5punk

If for example a games company did something really horrid to its customers, and it was generally accepted that they were cunts - would you still buy games from them?

I use as an example (simply as explaination) EA, who have given me a fair amount of grief with patches that break my games, yet I have just realised I've bought 3 of their games within the last month, regardless. Although what I'm actually talking about is companies that have really stiffed their customers, perhaps having draconian usage policies, excessive fees or damaging software components.

So, is any implied threat on the gamers part to "stop buying games from them" simply an empty one, as as soon as a "really good game" comes out, they will buy it anyway, or are some gamers resolute and refuse to sully their collection with hated supplier's wares?

it depends what is done.

for example, the CoD2 fiasco resulted in me turning the bukkake CoD and CoD2 servers off for 3 days.


Mostly it comes down to the problems (for me, from the client, and server point of view)

however, as much as i dislike a company (for example, EA) i'll buy a game if i feel it's worth it. (see: BF2 + all <strike>rip-offs</strike> addons)

Unless they do something really horrific like eat babies and rape cute puppies in the corporate offices, I'll buy a game based on if it's good, not who made it.

I still refuse to buy Nestle products after hearing about their dubious practices in Africa, but actions leading to misery and poverty are pretty far removed from providing shoddy patches. Not buying a good game because the publisher has failed to support them in the past seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. However, if a publisher was to drastically change the game so as to make it unlplayable, against the wishes of its players, that'd piss me off enough to avoid them until they'd redeemed themselves.

The only example I can think of is Star Wars Galaxies, which I never played.

Dog Pants wrote:I still refuse to buy Nestle products after hearing about their dubious practices in Africa

I generally question stuff like this, given it's usally someone biased some way or another who releases the information.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:

Dog Pants wrote:I still refuse to buy Nestle products after hearing about their dubious practices in Africa

I generally question stuff like this, given it's usally someone biased some way or another who releases the information.

I generally do too, but I never liked Nestle much in the first place so it just kinda stuck.

Dog Pants wrote:

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:

Dog Pants wrote:I still refuse to buy Nestle products after hearing about their dubious practices in Africa

I generally question stuff like this, given it's usally someone biased some way or another who releases the information.

I generally do too, but I never liked Nestle much in the first place so it just kinda stuck.

now that i can agree with.

Ain't this why the floor was invented?

The thing is, unless its properly organised (like the whole CoD thing that Berk mentioned), doing stuff like that pretty much never works. Largely because most people dont bother doing it, so the company involved doesnt even notice that its happenening.

So if im given the choice between not getting a good game and getting a good game, when the company doesnt give a shit either way, Ill buy the damned game.

if a publisher was to drastically change the game so as to make it unlplayable, against the wishes of its players, that'd piss me off enough to avoid them until they'd redeemed themselves.

The only example I can think of is Star Wars Galaxies, which I never played.

That was never a particularly great game in the first place. Secondly, the reason most players stopped playing was more to do with the fact that the game was made *more* shit that resentment of the company for making it more shit.

If I've become increasingly dissatasfied with a company, product line, etc, I'll "vote with my dollars" by not buying games.

Novalogic are a good example of this for me. When Black Hawk Down was released, virtually all support for the previous title Delta horse 2 was stopped, including the servers they were running which were still very popular. Anything left today is privately run.

Following this, their next game Joint Operations' first patch royally messed up the game, and they lost a lot of customers at this point since they did little to rectify it.

In both these main problems, they did nothing to try and communicate with the players or keep them informed, much less listen to them. As a result, I wouldn't buy one of their games again.

Hmm.. EA tend to piss me off lots with shoddy patches and all, but surely that's more the fault of the people who make the game (in BF2's point of view, Dice etc) and not the publisher.

On another note, Valve pissed me off ALOT at the start of steam, seen has my cd-key was stolen and I couldn't use all my old Half Life 1 based games and got no help from them. They only way I could have retireved my key was if I was to pay £10 or so to send my CD's in the case along with the booklet, which by then the Half Life complation had been reduced to only £10.

This made me not want to by any products which had Serria (or whatever its called) and vavle on them afterwards.. but then I saw Half Life 2 and decided to forgive them seen as-
Half life 2 is teh win
Steam is fairly reliable as long as you have a decent connection
The ammount of updates is so good, its sexy.

In short, it depends on the company and if they can make it up again so im willing to buy products from them.