 200+ games required.

As has been pointed out multiple times already: that mw2 boycott image has never been accurate. Steam by default lists the people in game at the moment at the top of the list, so all that image proves is that a score or two bought the game out of multiple pages of names.

It's also ignoring that COD is and has been dead on PC for years, and it's terminal decline started with mw2. The last game to have a decent following was black ops...which guess what had a server browser.

Activision more than reaped what they sowed for taking a dump on pc gamers with that release.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I mean maybe for SoW. However in NBA2k it absolutely does affect the game. You use VC for everything, including player progression. Unless you want your character to be constantly fumbling passes, missing shots etc until you grind out the 200+ games required.

And I won't buy NBA 2k

 

[BigEmil]

If they desperately want that game but don't want to support them buying it used or renting it is good

 

[OTIX]

Lately it seems that "voting with your social media" has been quite successful. So if you decide not to buy a game because of scummy practices make sure to let them, and everyone else, know about it.

 

[redcrayon]

Voting with your wallet doesn't really work on big games, because you can't control everyone. See -

I think making yourself heard works better, if you can get enough people to make a 'stink' of it, more people will notice/not buy and the publisher will realise why people aren't buying.

Voting with your wallet does work in the broader sense, across the entire customer base, because it's entirely democratic- if you don't like something but hundreds of others did, why should your opinion automatically carry more weight than any individual one of theirs? Why should your 'vote' automatically have a route to influence something if you are in the minority? Those other people voted with their wallet too, and it worked out fine for them, even if their actions didn't match up to their words. They clearly voted with their wallet to play the game regardless of any criticism of it more than not play it out of principal. The key point there is that actions are louder than words, and what you spend money on tells publishers more than what you complain about on an Internet forum.

Agree with making yourself heard, but in the broader sense that if the most common feedback given is 'didn't like x about it' then at least they know, as opposed to having to guess what people did/didn't like when deciding a direction for the franchise.

 

[Kanann]

Vote with shitposting on internet sometime work too.

 

[Visualante2]

Voting with your wallet
Buying the game 75%+ off ✘
Buying the game used ✘
Renting the game ✘
Not buying the game ✔

 

[Zafir]

As has been pointed out multiple times already: that mw2 boycott image has never been accurate. Steam by default lists the people in game at the moment at the top of the list, so all that image proves is that a score or two bought the game out of multiple pages of names.

It's also ignoring that COD is and has been dead on PC for years, and it's terminal decline started with mw2. The last game to have a decent following was black ops...which guess what had a server browser.

Activision more than reaped what they sowed for taking a dump on pc gamers with that release.

I'm fully aware how the Steam group member list works. It proves my point of you can't control everything. I'm not making any commentary past that, I don't play CoD (never have).

 

[watdaeff4]

Voting with your wallet
Buying the game 75%+ off ✘
Buying the game used ✘
Renting the game ✘
Not buying the game ✔

Wouldn't buying use and to a degree renting have the same effect?

The publisher won't see a dime if buying used.

 

[travisbickle]

Don't buy games that you have issues with, just don't expect the publisher to understand your individual complaints.

 

[Visualante2]

Wouldn't buying use and to a degree renting have the same effect?

The publisher won't see a dime if buying used.

Removing a used copy from the store encourages new sales.
For online games publishers still see that you are an active user which makes them feel like they are doing the right thing.
You might still end up buying DLC on a used game.

I don't have a problem with people buying used, and in some cases the publisher benefits in very small ways. But I don't consider it to be voting with your wallet.

 

[klaushm]

Look, I understand your point. I work in a place where the fault for projects getting errors, or not getting the conversion they wanted, on the devs. Most of it is due to management not listening to the devs. They sell a tight schedule, features they don't know if it is possible to make and design decisions that goes against UX practices. Every single time the answer is, respectively: "We will pay overtime"; "We need to make more profit"; "That way is better";

Seeing all that on my daily basis, I don't think the public been sad and expressing they want a change, will change their thinking. Believe, in my case we tried every negotiable single route. Even with the whole team saying we won't do such a thing, it didn't mattered. They fired the senior of our team and told us to do it. Other people have families to take care and bills to pay. At the end of the day, they need to do that thing until they go to something better. A safe route.

All that is to say: What other route of "protest" can you come up with that will affect the "upper ones" to change their way? Paying for their bad practices reinforce their ideas.

 

[ghostjoke]

There are more good games out there now more than ever. Money and time alone guarantee I won't get around to them all let alone wasting time looking through spreadsheets of how versions, micro-transactions, DLC, and how other general consumer milking practices could affect the game. It sucks for the developers who just want to make an enjoyable game, but there are tons of indie developers out there free from interference that are equally as deserving of support. it's not just refusing to support practices I dislike but shifting the money to ones I do. AAA is never going away (it's probably nowhere near it's final form of being awful), but indies came become larger powerhouses in the industry with support.

 

[Zafir]

Voting with your wallet does work in the broader sense, across the entire customer base, because it's entirely democratic- if you don't like something but hundreds of others did, why should your opinion automatically carry more weight than any individual one of theirs? Why should your 'vote' automatically have a route to influence something if you are in the minority? Those other people voted with their wallet too, and it worked out fine for them, even if their actions didn't match up to their words. They clearly voted with their wallet to play the game regardless of any criticism of it more than not play it out of principal. The key point there is that actions are louder than words, and what you spend money on tells publishers more than what you complain about on an Internet forum.

Agree with making yourself heard, but in the broader sense that if the most common feedback given is 'didn't like x about it' then at least they know, as opposed to having to guess what people did/didn't like when deciding a direction for the franchise.

Maybe to a certain degree, but I think there has to be other factors at play too.

Someone mentioned CoD on PC, which did admittedly die. However, that took them basically screwing up the PC version more and more each year. MW2, which the above image was for, actually sold very well on Steam. It wasn't really until AW that CoD is basically dead, and you can argue that it's also partially due to there just being a load of shooter choice on PC/Steam.

NBA has the unfortunate issue that, NBA Live isn't that great. So a lot of people are going to buy 2k despite the micro-transactions just because they want to play a good basketball game.

 

[Steroyd]

Voting with your wallet AND giving feedback why you're not buying their game is a much bigger statement than complaining and buying the game's day one deluxe edition and then giving a 1 star.

Plus as you said it's the pubs fault for driving the devs into a corner, do I feel bad that Maxis got shuttered yes, do I feel bad that they got shuttered because me and a lot of people didn't buy their online only SP scaled down compared to previous iterations of their games, fuck no!

 

[CecilRousso]

This has been really on my mind since Bethesda announced it wouldn't be supplying anyone with review copies before release anymore. I disagree with this. I want to vote against them with my wallet, but I want to vote for id Software, Arkane Studios and MachineGames, which are daughter companies of Bethesda.

Wat do?

Don't pre-order. Don't buy day 1. Wait until reviews are out.

 

[Steroyd]

Wouldn't buying use and to a degree renting have the same effect?

The publisher won't see a dime if buying used.

With the state of lootboxes, DLC and Season passes etc, it's very possible that they're circumventing used sales, hence why online passes and other such anti-used games practices have gone into the ether this gen.

 

[pa22word]

Don't pre-order. Don't buy day 1. Wait until reviews are out.

Don't preorder should he sop for every gamer. Preordering is only a fool's game that offers you essentially nothing in exchange for the possibility that the game is going to be shit.

Season passes are an even bigger joke. Interest free loan to pubs you're on the hook for if it ends up being crap.

 

[PrimeBeef]

Vote with your wallet doesn't work because "stupid" people far outnumber the wise ones, and "stupid" people are ready to put up with the shittiest practices to get the product they want, without any regard for the fact that it will kill the industry and be detrimental to the consumers in the long run.

It happened with DLC, season passes, physical figurines, micro-transactions, always online, pre-order bonuses, DRM, loot crates, ridiculous day one patches, intrusive ads, pay to win, games as services, paid online multiplayer, and it'll keep happening until gamers wisen up.

Publishers are anxious to see how far they can push their ridiculous practices because they seem to have struck gold in this particular industry, since none of the above would fly in movies, tv shows, anime, music, books or any other freakin' entertainment field.

Stupid is a bit harsh. Judt because other people have no problem with MTs and other additional revenue sources in games does not make them stupid. People are free to spend their money as they like. If buying bad season passes, or horse armor brings them jow and entertainment, then it is money well spent regardless if hiw you may feek about it. In the end it is all about choice and percieved value.

 

[watdaeff4]

With the state of lootboxes, DLC and Season passes etc, it's very possible that they're circumventing used sales, hence why online passes and other such anti-used games practices have gone into the ether this gen.

Removing a used copy from the store encourages new sales.
For online games publishers still see that you are an active user which makes them feel like they are doing the right thing.
You might still end up buying DLC on a used game.

I don't have a problem with people buying used, and in some cases the publisher benefits in very small ways. But I don't consider it to be voting with your wallet.

Good points