Support NeoGAF

[Darkstorne]

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

Luckily no, since most games that focus on microtransactions do so as an "option". Fallout 4's Creation Club is probably the most recent example of this, so voting with your wallet doesn't mean "don't buy the game at all", it means "go ahead and buy the game, but don't buy the over-priced low-quality mods that are sold as microtransactions."

OP makes a great point that if core game sales fail as a result of microtransactions, then publishers might blame the devs for not making a game that sold well. But if publishers can clearly see figures that say the game sold well, the microtransactions didn't... that paints a pretty clear picture.

Ultimately it comes down to consumers showing a little bit of restraint in what they choose to support financially. The Elder Scrolls Online is raking in cash from gambling loot crates these days, packing away the vast majority of mounts and costumes into them that you can GUARANTEE is a business practice that would stop if gamers simply smarted up a bit and voted with the wallets, refusing to gamble on items instead of buying them outright in a fair one-for-one sale (or better yet, earn them through in game mechanics). But instead there are enough gamers who say "I hate crates, but I want that shiny mount, so I may as well gamble for it anyway" that the publisher gets to continue screwing over its playerbase, laughing all the way to the bank. That practice could be stopped immediately, leading to a much more consumer friendly practice of providing new cosmetics to the game, if the community just stopped buying the crates. The game itself could still sell well, and continue to boast a large and engaged playerbase, and the devs would be blame-free. The game is clearly popular, the microtransactions are clearly not. But sadly that's not the story right now - both the game AND the microtransactions are popular, because too many gamers are dummies who will happily pay (and no exaggeration here) hundreds of dollars for a 1% drop chance on mounts like this:

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?

That one's easy. Wait for reviews and still buy in week one but just not day one. It's a minor annoyance waiting a few days longer, but the devs you love still get your sale and if enough people do that it could create change and lead to Bethesda going back to offering review copies if they feel that not offering review copies is actually hurting day one sales rather than helping. And we know solid reviews can boost day one sales from games like Dragon Age Inquisition and The Witcher 3. The hype generated from scores of positive reviews forces the game to the top of the video game websites in a highly positive light leading up to launch day. While no review copies means much less press attention for the game leading up to release, with big press attention only starting when the game is already on sale. Bethesda are just extremely good at running their own hype and marketing machine and seem to think they don't need the help of game websites and magazines. If there's one company to absolutely apply the "don't pre-order" rule to, it's Bethesda right now. Though you really should apply it to everyone unless you're buying a physical collector's edition.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

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.

Despite the boycott groups, COD still set a trend. These days everything is based on matchmaking, server browsers and player-hosted servers are dead. See CSGO which does have a server browser but only a few people use it and play matchmaking instead. Or Overwatch which did not have a game browser when it became big and still doesn't let you host your own servers - and everyone plays matchmaking anyway.

 

[LordRaptor]

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

[img.]http://dbzer0.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Boycott-Modern-Warfare-2.jpg[/img]

"Boycotts don't work look at this image hurr durr"

-> next release of COD on Pc has dedicated servers

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Luckily no, since most games that focus on microtransactions do so as an "option". Fallout 4's Creation Club is probably the most recent example of this, so voting with your wallet doesn't mean "don't buy the game at all", it means "go ahead and buy the game, but don't buy the over-priced low-quality mods that are sold as microtransactions."

OP makes a great point that if core game sales fail as a result of microtransactions, then publishers might blame the devs for not making a game that sold well. But if publishers can clearly see figures that say the game sold well, the microtransactions didn't... that paints a pretty clear picture.

Ultimately it comes down to consumers showing a little bit of restraint in what they choose to support financially. The Elder Scrolls Online is raking in cash from gambling loot crates these days, packing away the vast majority of mounts and costumes into them that you can GUARANTEE is a business practice that would stop if gamers simply smarted up a bit and voted with the wallets, refusing to gamble on items instead of buying them outright in a fair one-for-one sale (or better yet, earn them through in game mechanics). But instead there are enough gamers who say "I hate crates, but I want that shiny mount, so I may as well gamble for it anyway" that the publisher gets to continue screwing over its playerbase, laughing all the way to the bank. That practice could be stopped immediately, leading to a much more consumer friendly practice of providing new cosmetics to the game, if the community just stopped buying the crates. The game itself could still sell well, and continue to boast a large and engaged playerbase, and the devs would be blame-free. The game is clearly popular, the microtransactions are clearly not. But sadly that's not the story right now - both the game AND the microtransactions are popular, because too many gamers are dummies who will happily pay (and no exaggeration here) hundreds of dollars for a 1% drop chance on mounts like this:




That one's easy. Wait for reviews and still buy in week one but just not day one. It's a minor annoyance waiting a few days longer, but the devs you love still get your sale and if enough people do that it could create change and lead to Bethesda going back to offering review copies if they feel that not offering review copies is actually hurting day one sales rather than helping. And we know solid reviews can boost day one sales from games like Dragon Age Inquisition and The Witcher 3. The hype generated from scores of positive reviews forces the game to the top of the video game websites in a highly positive light leading up to launch day. While no review copies means much less press attention for the game leading up to release, with big press attention only starting when the game is already on sale. Bethesda are just extremely good at running their own hype and marketing machine and seem to think they don't need the help of game websites and magazines. If there's one company to absolutely apply the "don't pre-order" rule to, it's Bethesda right now. Though you really should apply it to everyone unless you're buying a physical collector's edition.

With ESO in particular, you have the additional fact that subscribers get 1500 crowns a month to spend, and there's little reason not to use those on crates.

 

[gelf]

I'm not under any illusions that my wallet voting works much but I try to stick to my principles anyway. I feel there are enough good games out there past and present that I'm yet to play, if I vote with my wallet on a few titles I'd otherwise enjoy if they weren't doing something I consider shady then so be it, it just helps me narrow down what to play next.

It only becomes a quandary if its some under served genre I'm dying to play and support. It was easy to skip Samus Returns over the Amiibo DLC crap since there are so many other 2D metroidvanias out there now as an alternative(e.g. Hollow Knight might be my game of the year so far). Now on the other hand if someone put out a new fixed camera survival horror game the likes of which largely hasn't been seen since Resident Evil Zero 15 years ago and then fills it with micro transaction bullshit then I admit I'd be conflicted.

 

[Zafir]

"Boycotts don't work look at this image hurr durr"

-> next release of COD on Pc has dedicated servers

I love how you say that and you didn't even read my next post.

Great reading comprehension you have.

Spoiler

That wasn't even what I was getting at with that image.

 

[Darkstorne]

With ESO in particular, you have the additional fact that subscribers get 1500 crowns a month to spend, and there's little reason not to use those on crates.

Yep, but with the right perspective that's even MORE reason not to buy crates. If no-one bought them, these cosmetics would be sold directly on the store instead, so subscribers could spend those 1500 crowns on the exact mounts and costumes they want instead of throwing it away on a crate and hoping they get lucky.

 

[BriareosGAF]

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

Clearly, UBI for game developers.

 

[LordRaptor]

I love how you say that and you didn't even read my next post.

Great reading comprehension you have.

COD underperformed, and changes were made to the next release to try and win back the audience it lost.

I don't know why posting that (frequently debunked) image makes you think boycotts don't work or are somehow less effective than complaining about something but buying the product anyway

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Yep, but with the right perspective that's even MORE reason not to buy crates. If no-one bought them, these cosmetics would be sold directly on the store instead, so subscribers could spend those 1500 crowns on the exact mounts and costumes they want instead of throwing it away on a crate and hoping they get lucky.

Yeah, but it's the same problem: for that to work, you have to convince the majority to do it.

Otherwise, you're just sitting on a bunch of credits that could get you the thing you want while the system remains the same because most people don't give a fuck.

 

[Darkstorne]

Yeah, but it's the same problem: for that to work, you have to convince the majority to do it.

Otherwise, you're just sitting on a bunch of credits that could get you the thing you want while the system remains the same because most people don't give a fuck.

I don't mind if it's a slow progression. I know not everyone is going to agree to ignore a shitty system overnight and spend their cash wisely. But anyone who shrugs their shoulders like that and basically says "It's not like my participation is going to make a difference either way"... I put those people in the same camp as folks who can't be bothered to be vote. Mostly it's a moral decision for me to spend wisely.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I understand the limitations of "buying with your wallet" when there's two parties affected by that move (and even then, arguably publishers get affected the most, as they're the ones that benefit most directly from sales), but really, what's the alternative? If there is no alternative and it is the best tool we currently have, does it really matter that it's not perfect?

Publishers are in it for the money. If DLC and microtransactions bring in (or are believed to bring in) more money than is lost due to people disgusted at these practices, they will keep pushing them. IMHO the best strategy is writing to the publisher and letting them know why you're not buying their game, but again you need to not buy their game for it to have any effect.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Luckily no, since most games that focus on microtransactions do so as an "option". Fallout 4's Creation Club is probably the most recent example of this, so voting with your wallet doesn't mean "don't buy the game at all", it means "go ahead and buy the game, but don't buy the over-priced low-quality mods that are sold as microtransactions."

OP makes a great point that if core game sales fail as a result of microtransactions, then publishers might blame the devs for not making a game that sold well. But if publishers can clearly see figures that say the game sold well, the microtransactions didn't... that paints a pretty clear picture.

Ultimately it comes down to consumers showing a little bit of restraint in what they choose to support financially. The Elder Scrolls Online is raking in cash from gambling loot crates these days, packing away the vast majority of mounts and costumes into them that you can GUARANTEE is a business practice that would stop if gamers simply smarted up a bit and voted with the wallets, refusing to gamble on items instead of buying them outright in a fair one-for-one sale (or better yet, earn them through in game mechanics). But instead there are enough gamers who say "I hate crates, but I want that shiny mount, so I may as well gamble for it anyway" that the publisher gets to continue screwing over its playerbase, laughing all the way to the bank. That practice could be stopped immediately, leading to a much more consumer friendly practice of providing new cosmetics to the game, if the community just stopped buying the crates. The game itself could still sell well, and continue to boast a large and engaged playerbase, and the devs would be blame-free. The game is clearly popular, the microtransactions are clearly not. But sadly that's not the story right now - both the game AND the microtransactions are popular, because too many gamers are dummies who will happily pay (and no exaggeration here) hundreds of dollars for a 1% drop chance on mounts like this:

The problem with the loot crate conundrum is human psychology. The gambling comparison is apt, because that's esentially what it is. Without state regulation, you aren't going to curtail that, imo. The only real room for making a dent in the practice other than regulation that I see is parents being smarter and more educated on this stuff. Probably too many kids out there getting hooked when mommy or daddy is funding digital purchases sight unseen.

Edit: or it's implemented in such a way that it destroys the core experience of the game.

 

[Skronk]

As someone who works for a big company, the only way they'll possibly listen to you is if you complain directly and state your reasons. Voting with your wallet while not actually voicing your concerns doesn't really send any message.

 

[UncleSporky]

Honestly you could look at any failed game as voting with wallets. Plenty of games have performed badly and the whole industry looks at them as examples of what not to do.

Look at how Wildstar underperformed, the MMO that attempted to bring back the massive 40 man raid and 40v40 PVP. They boasted about bringing back the difficulty of early WoW and it turns out people don't really want that anymore.

Or look at...I dunno, any game. Lawbreakers. Cautionary tale of launching into an already saturated market. The plastic instrument/peripheral genre, where people essentially said "no we are done spending a premium for this junk that just piles up in closets." The toys-to-life genre that has consumers saying enough is enough.

They may not be examples of a mass online call for people to vote with their wallets, but the fact is people did vote, and it worked.

 

[Zafir]

COD underperformed, and changes were made to the next release to try and win back the audience it lost.

I don't know why posting that (frequently debunked) image makes you think boycotts don't work or are somehow less effective than complaining about something but buying the product anyway

You still haven't read a single thing.

My comment after was that it proves you can't control everyone. I said nothing about whether it worked or not. I actually said in a later post that CoD died (on PC) way later than MW2 probably for other reasons(unrelated, really).

I don't know why you're beating an horse that doesn't even exist lmao.

 

[LordRaptor]

You still haven't read a single thing.

My comment after was that it proves you can't control everyone. I said nothing about whether it worked or not. I actually said in a later post that CoD died (on PC) way later than MW2 probably for other reasons(unrelated, really).

I don't know why you're beating an horse that doesn't even exist lmao.

Okay, so why post that image?
"You can't control everyone so don't even try" is meaningless apathy.

You CAN control your own spending habits, and boycotts are literally the only power you as a consumer have to inform a producer of dissatisfaction in the product.
Why say they "don't work" or "don't even bother"? They do work, and people who do bother exert vastly more influence than people who just buy regardless then whine about it.

 

[Zafir]

Okay, so why post that image?
"You can't control everyone so don't even try" is meaningless apathy.

You CAN control your own spending habits, and boycotts are literally the only power you as a consumer have to inform a producer of dissatisfaction in the product.
Why say they "don't work" or "don't even bother"? They do work, and people who do bother exert vastly more influence than people who just buy regardless then whine about it.

I'll remove it if you want me to, lmao. Frankly I regret posting it if all it does is cause people to do angry hot-take posts.

You can control your own spending habits sure, but you can't control the general populance, who may not even hear about these issues (or even care).

I don't agree at all it exerts vastly more infleunce. You have to make your voice heard of why you didn't buy it, other wise the loss of sale could mean anything. I think making your voice is more important because it makes more people aware of the issues, and thus maybe influence other people to think, "oh yeah probably shouldn't buy it". Especially if hits one of the bigger sites, then maybe those of the general populance who aren't as hardcore will hear about it. That's far more effective than just "voting with your wallet" and no one else hearing about the issues. Naturally you shouldn't buy what you dislike about it too.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Zafir]

lol

...see what exactly?

Wow, it took seconds before another hot take post that didn't read. I even put what I meant in the post too.

Fuck it I'll just remove it, lol.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Zafir]

I read all your posts. Point still stands.

I don't see how, my later posts after discuss nothing about that image.

My point isn't even based on it.

 

[IvorB]

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.

I see this sentiment all the time and have to wonder what are you basing this on? Do you know the devs personally? Sounds like people are looking for a convenient boogeyman so they can continue to believe their favourite devs cry angel dust and sh*t rainbows. What makes you think the dev doesn't profit from aggressive microtransations etc?

Their name is on the box. They made the thing and it's on them. The onus is not on the consumer to disentangle their corporate relationship to understand who did what.

 

[jdmonmou]

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

Exactly. OP talks about concerns that shouldn’t be placed on the consumer. It’s not my problem to worry about the welfare of developers and IPs that have been ruined by the avarice of publishers.

 

[LordRaptor]

You can control your own spending habits sure, but you can't control the general populance, who may not even hear about these issues (or even care).

I don't agree at all it exerts vastly more infleunce. You have to make your voice heard of why you didn't buy it, other wise the loss of sale could mean anything.

And in that scenario, there was a steam group specifically calling for boycott, of which a significant number of members did in fact have the courage of their convictions.

No, you as an individual can't control the general population, but if you do care about an issue it is on you to do something about it, and the only meaningful action you can take is to not buy that product.
The suggestion that 'you're only one person you don't matter' is actively harmful, because it means people who do care about things treat their spending power like carbon offsetting or some shit and go "Well, I hate that thing, but lots of other people do too, so I went ahead and blind bought day one premium edition with season pass, but I also called them fuckheads on twitter, so I did my part!"

e: this also applies to the people who pirate games to "make a stand" too. They aren't saying shit to a producer except 'people will pirate games'

 

[texhnolyze]

Yeah, it's like the devs are being held in the jails in publisher's headquarters.

If you don't buy their games, the publishers might 'kill' the devs. But if you buy them, their products will only get worse.

There's nothing that can be done, really.

 

[Junahu]

Don't vote with your wallet just to spite yourself. Buy what you like. Literally nobody but yourself gives a damn if you buy a game or not.


But if you're not happy with an aspect of the game, then you need to communicate. We're long past the point where a single angry consumer is just shouting into the wind. If people agree with a sentiment, then they will spread that idea like a wildfire. And that kind of momentum will have a real impact, because it's something that publisher's are deathly afraid of.


Edit: to be clear, by "communicate", I mean spread the idea through social media. Sending an angry email to the publisher is basically just yelling into a styrofoam cup.

 

[N7.Angel]

Voting with your wallet will never be really effective because of the core fans that are absolutely ridiculous when it comes to support their brand/favorite publisher or games, we can see it every day in this forum.

 

[LowRoller]

The budget of games keeps rising and they're still 60. Thats why there are micro transactions

 

[m_dorian]

Every day i strive to live in accordance to my principles so voting with my wallet on scummy videogame practice cases is often the only thing i can do.

I have gone past the "instant gratification" phase in my life and have long stopped inventing excuses for my self to buy a product that might have a cancerous effect on my wallet but must have this because "ooooh! it's shiny".

I do not know if this helps making this industry a better place with better games that do not beg for your dime every other minute but i am sure it does not harm it like those practices do in the long run.

I can meet the publishers and developers half way in some cases where MT's are light and involve cosmetics only but that is as far as i can go. Because i believe that any game that includes MTs or worse is not a game primarilly designed to create enjoyment to the player but one that wants to loot his/her coffers in any possible way.

 

[typist]

The problem is that people have more money than sense

 

[Majin Boo]

I honestly believe that "voting with your wallet" can theoretically work today and is thus highly important. Since we have social media and steam to voice our own opinions, and maybe even more important people like Jim Sterling and AngryJoe who discuss issues like Microtransactions in videos watched by more than 500K people including the individuals responsible for the respective game, even publishers should be able to put two and two together.
It sends a pretty clear message if games like Shadow of War or NBA 2K18 are publicly discussed because of shitty practices and then sell poorly. All we have to do as customers is to not buy the respective games and if enough people "participate" things will improve eventually.

 

[Arkeband]

'Vote with your wallet' is largely useless in response to bad business practices (lootbox casinos aimed at children, on-disc DLC, games released unfinished, etc).

Because gamers are, largely, morons who will buy literally anything. It's sad but true.

Find any game that is doing something shitty right in its announcement trailer and there will always be people yelling "DAY ONE!!!" in comments, and those companies know there will be more of those people than folks who are actually shrewd with their money and following their race to the bottom.

Ultimately we're all dragged down by greed and stupidity.

 

[justjustin]

As someone who works for a big company, the only way they'll possibly listen to you is if you complain directly and state your reasons. Voting with your wallet while not actually voicing your concerns doesn't really send any message.

This makes most sense to me, too. Why would a videogame publisher automatically assume lost sales due to unfair practices? To them it's not unfair at all. Reach out to the publisher and say "I'm not buying because..." That's real evidence of dissatisfaction. With enough people, it shows a clear message and creates change.

 

[whatever6352]

I don't mind microtransactions in games as long as its only for cosmetic items. On the other hand my brother who is a big Metroid fan didn't buy the latest Metroid game because of the amibo factor.

 

[Sami+]

Excuses will always be made, and arrogance may even lead to blame being shifted, but big publishers generally will always know why people aren't buying their game if there's a large enough controversy surrounding it. Take the Amiibo thing for instance - it's all too common that when someone on here expresses distaste for their use in a game and states it as the reason for avoiding the purchase of the game altogether, a very common response is "Nintendo will just think you don't want 2D Metroid".

Do you really think a multi-billion dollar international entertainment company doesn't have social media and market analysts working for them? There are people whose job it is to know why people are or aren't buying the game, because that's good for business. Look at Assassin's Creed - franchise fatigue was setting in, Unity was broken at launch, and sales went down. Ubisoft didn't come out with a press release saying Assassin's Creed was dead and people didn't want games about guys in cloaks anymore, they simply altered the scope of their next project to get it running better and ran with the narrative of "we were so ambitious with Unity and the tech wasn't quite there" (which isn't even false anyway), and after seeing that the sales of the following game continued the decline, they took a year break and are now marketing Origins as a more polished franchise revival.

I'm not saying the publishers are always on point, but they're smarter than people give them credit for and arguing for giving them the benefit of the doubt is disingenuous. If people are protesting voting, they'll know why because it would be beyond idiotic as a business practice to not be keeping an eye on your own core audience. Square Enix, stupid as they may seem sometimes, is absolutely aware that the "augment your pre-order" and microtransaction bullshit crippled the market potential of their own game and they're not likely to do it like that again for a long time, even though they probably won't say that publicly.

 

[Darkwater]

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

That one's easy. Wait for reviews and still buy in week one but just not day one. It's a minor annoyance waiting a few days longer, but the devs you love still get your sale and if enough people do that it could create change and lead to Bethesda going back to offering review copies if they feel that not offering review copies is actually hurting day one sales rather than helping. And we know solid reviews can boost day one sales from games like Dragon Age Inquisition and The Witcher 3. The hype generated from scores of positive reviews forces the game to the top of the video game websites in a highly positive light leading up to launch day. While no review copies means much less press attention for the game leading up to release, with big press attention only starting when the game is already on sale. Bethesda are just extremely good at running their own hype and marketing machine and seem to think they don't need the help of game websites and magazines. If there's one company to absolutely apply the "don't pre-order" rule to, it's Bethesda right now. Though you really should apply it to everyone unless you're buying a physical collector's edition.

This is definitely something I already do, regardless of which dev/pub I'm dealing with. Never pre-order and wait for sufficient quality and quantity of reviews before buying.

I'm just bummed out that giving id money for the excellent DOOM means giving Beth money as well, but I suppose there's hardly anything you can really do about that other than not pre-ordering based on Beth marketing and nothing else.

 

[Bloodporne]

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.

Was about to type the same thing basically, so will just quote this instead.

I absolutely don't care in regards to the whys, hows and so on. The game looks cool and I want it, I buy it. It doesn't, I don't. Now, in the case of extra-sleaze like Street Fighter V's lack of single player etc., I refuse to buy it even when said option may be added because yeah, that's a rare case where it crosses a line for me and I have to pull the "vote with wallet" card.

 

[killatopak]

I vote with my heart.

I don't care whatever issue or whatever nonsense is on a game.

If I like a game, I buy it. If I don't like it, I don't buy it.

 

[SprachBrooks]

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.

I don’t think the developers honestly are all that innocent either. My view is this: think about yourself, don’t buy into the guilt trip that the developers have no choice, because neither do you and you’re an individual with bills and shit.

 

[TripleBee]

Honestly sending an email to the publisher's highers up calmly stating your issues with their product on mass would have more impact then not buying a product and hoping they figure out why.

The one exception of course is when 2 similar products release at the same time (like 2 nba games) - then by buying one and not the other you are actually voting.

It's like politics - you have to be vocal. If your only form of revolt is not voting, your kinda just playing yourself.

 

[Bloodporne]

Honestly sending an email to the publisher's highers up calmly stating your issues with their product on mass would have more impact then not buying a product and hoping they figure out why.

The one exception of course is when 2 similar products release at the same time (like 2 nba games) - then by buying one and not the other you are actually voting.

It's like politics - you have to be vocal. If your only form of revolt is not voting, your kinda just playing yourself.

I can only speak for myself, but the very few times I've decided not to buy a game based on some sleazy moves, it wasn't particularly to send a message that would make them understand so much as that as a consumer I can't justify knowingly being played for an idiot. It's a personal thing for me. You're fucking me and think I'm too stupid to notice, nah thanks keep that stupid game.

 

[TripleBee]

I can only speak for myself, but the very few times I've decided not to buy a game based on some sleazy moves, it wasn't particularly to send a message that would make them understand so much as that as a consumer I can't justify knowingly being played for an idiot. It's a personal thing for me. You're fucking me and think I'm too stupid to notice, nah thanks keep that stupid game.

Which is completely fine. Nobody needs to explain their purchasing decision to a company - it's up to the individual. I only mean if you actually want the company to take away a message from your lack of purchase.

 

[Regginator]

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

Why? Sure, one less sale isn't going to hurt publishers, but if (and that's a huge if) a lot of people do it to make a statement, it could very well work. Again, huge if, but I don't think it's futile.

 

[NoKisum]

The problem I have is that, if there's an issue with a game that I have, I want to be able to directly tell whoever is in charge, "Hey, I didn't like that you guys did X to this game." And almost all companies these days don't have direct channels of communication for that. All you can do is scream into the vast vacuum of the internet, and hope that there's at least a million other people that share the same sentiment.

 

[ShdwDrake]

So should I feel bad for the developer? Because to be honest I don't. If devs dont agree there are many ways they could ban together against it. Hell go on strike. I'm not selfish and I can deal with playing old games till the Industry stops shitting on people. Until then I don't like your pub or the dev (either or) I no buy your game.

 

[Necron]

I don't think it's futile to not purchase. It's the ONLY message they truly understand anymore.

Making noise about these issues only extends so far; in combination with refusing to purchase is a pretty clear signal, however.

It's unfortunately the only conclusion, in my opinion. If certain developers suffer for it but these awful practices vanish in the process, then so be it. On the larger scale, if such things persist they affect more and more titles - perhaps an IP you hold dear. Jim Sterling had it right, what's happening to many a game at the moment is just insulting. 2017 really feels like a sort of tipping point where there's just no subtlety about it anymore. Consumers always have a responsibility in their buying behaviour and not just the one offering it, however. There seems to be a lot of people unaware that by supporting such bullshit, they're playing into the hands of the publisher and their concepts which logically enough, extend more and more towards their own benefit. In come lootboxes - a virtual card pack or unofficial gambling system, depending on who you ask. That this is becoming commonplace is extremely frustrating to see.

My hope is that more follow the Ninja Theory route with Hellblade: Setsuna's Sacrifice serving as an example on how to do things differently.