306 réponses à ce sujet

[DayusMakhina]

Farbautisonn wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

Not at all.

Just because others do it doesn't mean it's right that they do it either, but equally just because they manage to get away with doing it doesn't mean you should attempt to do the same too. It's not a valid justification in any way and is akin to a schoolkid's response of "well he did it first!" when being told off by a teacher.

I respect Retake's attempts to petition about something they care about, I certainly respected Operation Cupcake, which was somewhat of a novel and ingenious way to protest that garnered the positive PR it deserved, but they need to leave charities out of it because it is just wrong.

-Aw... isnt that saved...

Wrong analogy is wrong by the way. I see zero hinderence or moral issues with private citizens or activists using the same tools as cooperations and politicians has used for decades. Noone is hurt, charities make out and the "battlefield" is even once again. If you have some personal issue with it, then be consistanct and speak out against the politicians and cooperations (including bioware) who use charity as a tool as well (as they did when they donated 1k to an anti-bullying charity during the Hepler debacle). However I didnt see many outbursts and voices of indignation then. Certainly not from the "usual suspects" in this thread.

Charities depend on donations and their percieved image as do gooders. They lend some of their "holier than thou" aura to their donators for the absolution these buy. Its not a perfect system. But it works.

So wrong analogy is wrong because... you don't agree with it? Your justification is just you rewriting what you initially said (they do it so we can do it). Though I suppose it's great for you that you have no problem lowering yourself to the standards of huge corporations whom only care for their own agenda. Each to his own though.

As for being consistent about my views... well, you don't know that I have or have not voiced my opinions elsewhere in regards to corporations, politics etc, but for you it's easier to presume I don't so you can just write me off as someone with an agenda against Retake. That's quite simply not the case, im just an onlooker who doesn't feel that attaching causes to charities in any way is a positive thing for the cause.

[Farbautisonn]

DayusMakhina wrote...
So wrong analogy is wrong because... you don't agree with it? Your justification is just you rewriting what you initially said (they do it so we can do it). Though I suppose it's great for you that you have no problem lowering yourself to the standards of huge corporations whom only care for their own agenda. Each to his own though.

As for being consistent about my views... well, you don't know that I have or have not voiced my opinions elsewhere in regards to corporations, politics etc, but for you it's easier to presume I don't so you can just write me off as someone with an agenda against Retake. That's quite simply not the case, im just an onlooker who doesn't feel that attaching causes to charities in any way is a positive thing for the cause.

-Because this isnt a school, the teacher employs spin himself, and the people who supports the teacher doesnt see the blatent hypocrisy? Id say that qualifies.

"Lowering myself?" Nope. I have no problem with that. If I want change I have to work to get it. Putting myself on a high moral horse isnt going to win me what I want, need, desire or wish for. Playing with the same deck and using the tools of my adversary however, will. I play to win. If you want to play to participate, thats your perogative.

Nope. I do not know. And yep its easier to presume it. That is entirely correct. And since you have done nothing to refute said opinion, noting to stand against Biowares use as charity as a tool, then I think I can say that at least in one case my "presumptions" are entirely validated.

You dont feel. Well. Thats grand. Thats your subjective opinion. I generally think that a system where everyone wins out is a good system. The charity gets cash to make a difference, the donators have an added chance of getting what they want and if the cooperation listens they have a chance to make more money.

Where is the downside? 

[DayusMakhina]

Farbautisonn wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...
So wrong analogy is wrong because... you don't agree with it? Your justification is just you rewriting what you initially said (they do it so we can do it). Though I suppose it's great for you that you have no problem lowering yourself to the standards of huge corporations whom only care for their own agenda. Each to his own though.

As for being consistent about my views... well, you don't know that I have or have not voiced my opinions elsewhere in regards to corporations, politics etc, but for you it's easier to presume I don't so you can just write me off as someone with an agenda against Retake. That's quite simply not the case, im just an onlooker who doesn't feel that attaching causes to charities in any way is a positive thing for the cause.

-Because this isnt a school, the teacher employs spin himself, and the people who supports the teacher doesnt see the blatent hypocrisy? Id say that qualifies.

That's not even answering why either. 

"Lowering myself?" Nope. I have no problem with that. If I want change I have to work to get it. Putting myself on a high moral horse isnt going to win me what I want, need, desire or wish for. Playing with the same deck and using the tools of my adversary however, will. I play to win. If you want to play to participate, thats your perogative.

Play to win? Play to participate? You can quite easily "play to win" without engaging in negative aspects of the corporate world. 

Nope. I do not know. And yep its easier to presume it. That is entirely correct. And since you have done nothing to refute said opinion, noting to stand against Biowares use as charity as a tool, then I think I can say that at least in one case my "presumptions" are entirely validated.

Nothing to refute said opinion? Let's check what I said again shall we?

"As for being consistent about my views... well, you don't know that I have or have not voiced my opinions elsewhere in regards to corporations, politics etc, but for you it's easier to presume I don't so you can just write me off as someone with an agenda against Retake. That's quite simply not the case, im just an onlooker who doesn't feel that attaching causes to charities in any way is a positive thing for the cause."

Yeh...

You dont feel. Well. Thats grand. Thats your subjective opinion. I generally think that a system where everyone wins out is a good system. The charity gets cash to make a difference, the donators have an added chance of getting what they want and if the cooperation listens they have a chance to make more money.

Where is the downside? 

Perception. People generally take a negative view of such things (just take a look at what most people think of corporations or politicians for an example). Perception should be somewhat important to Retake considering public support is what is going to help them get what they want, using charities will both help that in the eyes of some and hinder that in the eyes of others.

Modifié par DayusMakhina, 05 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Korhiann]

AJRimmsey wrote...

jesus..who cares anymore,game was released ages ago.
just spamming and boring the hell out of people flogging this deceased equine.

take up trainspotting or something.

anyway..not ME related,doesnt belong here.

Well since the overall goal of the movement wasn't reached it wouldn't make sense to stop it before getting a response that actually states whether or not it will ever happen.

Modifié par Korhiann, 05 avril 2012 - 10:36 .

[TjM78]

AJRimmsey wrote...



take up trainspotting or something.

.

[SalsaDMA]

Faust1979 wrote...

Don't these people have real lives to worry about? they must lead great lives if their top priority is a video game it's sad

I think that's actually part of the problem EA doesn't understand.

People got real lives that are filled with frustrations and what have you, and gaming is used as an avenue to withdraw from those things. To get some resemblance of serenity in your life without the frustrations of real life.

Sure, people can be frustrated about hard games, but it's a different kind of frustration because they know that at the end of the frustration there is the reward of feeling an acomplishment when conquered.

With ME3, though, not so much. There's only the frustration at the end with no sight of resolution.

Add that the big voices in the industry like Capcom, EA, Activision and so on, start to seem more and more hellbent on exploiting people for every nickel and dime they can for less and less content, and you start getting a picture of people wondering why they are bothering any more with gaming.

It's become a two figured billion dollar industry since its inception, and the industry is starting to become less concerned about serving the consumers of their products than with serving themselves to the consumers money.

There is only so much people can be pushed before they start pushing back, and EA have been trying to find out how much they can push people for years now.

If you want to, you can compare the whole ordeal to various sports. Football in Europe (football, as in the european way of using that word) or "American football"/Basketball/baseball in the USA. These are billion dollar industries as well and have showcase examples of getting real and very attributable consumer emotions out in people. Yet, at the heart of these 'products' it's all about witnessing a bunch of people push a ball around a field. To some people, this is just as much a case of "how can you get riled up over just this?" as people are trying to do here with the gaming industry. Yet, for some people, it's their avenue of relief from the daily stress and it becomes very important to them.

Not understanding the social impacts of mass-stress release products doesn't mean these 'products'  (like wathcing the vaiours sports and playing games) aren't important. They very much are, and untill people start taking them serious people will just become more and more frustrated.

[TjM78]

I want to retake KOTOR ( I want a true SINGLE PLAYER!!!!! sequel damnit!)

[TjM78]

Needsnewending wrote...

Be aware of EA Trolls trying to asume control in the forums..

YEs of course anyone who is against this silly game is obviously in EA's pocket. You poeple are farking nuts

[kbct]

Capone666 wrote...

Viyu wrote...

You know, I would think that'd be pretty standard by now, especially anywhere money is involved. And also, I think that if they plan on doing something big at PAX, they should pick a gathering spot and inform Retake protesters of the plan when they get there so Bioware doesn't concoct any more PR countermeasures. I think it was very smart of him of the Retake organizers to be vague about what they intend to do there. However, that vaguness might be indicitave of having no real plan or goal in mind, which can be worrysome, on the flip side.

interesting

Yes, I mentioned the same thing in this thread. Don't give the PR people time to gameplan a response to your actions.

Make it so, OP.

[Shelled]

Holding the line.

[kbct]

PnXMarcin1PL wrote...

Fcuk your research. It's not right when people who want better ending for a game shield themselves with charity. I can bet my life on it that 80% of those players dont give a damn about charity and never cared about it. If you dont like my opinion deal with it, otherwise we have a problem. Im pissed off enough already and not by your "funny" post. <_<

Did you not read the article a few posts above yours? EA/BioWare did the same thing with the Child's Play charity. Where is the outrage?

"EA had previously used Child's Play as part of a charity drive with the DLC campaign for Battlefield Heroes, but no one said nary a thing about it. Yet gamers use the charity to bring awareness to BioWare/EA and it gets shutdown for that very reason. A little hypocritical, no?"

Unfortunately, EA only donated $5K to Child's Play, not $80K like RetakeME.

http://www.cinemable...ct-3-41139.html

[kbct]

UniqueName001 wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

... "your poorly-organized charity event got Child's Play into serious legal trouble and enough people demanded charity refunds that it nearly suspended CP's Paypal account"...

I think it got buried in the... spam....above so I'd like to ask again, please provide the source for this?

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Your donations were returned because enough of your supporters sent refund requests to the CP Paypal that it was in serious danger of being suspended.

This... isn't true at all.  Some people apparently asked for their donations to be returned.  The rest of the donations remain with Child's Play.  I have no information that Paypal was threatening any action against Child's Play.  I'd again like to see your source for this.

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Furthermore, you are not a charitable organization. You are an organization that exists to put economic pressure on a game company in order to change their policy. This is all well and good, and more power to you for doing so, but CP's 401©(3) status is threatened by taking donations of that nature--hence, your $80,000 were an extraordinary risk to take, because the source of the money threatened the future millions that CP has the potential to raise by making them an unwilling pawn in a corporate struggle.

This might be an actual concern if the money was at any time in the possession of a third party.  It was not.  The charity drive created a direct paypal transaction between the donator and Child's Play.  There was no third party.  There was a website that kept track of the number of people donating, and how much had been donated, but the transactions were with Child's Play and no one else.  This was explicitly stated on the charity website and in the forum thread.

I'd like to point out that we followed exactly the recommendations provided in the Child's Play fundraising guide, which is available on their website.  At no time did Child's Play make any statements that the charity drive was acting outside of proper channels.  At no time did they state that their relationship with Paypal was in jeopardy.  If you have a source for any of these statements, please provide it.

UnstableMongoose wants to detract from the movement without providing any evidence. He simply places uncertainty and doubt in people's minds. It's a nice tactic if you fall for it.

He doesn't mention that EA donated money to Child's Play last year:

http://www.eurogamer...to-child-s-play

"EA launched the money-raising drive at the beginning of December when it pledged to make a $1 donation for every Santa or Nikolaus outfit sold for the PC shooter during the month."

The donations were based on purchases. EA probably made money too.

RetakeME didn't make money from their charity drive.

Modifié par kbct, 05 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[taelus.calimshan]

To the other group talking (Farb and Dayus) I'd start by saying to Farb, tone back a bit buddy. Some of the commentary is kind of hostile and that won't foster discussion, just animosity. I get the idea that you're putting forth. You're suggesting that in order to work up against EA/BioWare we might need to employ specific PR methods in order to achieve our objective. I'd say that you're correct under the assumption that we're enemies with BioWare. I don't believe that we are. I believe they're just as invested in us getting the game we want as we are in having it to play. That, I believe, is where Dayus' arguments come in. I believe that in the current situation he/she is correct to say that non-hostile tools are available and might be more valuable.

To Dayus' point about the use of charities, you're absolutely correct, though I think the reason for it being correct has been addressed in this new charity concept. Using a charity to make a point with a protest is inappropriate, no argument. Using a charity as a positive outlet for the pent up frustrations of a group of people who feel like nothing they're doing is having the positive effect they'd like is absolutely approved. I believe that's what the Retake group is now angling for more specifically than they were in that first run with Child's Play. I think using a charity as a way for people to feel like their energy has been of value is an excellent tool that benefits multiple groups along the way. That will hold as valid unless Retake attempts to make the charity about proving their commitment to the cause again. Then we'll have a problem.

[taelus.calimshan]

[quote]kbct wrote...

[quote]UniqueName001 wrote...

[quote]UnstableMongoose wrote...

<Snippage>

[/quote]

UnstableMongoose wants to detract from the movement without providing any evidence. He simply places uncertainty and doubt in people's minds. It's a nice tactic if you fall for it.
[/quote]

I don't think that he's trying to detract from the movement at all.  At multiple times during his posts he was pretty clear that he believes the folks who want a new ending are completely valid in that desire.  His specific concern seems to be with the use of a charity as a marketing tool for the movement and the damage that can cause to a charitable organization.

[quote]kbct wrote...
He doesn't mention that EA donated money to Child's Play last year:

http://www.eurogamer...to-child-s-play

"EA launched the money-raising drive at the beginning of December when it pledged to make a $1 donation for every Santa or Nikolaus outfit sold for the PC shooter during the month."

The donations were based on purchases. EA probably made money too.

RetakeME didn't make money from their charity drive.
[/quote]

Jerry with Penny Arcade mentioned specifically that they don't allow a scheme of "we'll donate $1 for every $10 item you buy", at least in some part I think to EA's move.  Admittedly, this one seems to have slipped through their check (and I don't see a conspiracy in that).  The fact that EA did it doesn't mean Retake was right to do the same thing.  Retake had all the best intentions, but it caused problems for a number of reasons.  I think that's all that's being said.  Do good work, but be careful that we're not causing negative events in the process.

[Capone666]

with the news of DLC, what does this mean for the group?

[Tirigon]

Faust1979 wrote...

Don't these people have real lives to worry about? they must lead great lives if their top priority is a video game it's sad

I dont think having a life so good that video games are your only problems is sad. It seems pretty damn great actually, or at least it was until ME3 was released.

[Super.Sid]

They are not changing the ending according to the sticky

[Tirigon]

Farbautisonn wrote...

-Thats your opinion, and your opinion is subjective. Since you are quick to condemn the Retake group, but apparenly accept if not outright condone that cooperations use Charitiy offensively (As Bioware did when they donated 1k to an anti-bullying charity during the Hepler debacle), it does make your critizism come out a bit.... hollow.

I accept it in both cases - I actually condone it in a way because for me, helping people is a good thing even if it is done for the wrong intentions - , but like it in neither.
The difference however is that for me, every capitalist corporation is evil by definition, and as such I am not surprised about them abusing charities for their own goals.  I would, however, expect better from non-profit organizations.

Farbautisonn wrote...

-And yet when everyone else does it,
"normal people" who donated 20 to charity and then spend 300 on a steak
dinner for the family, or the cooperation that bleeds its clients and
its labour force dry and donates a pittance to charities, or the
politician that does it to prove he is a "nice guy", its ok.

Right. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

It is not. I despise everyone who donates publicly, because doing so shows you are only trying to polish your image. If you just want to help others, donate anonymously.

Modifié par Tirigon, 05 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[DoughnutDoney]

Not changing the ending means........people still unhappy about how it ended. Going to be interesting to see what happens in the debate...sad I cant make it. Will wait in judgement when the DLC is released but my overall personal opinion about the DLC Release details.....not happy...but hey that's just me.

[Farbautisonn]

DayusMakhina wrote...
That's not even answering why either. 

-It was just as coherent as your "analogy".

 

Play to win? Play to participate? You can quite easily "play to win" without engaging in negative aspects of the corporate world.

-Sure you can. But if there is an edge to be had and you do not take it out of some mistaken sense of morality, others will take it for you. And its the same in activism, poltics and a plethora of other aspects of life.


 

"As for being consistent about my views... well, you don't know that I have or have not voiced my opinions elsewhere in regards to corporations, politics etc, but for you it's easier to presume I don't so you can just write me off as someone with an agenda against Retake. That's quite simply not the case, im just an onlooker who doesn't feel that attaching causes to charities in any way is a positive thing for the cause."

-And yet you felt the "need" to speak out this time.

 

Perception.

-Perception is about as subjective as it gets.

 

People generally take a negative view of such things (just take a look at what most people think of corporations or politicians for an example).

-Really? You have a source on that ofcourse, because you wouldnt be sprouting generalisations. Some cooperations and polticians have excellent reputation. It even vaires across party limits. So... thats another analogy you should avoid.

Perception should be somewhat important to Retake considering public support is what is going to help them get what they want, using charities will both help that in the eyes of some and hinder that in the eyes of others.

-It is. But catering to everyone isnt. And catering to people who see something offensive in donating to charity, when the very same individuals do apparently not have anything against cooperations in generals and Bioware in particular donating to chairty, certainly isnt a concern. Those can and will easily be dismissed as hypocrites.

[Farbautisonn]

[quote]Tirigon wrote...
I accept it in both cases - I actually condone it in a way because for me, helping people is a good thing even if it is done for the wrong intentions - , but like it in neither. [/quote]
-Well... we cant have our cake and eat it too.

[/quote]The difference however is that for me, every capitalist corporation is evil by definition, and as such I am not surprised about them abusing charities for their own goals.  I would, however, expect better from non-profit organizations.[/quote]
-If every cooperation is by defintion evil then I wonder how you survive. A good person would not support something evil, So where do you do all of your shopping and get your medical needs attended? 

As for non-profit organisations. I find them equally corrupt and run by zealots and powermongers. I find hypocrisy in most if not all of them. Holding yourself to high ideals is a difficult enough. Holding yourself to the same ideas without proselyting them to others... even harder.

[quote]
It is not. I despise everyone who donates publicly, because doing so shows you are only trying to polish your image. If you just want to help others, donate anonymously.
[/quote]
-You do realize that by making that destinction you are litterally damning most of the "charity/ngo industry"?  Aside from that... and whilst I can sympathize with the sentiment... I think you would find it hard to raise cash in anywhere near the order thats being done today. Likewise you are also damning those that use their fame, their status to stand behind a cause. And these people could very well, and has indeed ad nauseam in the past, made significant contributions to charities and the needy... all around the world.

Its your opinion. Your sentiment. I do however not agree with it. Because I want more bang for my buck. Even when I do charity.

[Squallypo]

i hope people From retake actually show up tomorrow and throw granade launchers of questions to bioware crew, Hold The line peeps, this is far from over... nor this is a victory so dont consider it as one. ( speaking of the "extended cut" situation) civilized but with class as Ladies and Gentleman.

Squallypo Out.

[Farbautisonn]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

To the other group talking (Farb and Dayus) I'd start by saying to Farb, tone back a bit buddy. Some of the commentary is kind of hostile and that won't foster discussion, just animosity.

-I give back what people put in my face. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I get the idea that you're putting forth. You're suggesting that in order to work up against EA/BioWare we might need to employ specific PR methods in order to achieve our objective. I'd say that you're correct under the assumption that we're enemies with BioWare. I don't believe that we are. I believe they're just as invested in us getting the game we want as we are in having it to play.

-If you do not mind my saying so, I believe you are wrong. Because since DA2 their communication with the fanbase has been lacking to the point where we do no longer believe anything that comes out of Bios cookie-cutter PR dept. A "friend" or an "attentive business/politician" acts and keeps his constituents and his client base in the loop. They keep reminding them what they are doing, how they are doing it and why they are doing it. Bioware has done no such thing. They have stated "we are listening" and then done nothing. Repeatedly. That is not a friendly or attentive act. And if friendly and constructive doesnt get the message through, then perhaps "aggressive" and "empowered" will.

Im not a part of Retake. I have no stake in it. I just enjoy the spectacle unfold and give my opinion and my insight comming from the background I have.

That, I believe, is where Dayus' arguments come in. I believe that in the current situation he/she is correct to say that non-hostile tools are available and might be more valuable.
.

-I believe he is wrong. And I belive that the recent 2 years and historical and empirical data supports my scepticism. DA2, the Bazaar, Deception, and now ME3. So now I just hold them to their word and remind them what they have said in the past. Not just with ME3. But all the other times they promised something and then nothing happened. We were polite then... and it had zero effect. They cant expect to be able to cry wolf forever with zero repecussions.

[Farbautisonn]

And oh. The lastest communique from Bioware.

Dont you feel the love. The cooperation between player-bioware? Dont you just love how much they "listened"?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-"Good" is a matter of perspective. Change is automatically percived as bad by most, and yet if we didnt have change, none of the liberties we take for granted would have ever existed. And those liberties weren't championed by "normal people". They were championed by movements and organisations.

Then why don't you go champion some worthy cause and make an impact to the world, and not this. Campaigning for a different game end. No amount of philosophy can change the fact that it's pointless and fueled only by self-interest. The camapigners want a ending for themselves and they are in it for themselves.