1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Kulthar Drax]

Hmm.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 24 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Ziggeh wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Assuming you paid for their product, YES YOU ARE.

So if I don't like the flavour of Heinz Tomato Soup, I can ask them to change it, because having engaged their service by purchasing a can from my local Tescos, I have a two way relationship with the company and a say in the product?

I'm sorry but you are really reaching with this. Soup doesn't cost $60 or $80.  Can't compair the two.

That's wonderful.

How about a mattress? If I ask the mattress manufacturer to change his mattress making process based upon my specific requirements? Does the increase in value make my purchase a mattress based service?

Depends, will apologists rally behind the mattress company having the artistic integrity to produce it any way they want, even if it is causing their customers discomfort?

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 24 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[Dreogan]

RedShft wrote...

I don't want the ending changed. I would like for the ending to be clarified so that it makes sense.

Sadly, there are some parts that would require more than simple clarification. I am with you in saying it doesn't need to be changed, but it needs to be fixed.

[M2S SOLID JOSH]

so they can change a novel ( mass effect deception ) because its full of plot holes but they get change a ending thats full of plot holes? i call bull

[Ziggeh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Still deflecting. Original argument, please?

Maybe just talk about your broken circular logic, at least.

Sorry, you want me to defend a point I have not made? Well, fair enough, I suppose it is related, but that's not the best way to have framed a counterpoint.

Yes, it is art, and yes, it's a product. Not everything is binary. "Art" is a word that covers a wide range of cultural output, and attempting to apply the manner of consumption or relationship from one to the other is like saying apples and oranges are basically just fruit.

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I see I haven't missed anything.

It's like a soap opera.

Much more entertaining.

Indeed. This thread involves much more crying and drama.

[Aiyie]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

We are customers.

We paid money for a product. In the art world, it's called commission. And guess who makes the choices there?

You guessed it, the buyer.

difference is that a client generally specifies his needs prior to paying when he commissions a piece.

if there are no customer specifications, but payment is made prior to seeing the finished product in its entirety... then its entirely up to the artist's discretion if he wants to change it.  and along with that, the artist does not owe the client anything, no refund or anything.

we paid for ME3 based on faith.  that faith was not returned, but thats on us for paying for it without verifying our purchase ahead of time, not on bioware.

[aliengmr1]

Aiyie wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

soooo...

if i buy a painting by Rembrandt or Picasso its no longer art because i paid for it?

as for the second bit... i can't speak for everyone, but never once did i think to myself that i was lied to.  they sold the illusion of a story that changed according to our actions within in.  it was done well enough in ME1 and ME2 that i could suspend my disbelief... but in the end, the story still played out in ways that i could not change.  no matter what i did, sovereign would still attack the citadel, the collectors would still attack colonies and start making a human-reaper. 

it was always their story, they just crafted it so well that we were able to trick ourselves into thinking it was our story.  knowing that, i can't honestly say that i was lied to about what i was getting.

No, but if you have ownership you can change whatever you want it.

[Jackal7713]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I see I haven't missed anything.

It's like a soap opera.

Much more entertaining.

Unitl the soup **** shows up and says "no soup for you"

Modifié par Jackal7713, 24 mars 2012 - 02:47 .

[Grasich]

Kulthar Drax wrote...

Oh gawd, wall of text!

[AgentGMan316]

Luc0s wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

WRONG!

The cutscenes, narrative and story within games are very much art and always will be art.

Are movies art? If you answer is "yes" than you should also understand why the non-interactive parts of video-games are art.

Actually as stated they have changed movies, take Little Shop of Horrors. In the original Audri dies and is fed to the plant, Seymour tries to commit suicide but goes to try and kill the plant, he fails and the plant eats him. Then we see the plants taking over and attacking a city. You can find this in youtube in a black and white version to see the original ending that was canned and changed because of a test audience reaction even though the actors like Rich Moranis thought the orignial was a better ending.

So yeah..you can't use the movie thing as a defense as they have changed things like the ending. Plus do you know how many times a film script changes? No film script survives intact, there are producers that change things, actors bring in their own people at times to change things, the director might want to change things. I wish I could remember the example but I remember a story where a dark drama got turned into a light romance comedy...seriously that happens all the time.

It may be art but this is also a buisness and if they ****** off the majority of fans it could hurt them financially and now that Bioware is part of EA they want as much money out of their product as possible since they can use this to fund future projects. Plus the day one fiasco is bad enough PR this is actually something they could fix and hopefully make people forget about the DLC issue.

Plus from how it sounded this might all be the fault of one person that wanted to 'polorize' the fans with his idea of where to take the ending. I have to wonder if this was left in the hands of the developement team as a whole it might have turned out better instead of 'one man's vision' for the ending instead of a team's view of the ending but that's just how I saw it from reading a few official responces we've been given.

[Grasich]

Aiyie wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

We are customers.

We paid money for a product. In the art world, it's called commission. And guess who makes the choices there?

You guessed it, the buyer.

difference is that a client generally specifies his needs prior to paying when he commissions a piece.

if there are no customer specifications, but payment is made prior to seeing the finished product in its entirety... then its entirely up to the artist's discretion if he wants to change it.  and along with that, the artist does not owe the client anything, no refund or anything.

we paid for ME3 based on faith.  that faith was not returned, but thats on us for paying for it without verifying our purchase ahead of time, not on bioware.

Ummmm... NO.

They made very specific promises, which they failed to keep.

[malra]

Ziggeh wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Assuming you paid for their product, YES YOU ARE.

So if I don't like the flavour of Heinz Tomato Soup, I can ask them to change it, because having engaged their service by purchasing a can from my local Tescos, I have a two way relationship with the company and a say in the product?

actually you do.  whether they change it is up to them but you'd be surprised at the things the big companies take into effect.  the company I work for takes customer suggestions all the time.  why do you think they have a number on the lables or websites with contact email listed.  companies cannot improve, making inroads into markets that they have never been able to capture before, without listening to the customer.

for me that has been the most dissappointing aspect of this whole cluster. the apparent lack of concern by the company, not just because they have still refused to lay down a definitive plan for addressing our concerns or not, but because they have continued to allow us - the customer- to be labeled as children, uneducated, unintelligent, and uncultured. this has been done not only by those employed within the company but by those who outside the company who have a monetary interest in what is going on.

someone made the statement in another thread that she felt betrayed because she thought bioware knew its fans better than it would appear from the cluster that is me3.  I told her then that it is obvious that Bioware doesnt know its fanbase, I stand by that statement but I think I should also add, Bioware doesn't know or understand us, and they don't think very highly of us.  a company that thinks highly of its customers does not treat them the way Bioware has treated us.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Still deflecting. Original argument, please?

Maybe just talk about your broken circular logic, at least.

Sorry, you want me to defend a point I have not made? Well, fair enough, I suppose it is related, but that's not the best way to have framed a counterpoint.

Yes, it is art, and yes, it's a product. Not everything is binary. "Art" is a word that covers a wide range of cultural output, and attempting to apply the manner of consumption or relationship from one to the other is like saying apples and oranges are basically just fruit.

Uh huh, the point was that you claim that, because it is art, it cannot be changed per consumer demand, but then you say (by comparison) that is is merely a consumer good, which you have claimed it is not. One of the two has to be invalid; you can't have it both ways as calling it art invalidates the "just a good" claim, but the good argument invalidates the art claim.

[Joccaren]

The problem with this whole art defence is that it ignores basic consumer rights.
What are we doing? We are telling Bioware we will take our business elsewhere if they don't change the endings.
Any who say we're doing the wrong thing by forcing Bioware to change the endings or lose our business is being stupid - they are implying that we should continue to buy games we don't want to, just to support Bioware's endings. As if Bioware is entitled to our sales, and we should support them no matter what.

No.
I don't support the endings.
The only way Bioware is getting my business again is if they change them.
This is a perfectly reasonable stance, and it is Bioware's turn to play their hand now.

Another thing that most of these defences seem to be implying is that we are going to Bioware, holding a gun to the dev's heads and saying 'change the ending'. We are not. The choice to change the ending still 100% lies with Bioware. We will just leave them as customers should they not choose on our side.

[Ziggeh]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Depends, will apologists rally behind the mattress company having the artistic integrity to produce it any way they want, even if it is causing their customers discomfort?

If it was causing discomfort, you could return the product. You could recommend that they change it, because it sucked, but they would be under no obligation to do so.

[RDSFirebane]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Let me tell you, $100 Campbells is *fantastic.*

Well I would hope so other wise I would be calling that number....

[Dreogan]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I see I haven't missed anything.

It's like a soap opera.

Much more entertaining.

Unitl the soup **** shows up and says "no soup for you"

The argument over changing the label back to the original cambell's soup label was genius. Admit it.

Modifié par Dreogan, 24 mars 2012 - 02:48 .

[Unit-Alpha]

Aiyie wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

We are customers.

We paid money for a product. In the art world, it's called commission. And guess who makes the choices there?

You guessed it, the buyer.

difference is that a client generally specifies his needs prior to paying when he commissions a piece.

if there are no customer specifications, but payment is made prior to seeing the finished product in its entirety... then its entirely up to the artist's discretion if he wants to change it.  and along with that, the artist does not owe the client anything, no refund or anything.

we paid for ME3 based on faith.  that faith was not returned, but thats on us for paying for it without verifying our purchase ahead of time, not on bioware.

Um, wrong, a comissioned piece that is not on par with what was originally agreed upon is subject to refusal without legal repercussions.

[Cyph3rX]

This thread again? What'd I miss?

[czombie]

When "Hold the Line" states that they are demanding an ending, all that "demand' means is "make a new ending or else we won't buy more of your products because the current ending you made sucks" I don't see what is wrong with this. It's what every consumer is able to do in a capitalist society. It's because of this forum that it is now possible to make our demands known to the developers directly. They are perfectly free to not change the ending, but the hope is that they will understand the full implications of this, as Mass Effect is a living IP that stands to make a lot more potential money for EA. The ending of ME3 is not the end of the Mass Effect story.

[MetalCargo999]

Dreogan wrote...

RedShft wrote...

I don't want the ending changed. I would like for the ending to be clarified so that it makes sense.

Sadly, there are some parts that would require more than simple clarification. I am with you in saying it doesn't need to be changed, but it needs to be fixed.

^^

[WarBaby2]

Luc0s wrote...

I want to clarify, that I still absolutely HATE the ending of Mass Effect 3, but only now do I realize how silly it is that we demand that BioWare changes it. That does not mean that I think BioWare shouldn't change it. I think BioWare should make up their own mind and then THEY should decide what to do with the endings, NOT US.

You have a point there... *looks over to CDPR homepage*

[Aiyie]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

soooo...

if i buy a painting by Rembrandt or Picasso its no longer art because i paid for it?

as for the second bit... i can't speak for everyone, but never once did i think to myself that i was lied to.  they sold the illusion of a story that changed according to our actions within in.  it was done well enough in ME1 and ME2 that i could suspend my disbelief... but in the end, the story still played out in ways that i could not change.  no matter what i did, sovereign would still attack the citadel, the collectors would still attack colonies and start making a human-reaper. 

it was always their story, they just crafted it so well that we were able to trick ourselves into thinking it was our story.  knowing that, i can't honestly say that i was lied to about what i was getting.

Actually, Hudson has been stated on the record as saying this story is as much our as it is theirs.

i heard that before... always took it as a platitude paid to the masses though.

because i was never asked by the writers for my input while it was in production.

if anyone here was actually involved in the writing process, absolutely, then the story is as much theirs as it is bioware's.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Depends, will apologists rally behind the mattress company having the artistic integrity to produce it any way they want, even if it is causing their customers discomfort?

If it was causing discomfort, you could return the product. You could recommend that they change it, because it sucked, but they would be under no obligation to do so.

And they aren't under an obligation to change it here. The point of the pro-enders is that we have no right to demand a change. If I paid for a mattress and couldn't return it, I would have the right to demand a change be made.

Also, again with the broken circular logic.