The Morality and Economics of a Video Game Boycott

[FMW]

This has come up in chat twice now, and chat is not an ideal place for such a discussion.

 

Video games are luxury products. Video game distributors are, by and large, corporations. Corporations exist only to earn dividends for their investors.

 

Not all video games are made available to all audiences. Many games are only released in select regions of the world, or are only released in a few languages. Some games are released with a requirement that the player be connected to the internet during 100% of playtime (impossible in many places).

 

Video game distributors are under no obligation to provide their goods or services to anyone. Corporations that distribute luxury goods are free from all government distribution regulations excepting that they can't discriminate based on race, sex, etc.

 

Ok. That's just the background. Legally, video game distributors are in the clear.

 

When a video game requires constant internet connection, it shrinks the audience that can enjoy it. There are different reasons for adding an always online requirement to a game. For some (Diablo III) it's to prevent cheating. For some (Assassin's Creed II) it's to prevent illegal acquisition and use of the software. We gamers may complain about these requirements, but we must keep in mind that it is completely legal for the corporations to add them. The corporations have made cost/benefit calculations and have decided that it is worth it for them to require connection.

 

So now we get to the meat of the issue. How do we feel about boycotting a game because it requires always on internet? My thesis is that it's a silly notion.

 

In economic terms, companies are already punished for the always on internet connection requirement. People who cannot be constantly jacked in do not purchase these games. This is the market speaking against the limitations imposed. These lost sales are lost revenue for the companies. This is fair and equitable representation for those who cannot play these games.

 

Now we get to the morals, which are much much stickier. If we accept the base assumption that a person is morally obligated to make life more pleasant for other people (and I know this is a big fish to swallow, just roll with it) then is he not morally obligated to boycott these games? After all, by not buying one of these games he is increasing the opportunity cost to the distributor for the internet requirement. This has a chance of making the cost of adding the internet requirement greater than the reward. If the cost becomes too great, the company will cease to add the requirement.

 

I have the following problems with this moral outlook:

 

1. Inefficiency. It is possible to do much greater good for other people by withholding $50 from other expenditures. Money spent on anything from Exxon-Mobile is an excellent example. Within the luxury goods space, not buying any single electronic device made using minerals (usually Columbite-tantalite) mined in Africa under inhuman conditions is working towards a far greater good than helping some people get their Dragon Quest on.

 

But that's the perfect solution fallacy, no? "The Better is the enemy of The Good", as Voltaire put it. And he's right. Just as well this isn't my only point of rebuttal...

 

2. Element of chance. When Ubisoft looks at the sales of a game, they look at many variables. When was it released, what was it released for? How did critics like it? What else released at around the same time, and how did it do? How was the overall economic climate at the time of release? There is no guarantee that a video game distributor will interpret lower than anticipated sales as a function of this single decision. Unless the boycotter is willing to communicate with the company directly (send a letter) then odds are the lost sales will be attributed to another factor. If the company percieves lost sales at all, which is another big big if. After all, Assassin's Creed II did just fine for the publisher. Anyone who boycotted the game denied themselves for nothing, as Ubisoft sold more than anticipated anyway. (Disclaimer, I got that from the Ubisoft financial reports from that year. The report didn't differentiate between console and PC sales. Maybe PC sales bombed. Somehow I doubt it.)

 

3. Small target audience. The societies that are stable enough to support any significant demand for video games are also generally societies that have managed to offer internet access to their citizens in one form or another. The overlap between those who cannot get access to the internet and those who have enough disposable income and the inclination to buy video game software and hardware is slight.

 

Conclusion: If you accept the basic moral premise that making life better for other people is good, then boycotting video games that require always on internet connections has a slight chance of doing a very small amount of good for a small number of people. So I think it's silly.

 

Edit: I just reviewed this and recognized a value judgement I didn't address. I accept without question the premise that the harm caused in the mines of Rwanda where prisoners of war are worked to death as slaves is greater than the harm caused by Blizzard making the new Diablo available to some people. If you disagree with that then my first point of argument is bunk. Sorry.

[RockyRan]

I think they're silly too

 

tl;dr version custom-made just for Faiblesse:

I personally think internet boycotts are silly due to one simple factor: they're rarely, if ever, serious about it. The vast majority of the time boycott groups are founded and populated by people driven by knee-jerk reactionary impulses or people who simply hold a grudge over a product/company and never would've bought the game in the first place. The vast majority of the time people care about a game enough to "boycott" it, but we all know that as the release date approaches their desire for the game simply outweighs their consumer-rights crusade. Plus, considering how most people join "boycotts" in an act of swift rage, much like temper tantrums these go away as fast as they came. By the time the game releases they've most likely already coped with whatever it was that made them angry in the first place.

 

The people who hold a grudge and thus "boycott" are a group that makes even less of an impact than the group of concerned gamers, because they're not in the market for that game at all. Economically, they're completely inconsequential to a business because a person who never has and never will buy their products simply doesn't "exist" in the eyes of the business. To a business there's no difference between a subway-dwelling hobo and a contemptuous gamer loudly proclaiming he/she will never buy their game under any circumstance. All a business sees is two people who aren't in the market for their game, regardless of whether one isn't buying their game on principle or simply because he smells like urine and has two and a half cents to his name.

 

Most of the time these haughty gamers simply want to bring drama to what is otherwise a simple case of consumer preference. See, I don't have a Ferrari because I can't afford one, and even if I could afford one I'd much rather use the money on many other things in addition to the fact that I'd probably take horrible care of it (couldn't afford any maintenance on it, that's for sure). Just more of a hassle than it's worth for me. But instead of simply saying "I'd prefer to not have one", if I could say, for instance "I'm boycotting Ferrari's because they're the embodiment of today's rotten, materialistic outlook in life!!!", then all of a sudden my simple act of preference has turned into this dignified crusade. That's exactly what it looks like to me when some people are a little too eager to express their disdain to certain companies that haven't even done anything terribly bad. It's just their attempt at turning a simple consumer choice into a "protest", and it's completely silly.

 

At any rate, I'm still an advocate for consumers exercising their opinions and voting with their wallet. I always have, and I always will. I choose not to support any Ubisoft titles any more because they treat the PC consumer like a second-class denizen at best and a filthy pirate in hiding at worst. Their attitude is simply hostile. However, what I'm doing is simply exercising my viewpoint. I'm not calling it a "boycott", even a personal one, because I view a "boycott" as a massive, organized protest that makes its objective clear and communicates it with the entity they're protesting against. Simply saying "I choose not to support this publisher" isn't a boycott, that's just consumer preference.

 

I don't think avoiding publishers because they have draconian DRM or similar things is "silly" at all. That's just an exercise in consumer rights as they simply disagree with it. I don't think it being a luxury item negates it from any form of criticism or consumer preference against it. But at the same time I really don't think any of the above constitutes a "boycott", because a "boycott" is far more organized and coherent than that. Simply saying "I'm boycotting such-and-such" is, in my opinion, a cheap way of trying to romanticize and glorify the act of not buying something. I don't think anybody is really in any position to say that they're partaking in a "protest" simply by consumer inaction. That's what I find incredibly silly. I could just as well say that anything I don't buy at the grocery store I'm "boycotting", and come up with excuses as to why. Of course it sounds so dignified and ambitious, but it's just...silly.

Edited September 6, 2011 by RockyRan

[SixTwoSixFour]

Conclusion: If you accept the basic moral premise that making life better for other people is good, then boycotting video games that require always on internet connections has a slight chance of doing a very small amount of good for a small number of people. So I think it's silly.

 

It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness. Silly it may be, but it's better than doing nothing. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Self-flattery- I'm hardly a good man, and Ubisoft or whatever company as "evil" is excessive, but you get the idea.

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

2. Element of chance. When Ubisoft looks at the sales of a game, they look at many variables. When was it released, what was it released for? How did critics like it? What else released at around the same time, and how did it do? How was the overall economic climate at the time of release? There is no guarantee that a video game distributor will interpret lower than anticipated sales as a function of this single decision. Unless the boycotter is willing to communicate with the company directly (send a letter) then odds are the lost sales will be attributed to another factor. If the company percieves lost sales at all, which is another big big if. After all, Assassin's Creed II did just fine for the publisher. Anyone who boycotted the game denied themselves for nothing, as Ubisoft sold more than anticipated anyway. (Disclaimer, I got that from the Ubisoft financial reports from that year. The report didn't differentiate between console and PC sales. Maybe PC sales bombed. Somehow I doubt it.)

 

Now you're just saying "It might not work, so why try?". Well, I would try to boycott because even if it doesn't end up working, I'm speaking with my wallet, and that's the easiest way to get my point across to them. If they get lower sales, they'll say "I wonder what we did wrong. Maybe the enormous backlash we encountered when implementing draconian DRM has something to do with this?" I plan to write an e-mail to Blizzard, regardless, though, explaining that I chose not to buy their game specifically because of their ridiculous DRM.

 

3. Small target audience. The societies that are stable enough to support any significant demand for video games are also generally societies that have managed to offer internet access to their citizens in one form or another. The overlap between those who cannot get access to the internet and those who have enough disposable income and the inclination to buy video game software and hardware is slight.

 

Now this, in at least one case, is factually incorrect. Since the area I have the most experience in is India, I'll use it as an example. Many people in India, particularly in large cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad, are involved in technical professions, and are all-around tech enthusiasts. I know this for a fact. Now, many cities in India, such as Bangalore and Hyderabad, have poor infrastructure. I also know this for a fact. Many people in India, the second fastest growing economy on Earth, have access to the Internet, yet poor infrastructure means something as simple and common as a rainstorm can cause blackouts, and cause the Internet to cut out. This is one particular situation which many of my friends and family are in. I know there's quite a large overlap between those who cannot have constant access to the internet and those who have enough disposable income and the inclination to buy video game software and hardware. Certainly more than slight. This argument is moot on grounds of factual inaccuracy.

 

Conclusion: If you accept the basic moral premise that making life better for other people is good, then boycotting video games that require always on internet connections has a slight chance of doing a very small amount of good for a small number of people. So I think it's silly.

 

1. Depends on your definition of 'small'. When you include people outside of third world countries who want to play Diablo 3 on a plane or in a hotel, that number, by most peoples' definition, is not 'small'.

2. Even if all it means is that people are slightly more convenienced, I still support these boycotts. It's one of the easiest, most effective ways we, as consumers, can show large companies that they are fucking prospective legal customers of their product over. This DRM policy is anything but okay, and while the entire 'boycott' many choose to engage in could be ultimately moot, I see it as a noble cause, and none of the arguments made against this point of view in your post seem to hold any water.

 

tl;dr: Even though it's not as active a 'boycott' as many other boycotts, it's a quick, easy way to show companies we don't like it when they fuck over a bunch of people that should be able to play their game, and gives a voice to those who may not number large enough to speak with their wallets alone.

[MasterDex]

I'm going to feel inadequate if I can't match the lengthy well thought-out posts already here but I'll chime in anyway.

 

Boycotts, I believe, are an effective method, even for luxury goods, of making a point as a consumer. Sure, the word comes too easily within gaming circles these days but nevertheless, boycotts are not something to be cast aside as silly and pointless. Keeping with gaming, let's take a look at the biggest boycott of recent times - The Modern Warfare 2 Boycott. While there were various reasons for this, the one that stood strongest was the desire for dedicated servers. What use was the boycott? Many will say it was utterly useless; a waste of time. However, the boycott garnered media attention and through the media, Activision's attention. But what about that picture of a single page of the Steam Boycott group? That means little. As has been said here already, there's always going to be people that give in to their desires. The boycott (which spanned further than a single steam group) still had a strong base that were true to their word (myself included). The end result was that while nothing was changed for Modern Warfare 2, all subsequent Activision titles include dedicated servers. We can surmise that this was a decision that was influenced in some way by the furore created by the boycotters. Thought the decision wasn't likely based solely on that, if Activision was ignoring the portion of their market that wanted dedicated servers, they'd have more of a reason to exclude dedicated servers from subsequent games. All in all, I think the Modern Warfare 2 boycott accomplished its goal, at least in spirit.

 

Boycotts (voting with our wallets) and consumer complaints are really the only powers as consumers we have, no matter the product. To dismiss them as silly or pointless, unless people's lives are at risk is just giving in to corporate power, accepting that you're no more than a cog in the machine, unable to change the way the machine works. It may not be the height of morality, it may in many cases be futile rebellion but boycotting products and complaining about issues you have with a product isn't something to be devalued.

 

We could assume that the very act of devaluing boycotts and consumer complaints is one of the reasons that such things are as ineffective as they frequently are. If more consumers believed in the power of boycotts, voting with their wallets and complaining about their products, those things would be more effective.

 

Whatever the case, I'm firmly of the opinion that boycotts et al are something useful and a worthy tool for shaping products and industries if wielded correctly.

Edited September 6, 2011 by MasterDex

[Thursday Next]

Generally speaking, consumers lack the will to actually boycott something.They are weak minded sheep who eventually crack and buy whatever it was they were boycotting the very same day it releases for fear of being the only one who hasn't got whatever it was that they were supposed to boycott.

 

The threat of a boycott is far more effective. It shows a unified dislike of a feature that can be heard above the din of the usual forum grumbles. As with any form of marketing, the timing is critical. Too early and the ire will expire before the publisher has to worry about it. Too late and there will not be enough time to make the changes before release.

 

I'd be surprised if a company like Activision took anything less than a million strong hand written petition to boycott seriously these days, especially after the woeful performance the gaming community put in over the CoD (lack of) dedicated server issue, despite MasterDex not purchasing MW2 it was still the biggest entertainment release ever when it launched, so what exactly was the impact of the boycott? 1%? Less?

[Yantelope]

(Consumers) are weak minded sheep who eventually crack and buy whatever it was they were boycotting the very same day it releases for fear of being the only one who hasn't got whatever it was that they were supposed to boycott.

 

Spoken like a true EA exec....

 

but seriously, I agree really. Boycotts generally don't work because there is usually not a large enough group of people to make a difference. I'm not buying Battlefield 3 because I'm still not happy with Origin but I doubt that anyone at EA will take notice. I can hope that others will do the same but I'm not holding my breath..

[deanb]

Reading Mini-wheats first post.

 

Was a bit

 

Not sure what made me feel that way though.

 

Anyway to serious business:

I think you massively overestimate the number of people without access to broadband. Here in the UK wiki tells me 18M have broadband, out of 23M homes. That's a large percentage. The only person I physically know without internet is my gran (she doesn't have a PC either. One day though, one day). Not to say that broadband can be really quirky (my new router hasn't emitted wi-fi for a good 3 weeks now, so my netbook is fucked in that regard) but I don't think requiring internet is a deterrent on sales in a technical sense. Unless Blizzard counts my gran as a possible customer.

 

I visit reddit a fair bit and they are very very quick to want to boycott things. And I've frequently pointed out how it's a very lazy form of protest. Boycotting is essentially not buying the game. You sit on the day of release and do nothing. Just last week I "boycotted" Driver. As you and others have pointed out there's no way to tell if a product has been boycotted unless it's en masse in a huge way. i.e millions of people. People who boycott games are probably of less consequence to publishers than people who pirate games. At least pirate numbers can be tracked.

 

I have being working on something along these lines for PXOD, essentially why boycotting is a shitty method of protest, and more viable methods of protest. I'm still working on it but essentially if you are upset about a certain element of a game:

1. Email the publisher/developer in question and express, in a clear and non-ragey childish way, what you are displeased with. Potentially offer suggestions and alternatives. Don't go "I dislike this, change it now".

2. Get in contact with game sites about this issue. They can have some clout, and at least a very public face, with which to bring up these issues.

 

Not to say boycotts are useless, but most are just randomly thrown out without any backing to them. And doing something through say a games site would have more chances of sticking than just some comments on a forum somewhere. As MasterDex's example with MW2 showed. While the boycott at the time may have seemed pointless all games since have had dedicated servers. If it was just tied to the steam group then it would have gotten nowhere, but it was picked up by gaming sites and it got discussion going and became bigger n bigger.

 

 

I think another reason why "boycotts" fail is because the issue at hand is annoying, but insignificant to the overall game. For example Deus Ex n Civ V have really really fucking annoying boot up screens/movies. But the games are really good so I don't mind. It's probably the same for many other games. The publisher has a real problem though if the issue is small and annoying, but the rest of the game hasn't got enough going for it. e.g Diablo 3 requires an always on internet connections, which I personally find objectionable, unnecessary and the devs reaction to it rather crappy. But it's fucking Diablo 3 so it's bound to get people just on that alone. From Dust requires always on internet too. The game itself is from ubisoft, a crappy port and short game. The scales aren't tipping in it's favour other than "it could be like B&W"

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

I admit that it's a shitty, lazy way of protesting, but it's not totally without merit, and it's not silly. I personally plan to write an e-mail to Blizzard voicing my complaints, but I know many others are too lazy to even do that, but if they participate in the cause by simply not buying the game, that still helps.

I'll use Diablo 3 as an example, because it's most relevant right now. If Activision/Blizzard sees that Diablo 3 sells badly, but reviews well, they'll wonder where they went wrong. Maybe it had to do with that enormous backlash they encountered when pushing a ridiculous DRM scheme? Sure, "boycotting" through inaction may not be the most efficient way of protesting, but it's better than just buying the game.

 

I think you massively overestimate the number of people without access to broadband. Here in the UK wiki tells me 18M have broadband, out of 23M homes. That's a large percentage. The only person I physically know without internet is my gran (she doesn't have a PC either. One day though, one day).

 

So in places like the US, Western Europe and East Asia, having a stable internet connection isn't a major thing, but in markets like parts of Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, poor infrastructure causes an unstable environment for internet, and power as a whole, since many older homes don't have backup generators. Sure, internet is fairly constant in first world countries like the US and the UK, so the issue may not be as prevalent there, but why should I support a company that's fucking over a huge amount of people with little to no justification?

 

I think another reason why "boycotts" fail is because the issue at hand is annoying, but insignificant to the overall game. For example Deus Ex n Civ V have really really fucking annoying boot up screens/movies. But the games are really good so I don't mind

 

Now, the issue at hand in terms of Diablo 3 is that thousands and thousands of people, people who I know to exist, are being screwed out of what looks to be a spectacular game for absolutely no reason. Now, for many, this isn't seen as reason enough to boycott the game, and that's simply opinion. I don't plan to, nor do I want to, change anyone's point of view on this front, but I wouldn't call a boycott through inaction silly, either. What it is is a simple, easy way for large amounts of people to speak out against a company without taking very much action, and I don't think that's silly, at all.

[deanb]

I think you massively overestimate the number of people without access to broadband. Here in the UK wiki tells me 18M have broadband, out of 23M homes. That's a large percentage. The only person I physically know without internet is my gran (she doesn't have a PC either. One day though, one day).

 

So in places like the US, Western Europe and East Asia, having a stable internet connection isn't a major thing, but in markets like parts of Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, poor infrastructure causes an unstable environment for internet, and power as a whole, since many older homes don't have backup generators. Sure, internet is fairly constant in first world countries like the US and the UK, so the issue may not be as prevalent there, but why should I support a company that's fucking over a huge amount of people with little to no justification?

 

I'd say the justification is that those markets are next to non-existent. Sure India and China total 1/3 of the worlds populations, but they're probably 0% of most games publishers markets. For example (though my source is '05) India has an estimated games market value of $50million. Compared to the $10billion of US. I can't really see countries where homes require back up power generators, never mind the financial resources or internet infrastructure, to be buying these kinds of modern games. I can't see places like Africa getting 6th gen consoles, never mind modern consoles and PCs. They might have something in the local school that'll run Diablo 2.

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

Depends on where in Africa. In many countries in far northern Africa, they already do have modern consoles and PCs, as well as in South Africa, and they're widely available.

India is a complicated case, though. The homes there, even in major cities, require backup generators, yet standard of living is often quite high. It's a strange juxtaposition that's only found in countries like India and Brazil, countries which advance economically at such a rate that infrastructure has trouble keeping up.

Second, it might seem like I'm nitpicking, but there is actually a very, very large difference between gaming in India five years ago, and now. In major cities, at least. I was just there for a month and a half in June and July, and every bookstore and electronics shop I went to was selling large amounts of current gen games, and not just the mainstream stuff, either. One place even had a launch party for Shadows of the Damned. I remember back in 05, in India, very, very few people had a game console or a PC that could run games well, but visiting, now, all of my friends had one or the other.

Third, I expect the games market value is considerably larger in India than it was in 05, due to the decline of piracy of physical copies. There are more console gamers in India than PC gamers, and everyone I knew with a PS2, GCN or Xbox back in the early 00s bought all of their games pirated. It was simply cheaper. But nowadays, pirated games from this generation of consoles are incredibly hard to find, even in the shadiest of areas.

I've been trying to find some modern data on game sales in India, but I've had no luck. I'd love to see some concrete fact to back up my personal research over the past few years, but I haven't been able to find any. I've also neglected to mention the growth of games development and publishing in India over the past three or four years. For example, UTV now owns Ignition Entertainment. UTV was originally an Indian company, which has been bought out by Disney's Indian subsidiary, but is still headquartered in India.

 

Lastly, you say the justification is simply because the markets are small? First of all, from what I've seen personally, at least one of those markets is not small. Second, even if they were 'small', which is a subjective word, anyway, I don't see that alone as ample justification. Always-online DRM is, frankly, quite ridiculous, and there are many alternatives. In fact, I'd say it's among the worst forms of DRM currently out there. I'll take a code wheel or a dongle any day over always-online. It's restrictive bullshit that keeps thousands from being able to experience potentially beautiful art, and while I'm not forcing anyone to boycott, I think that calling the boycott silly or insisting it's without merit is irritating and untrue.

[Cyber Rat]

If you accept the basic moral premise that making life better for other people is good, then boycotting video games that require always on internet connections has a slight chance of doing a very small amount of good for a small number of people. So I think it's silly.

 

The problem with your argument is the assumption that people boycott for moral reasons.

 

If I were to boycott anything from a company, it is because I am not satisfied as a customer. Sorry, it's not a holier than thou reason, it's a quite selfish one since I care for my own personal benifit. Which is pretty normal considering I am paying MY OWN money.

 

Why would I boycott something? Because if I don't, I'm sending the message that I am ok with the product. If I say I am alright with the practices of the product, I am sending the message to other companies that they can do the same. I am causing MYSELF more and more inconvenience. And frankly, gaming is in a PERFECT state to pass on on games you get pissed by. Oh, I'm not a fan of Ubi DRM, so what do I do? Will my life be worse if I don't play AC1, 2 and Brotherhood? Nope. I can find other sources of gaming entertainment for far less money. Indie games most surely have less production value, but a lot of them offer me hours upon hours of fun for less money.

 

Will me not paying for a game make a change? I don't know, maybe it will, maybe it won't. I've seen companies make changes after 5 days of complaining, and refuse to make changes after 5 years of complaining. But you're a customer and you're a consumer: you have the basic RIGHT to complain. You have the right to show your disdain with a product.

 

"Gaming is a luxury, durr hurr" so what? It's as stupid as an argument as saying you can't complain about free stuff. The hell I can't. I'll complain so much you'll think I get paid for it. You can be piss poor and not care about how you spend your money, and you can be swimming in cash and be a miser. I care for my time and I care for my money. If your product is wasting either of them because of something, I will tell you it is, I will tell you why it is, and I will take my business elsewhere.

 

Always Online DRM is wasting my time whenever my connection dies. A piss poor port is wasting my time while I make everything work. This is time I could have spent watching porn. I don't want to waste my time with such products, so I will tell you to stop wasting my time with such products.

 

There is no morality issue. It's a strict consumer-based relationship. If they don't count me as a loss, I don't count missing out on their product as a loss. The market has enough things for me.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Cyber Rat

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Well, I don't think I could have said it better. So I won't try.

 

What Cyber Rat said.

[Mal]

The second half of Cyber Rat's post is so amazingly quote worthy.

 

Maybe I'll add in some stuff on how I see it as a regular Joe consumer*. I'll leave you guys to duke it out for now.

*At least that how I see myself. Nothing specialized and not in the know of things

[FMW]

I'm impressed and slightly honored by the breadth and depth of the various responses this thread has elicited. I'm not going to try to counter-argue every point that was made against my original thesis because that would be kinda childish. There were some really good points made in here, and most of them made in opposition to my view.

 

However, that is not to say that I'm letting everything slide:

 

1. I think some people need to get some perspective on this issue. We all care about games a lot (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but not having access to a game is not a great burden. Nobody is getting fucked over here. Absolute worst case scenario is that people without constant broadband need to play some of the hundreds of other great games on the market. Not having access to just a few select titles is not, and should not be considered, a big deal.

 

2. @Brain: You bring up a kind of interesting point. There are people in other countries who do not have internet access reliably. How then, is this any different from a publisher simply not releasing a game in a certain region? Because that happens all the time. You complain about a game being released but not being playable by all of the populace. How many games have never been released in Africa at all? Should publishers be punished for that as well? After all, it seems like Egyptian gamers are getting "screwed over" even more so by a non-release.

 

3: @Dean: I'm pleased that I made you .

Edited September 17, 2011 by Frosted Mini-Wheats

[MasterDex]

1. I think some people need to get some perspective on this issue. We all care about games a lot (otherwise we wouldn't be here) but not having access to a game is not a great burden. Nobody is getting fucked over here. Absolute worst case scenario is that people without constant broadband need to play some of the hundreds of other great games on the market. Not having access to just a few select titles is not, and should not be considered, a big deal.

 

That's what they'll be doing by not purchasing the game. Sure, requiring the end-user to always be connected even when playing single-player isn't a big issue for many people but that doesn't mean it's not a major sticking point for some. While I'm not in a situation where stability is a problem I have to worry about very often, I still don't feel I can justify buying a game that I could be locked out of at any point, be it through a problem on my end or the developer's or publisher's end. I also feel it's completely unnecessary for developers and publishers to treat each and every consumer as a potential criminal. It makes sense from a business perspective but then so do a lot of shitty practices. I think many get hung up on the word 'boycott' itself. When most people hear the word boycott, they think of large, organised protests against a product, country or whatever that can only succeed or fail but the truth of the matter is that a boycott can involve no more than one boycotter and isn't required to succeed to be seen as legitimate or anything but a waste of time. The dictionary definition of a boycott is: To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion. As long as the boycotter or boycotters stick to their boycott, a boycott can be said to be successful. While a change in policy, etc is desired, it's not required.

 

 

2. @Brain: You bring up a kind of interesting point. There are people in other countries who do not have internet access reliably. How then, is this any different from a publisher simply not releasing a game in a certain region? Because that happens all the time. You complain about a game being released but not being playable by all of the populace. How many games have never been released in Africa at all? Should publishers be punished for that as well? After all, it seems like Egyptian gamers are getting "screwed over" even more so by a non-release.

 

There's a difference there. A developer not releasing a game in a particular reason is, more often than not, a question of logistics. Asking for an always-online connection when there's really no good reason for it other than to protect the IP of the developers/publishers (despite knowing that the game will be cracked) isn't the same thing.

 

On a related note, what I find funny about the revelation that Diablo III would feature an always-online requirement is the polarisation of general opinion when compared to the always-online requirement that Ubisoft adopted with Assassin's Creed. I'm sure there are people out there that thought the requirement for both games was fine but there's certainly been a shift of opinion for Diablo III with some people.

[deanb]

On a related note, what I find funny about the revelation that Diablo III would feature an always-online requirement is the polarisation of general opinion when compared to the always-online requirement that Ubisoft adopted with Assassin's Creed. I'm sure there are people out there that thought the requirement for both games was fine but there's certainly been a shift of opinion for Diablo III with some people.

 

Assassins Creed was availble in less restrictive way on other formats. I'll be getting Revelations on PS3 same as the others. With Diablo 3 it's PC or nothing.

[MasterDex]

Assassins Creed was availble in less restrictive way on other formats. I'll be getting Revelations on PS3 same as the others. With Diablo 3 it's PC or nothing.

 

Yet I felt that there was more outrage over Assassin's Creed than there was over Diablo 3.

[Cyber Rat]

Assassins Creed was availble in less restrictive way on other formats. I'll be getting Revelations on PS3 same as the others. With Diablo 3 it's PC or nothing.

 

Yet I felt that there was more outrage over Assassin's Creed than there was over Diablo 3.

 

Because Blizzard is the best company EVER! Duh!

[MasterDex]

Assassins Creed was availble in less restrictive way on other formats. I'll be getting Revelations on PS3 same as the others. With Diablo 3 it's PC or nothing.

 

Yet I felt that there was more outrage over Assassin's Creed than there was over Diablo 3.

 

Because Blizzard is the best company EVER! Duh!

 

I honestly believe that's the reason. I certainly can't come up with any other reason...other than perhaps because it's Diablo III. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing.

[FMW]

I'd like to toss another point out there for deliberation. This was in my original post in one form, but it's been largely overlooked I think.

 

3. There are indeed reasons for always on internet connections, and they should be considered fairly. For Ubisoft, it's about piracy. People were pirating their games, and that's a problem for them. Now let's NOT get into the morality of piracy debate but let's all accept that publishers don't like it when people play their games without paying them. Ubisoft made it harder for pirates to do their thing. It's still not impossible, but they added an additional barrier. Ubisoft recently reported that they feel the DRM scheme has been a success. From their perspective, they have prevented enough piracy to make whatever drop off in consumer demand they've seen for their PC games worthwhile.

 

So there's a reason. It's a totally legitimate reason. We know it is because it's been put to the test and the results after several years has been a net positive for the company. You can ignore Luke's commentary in the article below, I trust Ubisoft to understand their bottom line better than some video game enthusiast.

 

Article I've been referencing: http://kotaku.com/58...ess-it-is-wrong

 

Ok, now Diablo III is a totally different reason. Blizzard wants to prevent cheating. In a game with as extensive a multiplayer suite as Diablo, it's of utmost importance to the overall game experience that players are all on an even footing. Considering some of the work that has been done on Diablo II over the years, I think it's totally reasonable for Blizzard to try and keep an eye on such matters. Indeed, I'd feel much more comfortable if they did.

 

There is an easy solution to this that makes the connection unnecessary, make it that characters in single player can't be used in multiplayer. You're always connected during multiplayer anyway, so it wouldn't be intrusive for Blizzard to do their thing and make sure you aren't inventing +10000 gear for yourself. So for Blizzard it's a trade off. Either always on internet, or separate characters for single and multi player. It's totally up to you which you would prefer. However, they are NOT simply removing functionality from the game. There is a clear benefit to the consumer as well.

 

Conclusion: I don't want to read anyone else talking about how these limitations are added for no reason at all. There are reasons. If you feel these reasons are ill considered, lay out a counter argument. I'm sure there are some good ones out there. I'll check back later this weekend and hopefully learn something!

Edited September 17, 2011 by Frosted Mini-Wheats

[Johnny]

Assassins Creed was availble in less restrictive way on other formats. I'll be getting Revelations on PS3 same as the others. With Diablo 3 it's PC or nothing.

 

Yet I felt that there was more outrage over Assassin's Creed than there was over Diablo 3.

 

Because Blizzard is the best company EVER! Duh!

 

I honestly believe that's the reason. I certainly can't come up with any other reason...other than perhaps because it's Diablo III. Nostalgia can be a powerful thing.

 

That's kind of insulting to those of us who dislike UbiDRM but are more fine with what's happening to Diablo III.

I've talked about the reasons why in the Diablo 3 thread here.

By comparison the UbiDRM does nothing for me as a consumer and forces me to be connected to ubisoft's servers (which have a history of being less than spotless) for a single-player game.

[MasterDex]

That's kind of insulting to those of us who dislike UbiDRM but are more fine with what's happening to Diablo III.

I've talked about the reasons why in the Diablo 3 thread here.

By comparison the UbiDRM does nothing for me as a consumer and forces me to be connected to ubisoft's servers (which have a history of being less than spotless) for a single-player game.

 

I really don't mean it as an insult but it does seem a tad hypocritical, or at the least inconsistent, to be against always-online DRM when it's Ubisoft while being fine with it when it's Diablo III/Blizzard. You said in that post that you thought it (i.e the always-online form of DRM) was a bad idea and that it would lose Blizzard customers. You gave solid reasons why Blizzard would want to do it but you never gave a reason why they couldn't not do it. It isn't as if it's the only decent DRM solution out there.

 

Honestly, I'm fine with the Auction House. It changes something seen as a negative of online gaming by many while allowing every end-user (and Blizzard) to reap the benefits (If done correctly). I could also live without mods. I'm disappointed with Blizzard and I'm angry with that recent trend in PC gaming but I could live with that. I could even live, unhappily, without LAN support. None of those would have prevented me from getting the game, I believe. So then it's just that one thing and it's the same reason I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since they brought in always-online DRM in their games.

 

But let's get back to the topic at hand. As CyberRat said above, it's a selfish pursuit. We may pursue it with others but it's ultimately because we're not happy with something and we want something different. As a consumer, I have personal principles. Some may be selfish, some may be less than grandiose and some may not be seen as ethical but as a consumer, I want to consume certain things. Thus, I'll choose where I put the money and, as I'm sure most of you are well aware, freely and frequently run my mouth off in hopes of influencing other people with the hope that I can get what I want.

 

I'd like to toss another point out there for deliberation. This was in my original post in one form, but it's been largely overlooked I think.

 

3. There are indeed reasons for always on internet connections, and they should be considered fairly. For Ubisoft, it's about piracy. People were pirating their games, and that's a problem for them. Now let's NOT get into the morality of piracy debate but let's all accept that publishers don't like it when people play their games without paying them. Ubisoft made it harder for pirates to do their thing. It's still not impossible, but they added an additional barrier. Ubisoft recently reported that they feel the DRM scheme has been a success. From their perspective, they have prevented enough piracy to make whatever drop off in consumer demand they've seen for their PC games worthwhile.

 

So there's a reason. It's a totally legitimate reason. We know it is because it's been put to the test and the results after several years has been a net positive for the company. You can ignore Luke's commentary in the article below, I trust Ubisoft to understand their bottom line better than some video game enthusiast.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there are advantages for the publishers and developers to have an always-on connection but, personally, as a consumer, there isn't a lot of advantages for me if all I care about is playing a single player game. I believe that an always-on connection is a disadvantage to me in such a case. I don't want to thread ground I've just covered so I'll reference what I wrote to Johnny above for more on my reasons for boycotting.

 

Ok, now Diablo III is a totally different reason. Blizzard wants to prevent cheating. In a game with as extensive a multiplayer suite as Diablo, it's of utmost importance to the overall game experience that players are all on an even footing. Considering some of the work that has been done on Diablo II over the years, I think it's totally reasonable for Blizzard to try and keep an eye on such matters. Indeed, I'd feel much more comfortable if they did.

 

There is an easy solution to this that makes the connection unnecessary, make it that characters in single player can't be used in multiplayer. You're always connected during multiplayer anyway, so it wouldn't be intrusive for Blizzard to do their thing and make sure you aren't inventing +10000 gear for yourself. So for Blizzard it's a trade off. Either always on internet, or separate characters for single and multi player. It's totally up to you which you would prefer.

 

It's not only to prevent cheating. While they may have had that in mind, especially with the Auction House, they also had the Auction House itself in mind. If everyone has to be connected, there's a greater opportunity for capital. Also in mind was piracy, a legitimate problem for a business but a problem that has other solutions.

 

I'm fine with your solution to the problem too and I would likely feel much more inclined to buy the game if such was the case. Sadly, for now, it's not but who knows? Starcraft 2 can now be played offline so maybe they'll change things in the future.

 

However, they are NOT simply removing functionality from the game. There is a clear benefit to the consumer as well.

 

Is this in relation to your solution or the game as it stands now? If it's the latter, I'd say they are removing functionality from the game and that while there may be clear benefits to the consumer that wishes to play online, I would argue that there are clear negatives to the consumer that wishes to play offline.

 

TL;DR: ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!

Edited September 17, 2011 by MasterDex

[FMW]

I lol'ed at your TL;DR.

 

Yeah, that's a really good point you made. There's a trade off only for players who want to go online. For players who aim to keep to single player then it's just an inconvenience.

 

I would be curious to know the numbers of how many people played StarCraft II online as opposed to Starcraft II single player only.

 

Also, I think you're right about Blizzard using this to help generate revenue. If they make money off of auction house transactions and/or set up any sort of paid DLC model then the online only requirement guarantees that players will be exposed to the content and be given incentive to buy it. Actually, I think it's pretty clever. It'll help move expansions too.

 

So now with Blizzard it's interesting because they are choosing to narrow their potential player base in return for being able to extract larger profits out of those who are still able to play. I guess that makes sense. It's an interesting change in how a video game is marketed and distributed. Once upon a time it was ALL about getting as many copies out as possible. Now companies hope to get more than the initial $60 out of consumers and are willing to sell fewer discs to do so.

 

Times are a changing I guess. I'll be terribly interested to watch this trend through the next few years.

[MasterDex]

So now with Blizzard it's interesting because they are choosing to narrow their potential player base in return for being able to extract larger profits out of those who are still able to play. I guess that makes sense. It's an interesting change in how a video game is marketed and distributed. Once upon a time it was ALL about getting as many copies out as possible. Now companies hope to get more than the initial $60 out of consumers and are willing to sell fewer discs to do so.

 

Times are a changing I guess. I'll be terribly interested to watch this trend through the next few years.

 

I can certainly understand their want to do so, even the need to do so, yet I'll always come back to having to look out for my own interests. I'm genuinely frightened by some of the trends of the industry yet I want to enter the industry and live the dream, so to speak so I'm hopeful that certain trends don't stay trendy because it'd be a shame if games as a whole were reduced entirely to some throwaway piece of entertainment. Thankfully it hasn't happened to music or movies yet. What? What's Star Wars? Metalliwho?