AJRimmsey wrote...
<some snippage for the sake of post length>
well,its a video game,created by bioware,to biowares standards.
what the content,theme or ending is,is simply what they produced.
if a person doesnt like it,they shouldnt buy it.
over the years there have been many things gamers didnt like about games,from buggy releases to snipped content sold as dlc,including the lying before release to bump sales.
every developer is doing these things and has been for years.
everybody knows they wont stop until we stop buying the games.
as for the idea of a charity drive,i am all for it,for the simple reason that whoever is getting the money is going to profit from it.
wether they call it expenses or a salary for doing the work,they will profit from it.
and as soon as interest is gone,they will also disappear into the ether with the money.
its the way of things in economys that are on the downturn.
but basically for all this fracas to be based on a games ending,that nobody really has a right to demand a change of,is just lunacy to me.
I think I see where you're coming from, but correct me if I'm off base on this one. I see a few points being made:
- BioWare produced the game to be what they wanted it to be and so whatever that is, for better or for worse, is what it is. Changing that is inappropriate.
- Anyone who disagrees with something in the game (content, DLC usage, etc.) should voice that opinion by not purchasing the game, but does not have any claim to demand changes.
I think that's the salient stuff (I omitted the charity stuff for the sake of being specific to a single idea).
I guess I see it differently. I see what BioWare created as something to be sold. A product, specifically designed for people to consume. With most products, things can't be easily changed after they're initially created, so I see the difficulty in demanding changes there, but I also see that many companies will take a severe backlash against a product and make the corrections demanded in the newest version of that product. Cars, computers, restaurants, and any number of other groups all do this. So I guess what I'm getting at is that I see a company's response to consumer feedback when that feedback is significantly negative and from a core part of their consumer base as not only optional, but indeed critical to that company's future success. I see that as making it reasonable for people to demand changes in a product for its next iteration.
Software has an interesting place in this because its next available iteration can actually be generated and disseminated remotely. If someone finds a huge Windows bug that everyone is angry about, Microsoft can issue a fix for it and push that out to the consumers by "update". That means that instead of having to wait for a new version of Windows with the correction, the current version can just be changed to be accurate to the promises of the software in terms of functionality. I see ME3 in the same light. Something has been pointed out to be contrary to the advertised functionality of the product and BioWare are in a position to correct this with an "update" (or DLC or whatever name it takes on). I see this demand for change as being just as valid as a demand made to Microsoft if their operating system failed to provide a promised feature.
So, that's why I don't agree with the term "entitlement" in this scenario. I think this is just consumer advocacy, but I admit that not everyone will share that opinion and I don't take issue with those who disagree. So, can you help me understand better, given what I've provided, what your perspective is?
Retour en haut
), but rpgs or a mixture of rpgs and shooters in the ME3 series. And in rpgs, player agency is very important, and probably more so in the final sequences of the game...
