138 réponses à ce sujet

[Xoahr]

AJRimmsey wrote...

read op

yet another

I don't frankly see how it is 'dramatic'. From Wiktionary, a drama queen is: Any exaggeratedly dramatic person, especially female or gay man.

I would say this is the opposite of dramatic. It's a rational, calm, academic look at certain things that have been said.

[Saint Op]

I still dont see the false advertising...I see people bending words to thier benifit & grand claims that if anything Fable should have been sued for years ago...

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
Ultimately, what I'm saying is this:
i) a company seeks to make a profit
ii) companies make profits on sales
iii) a lack of sales is a lack of profits

tied in with this:
i) in the freemarket, the consumer is king
ii) consumers make profit for companies
iii) it is idiocy to not listen to consumers

And ultimately this has nothing to do with what you wrote. You wrote that since someone sell his/her work s/he cannot abide on his/her artistic integrity just for this. The two are completely different arguments.

Would you call that idiocy?

I didn't call what you write here an idiocy but what you wrote in the first post. This is perfectly plausible until you know that anyway the decision remains on the artist and not otherwise, no matter what.
 

I would call that basic economics.

 
Nothing to say about it, sometimes people must adhere to compromises. But a completely different thing is saying that they are forced to adhere to them. It is not so.

Ultimately, words such as 'artistic integrity' and 'entitlement' are smoke screens.

No, they are not. If an artist would do only what the commisioner ask in every situation there would be no art, I bet how much you want about it, if only because many times the commisioner doesn't either truly understand at all what s/he really wants.
 

What I find interesting, however, is I see no way that 'artistic integrity' can apply to commercial art,

Simple. An artist has always the last word, no matter what. S/He can make compromises but cannot be forced to adhere to them, no matter what.

There have been artists that have been starved to death for this. You can call this folly, but they proved that the last word was theirs, no matter what.

and how a consumer can be 'entitled'.

Simple again, he cannot be "entitled" to nothing apart purchasing/no purchasing no matter how much he would like to.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 08:24 .

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
Firstly, a consumer can demand from a company through the idea of capitalism - if you upset the consumer, that will be affected in stock prices, and damage the company. Thus, it is in the companies best interest to keep a loyal consumer base who are satisfied with the companies products.

 
What this have to do with what I said? This have nothing to do with having the right or not to change the work of an artist.

Sure, the artist can decide (to sell his/her work, as it has happened in the past) to correct it or not for the sake of making a living, but the commissioner cannot PRETEND it and the artist it is the only one to decide to do it or not and the fact that s/he sell his/her work or not doesn't change this minimally.

Xoahr wrote...
Secondly, Michelangelo, as I wrote in my other thread, was ordered by the Pope to alter some paintings he had made in the Sistine Chapel. Nowadays, his work is respected for two reasons (as it often is with all artists)
a) He was talented to such a high percentile, his work is amazing
A common audience can unify around it and say 'yes, this is exemplary work'

A) Michelangelo was asked to change many things but he adhered to the change only in very few occasions and he always had the last word on it, not the commisioner.
 In some well known instances the church tried to force the change on Michelangelo and he became furious at it. In your opinion he shouldn't have because his work was commissioned, isn't it?

Then I know that Michelangelo was a great artist. It is not me that implied otherwise with what I wrote.

The problem is, however, you aren't seeing a video game as art for a commercial objective. I believe games are art, but they are foremost a commercial venture, i.e, at this magnitude, a game is produced for profit. Perhaps it would make more sense if I said the 'artist' is abandoning his 'fanbase', and they feel cheated. Yet, as said, as this is a work for profit, and the company is ran by businessmen, I have replaced it with 'company' and 'consumers'. In this economic setting, it is not only the 'artist' who has a say. There's also a Board of Directors, various lead designers, a legal team, the marketing team, the PR team. This is no longer art. This is commercialism.

a) the commissioner always had the power to commission a new artist - 'voting with his wallet'.
he's allowed to be furious. I'm sure some of the BioWare team are furious at how various legal, PR, marketing teams, as well as their own bosses forced the game to play out. They're allowed to be furious, yet they still followed (rightfully) the hand that gave them money.

[HopHazzard]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about not liking the ending, or offer criticism. It's not the request that it be changed, or even people saying if it isn't changed, that they won't purchase any more bioware games that makes some people entitled. It's the assumption on the part of some that bioware MUST change the ending because they didn't like it. When buying a game, the customer has a right to expect that it will function properly. That's it. If the disk crashed your computer every time you tried to run it, you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to demand that the company either fix the issue, or give you your money back. But that's not what's happening here. People just plain don't like the ending. And the thing is, bioware doesn't actually owe them an ending they like. I've read plenty of books, and seen plenty of movies that I didn't like. I've played plenty of games I didn't like. But that's a matter of taste. Every time you purchase a work authored by someone else, you're running the risk of buying something you won't enjoy. If the author gave it their all, if they wrote the story they wanted to tell, it's not their fault if I don't like it, and they don't owe me anything. Now as a consumer, I'm well within my rights to offer criticism, or even say "You know, I don't like what you did there, so I'm not going to buy anything from you in the future." The difference comes in when people cross the line into "I paid for your game/story/movie, therefore you owe me a completely satisfying experience and if I don't get one, then you have to rewrite your story to give it to me." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd all like every book we ever read, and every game would be the best one ever, but it's not a perfect world. And not everyone is going to like the everything. I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to please their audience. I'm not even saying they shouldn't change the ending if they want to. I'm saying they don't owe it to us to change the ending. That's the difference. They owe us a functional disk. That's what we all paid for.

[Xoahr]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

[quote]Xoahr wrote...
[/quote]

No, the difference between a street artist doing caricatures of people, and an international game company is a massive one. In this case, the 'artistic vision' directly links to profit. For example, legal teams, PR teams, marketing teams, the Board, they all have say in this so called 'artistic vision'. A street artist doesn't have that. What I'm trying to say, is once an 'artistic vision' has been warped so much by people single-minded on developing profit, it is no longer a true artistic vision. 

Hence, my frequent comments regarding the market.

You're right - many times commissioners don't know what they want. For example, there's a whole host of composers who lived under royalty, composing works for them. Yet if a commissioner wanted a certain thing of his composer, and it wasn't given, he would find another composer, or force the composer to write exactly what he wanted, through economic/social disgrace.

Artists, especially when you have such a hierarchy of capitalism prevalent throughout the 'vision', don't have the last say. Their bosses do. And are the bosses better artists, or savvier businessmen?

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
The problem is, however, you aren't seeing a video game as art for a commercial objective. I believe games are art, but they are foremost a commercial venture, i.e, at this magnitude, a game is produced for profit.

 
Good enough, but, again, their work is only theirs, no matter what.

Xoahr wrote...
a) the commissioner always had the power to commission a new artist - 'voting with his wallet'.

Sure.

Xoahr wrote...
he's allowed to be furious. I'm sure some of the BioWare team are furious at how various legal, PR, marketing teams, as well as their own bosses forced the game to play out. They're allowed to be furious, yet they still followed (rightfully) the hand that gave them money.

Again, it can be, and as I said, compromises must be done sometimes, but anyway the thing is completely different from saying "I pretend it because I paid for it". Simply put you cannot have this pretence because the work is not really yours, but theirs. You just own a sub-product, not the original work.

And apart this, do you really think that a company as Bioware is really intimidated by these sort of tactics? The game industry is surely not made in the majority by people with the resolve to put in motion a full boycott, no matter what, and even if they were in any case they would only be a minority.

[Xoahr]

HopHazzard wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about not liking the ending, or offer criticism. It's not the request that it be changed, or even people saying if it isn't changed, that they won't purchase any more bioware games that makes some people entitled. It's the assumption on the part of some that bioware MUST change the ending because they didn't like it. When buying a game, the customer has a right to expect that it will function properly. That's it. If the disk crashed your computer every time you tried to run it, you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to demand that the company either fix the issue, or give you your money back. But that's not what's happening here. People just plain don't like the ending. And the thing is, bioware doesn't actually owe them an ending they like. I've read plenty of books, and seen plenty of movies that I didn't like. I've played plenty of games I didn't like. But that's a matter of taste. Every time you purchase a work authored by someone else, you're running the risk of buying something you won't enjoy. If the author gave it their all, if they wrote the story they wanted to tell, it's not their fault if I don't like it, and they don't owe me anything. Now as a consumer, I'm well within my rights to offer criticism, or even say "You know, I don't like what you did there, so I'm not going to buy anything from you in the future." The difference comes in when people cross the line into "I paid for your game/story/movie, therefore you owe me a completely satisfying experience and if I don't get one, then you have to rewrite your story to give it to me." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd all like every book we ever read, and every game would be the best one ever, but it's not a perfect world. And not everyone is going to like the everything. I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to please their audience. I'm not even saying they shouldn't change the ending if they want to. I'm saying they don't owe it to us to change the ending. That's the difference. They owe us a functional disk. That's what we all paid for.

This is incorrect. You can also get a refund for false advertising, not just faulty items. Whether BioWare did falsely advertise, I don't know. What I do know is that Amazon certainly thought they did, and allowed complete refunds.

[MikoDoll]

GB: So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?
CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

So fans are now "entitled" to assume liberties Bioware led them to believe they had in the first place in both interviews their and via revising the novels. I wrote about it more here and arrived to similar conclusions as you OP: http://social.biowar.../index/11139918

There needs to be a movement to draw attention to this information. They seem to think they are entitled to silence the fanbase on principles that don't exist.To lure fans in a sense that they have a say in the creative process and then deny it and that is "integrity."

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 08:36 .

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
No, the difference between a street artist doing caricatures of people, and an international game company is a massive one. In this case, the 'artistic vision' directly links to profit. For example, legal teams, PR teams, marketing teams, the Board, they all have say in this so called 'artistic vision'.

It can change the scope but not the result. Still they own their work, no matter what. 1 or 100 people behind it doesn't change this fact.

Xoahr wrote...
What I'm trying to say, is once an 'artistic vision' has been warped so much by people single-minded on developing profit, it is no longer a true artistic vision. 

It can be, but this is a different argument from the original. If you would have put the thing in this way I would not have objected to it, as you did put at beginning it was a little different.

Xoahr wrote...
Artists, especially when you have such a hierarchy of capitalism prevalent throughout the 'vision', don't have the last say. Their bosses do. And are the bosses better artists, or savvier businessmen?

It can be a sad thing, but however the "artistic integrity" of those making the work remains, no matter the motivations behind them and no matter if they don't really own it no more in the end (but their bosses).

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
The problem is, however, you aren't seeing a video game as art for a commercial objective. I believe games are art, but they are foremost a commercial venture, i.e, at this magnitude, a game is produced for profit.

 
Good enough, but, again, their work is only theirs, no matter what.

Xoahr wrote...
a) the commissioner always had the power to commission a new artist - 'voting with his wallet'.

Sure.

Xoahr wrote...
he's allowed to be furious. I'm sure some of the BioWare team are furious at how various legal, PR, marketing teams, as well as their own bosses forced the game to play out. They're allowed to be furious, yet they still followed (rightfully) the hand that gave them money.

Again, it can be, and as I said, compromises must be done sometimes, but anyway the thing is completely different from saying "I pretend it because I paid for it". Simply put you cannot have this pretence because the work is not really yours, but theirs. You just own a sub-product, not the original work.

And apart this, do you really think that a company as Bioware is really intimidated by these sort of tactics? The game industry is surely not made in the majority by people with the resolve to put in motion a full boycott, no matter what, and even if they were in any case they would only be a minority.

No, at that stage, their work becomes so involved, it becomes in their interest to cater to who they're trying to satisfy. 

Their work is theirs, sure. But so is the work that my neighbour just did, fixing my boiler. Now, if my boiler broke, I'd demand a refund from him, or to fix it again. If my boiler didn't work correctly, or in some way I was not satisfied with my boiler, I would kindly ask him to fix it. Same as how if I had an internal decorator colour my room the wrong shade of blue, I would make him redo it for free. 

I don't want a company to feel threatened. What I will say, however, is last time I checked (about two weeks ago), EA stock was 16 pence for a share. 3 years ago, it was about 50 pence. I would say, for a long time, EA has been dangerously low, economically. 

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
No, the difference between a street artist doing caricatures of people, and an international game company is a massive one. In this case, the 'artistic vision' directly links to profit. For example, legal teams, PR teams, marketing teams, the Board, they all have say in this so called 'artistic vision'.

It can change the scope but not the result. Still they own their work, no matter what. 1 or 100 people behind it doesn't change this fact.

Xoahr wrote...
What I'm trying to say, is once an 'artistic vision' has been warped so much by people single-minded on developing profit, it is no longer a true artistic vision. 

It can be, but this is a different argument from the original. If you would have put the thing in this way I would not have objected to it, as you did put at beginning it was a little different.

Xoahr wrote...
Artists, especially when you have such a hierarchy of capitalism prevalent throughout the 'vision', don't have the last say. Their bosses do. And are the bosses better artists, or savvier businessmen?

It can be a sad thing, but however the "artistic integrity" of those making the work remains, no matter the motivations behind them and no matter if they don't really own it no more in the end (but their bosses).

I think 1 or 100 people will change it. If we were to take the example of the street artist, doing caricatures - imagine if he had a full team behind him. The legal team saying 'don't give her a big nose - she might be Jewish and sue us', the marketing team saying 'give her beautiful eyes', your boss saying 'finish the job within 20 minutes or I'll fire you.' - You're going to have a vastly different result than from the original idea, which was giving some girl a goofy picture. 

It is a different argument from the original, yes. Because in my OP, I was discussing 'entitlement', rather than 'artistic vision'. What has happened, however, is you believe it is entitled to argue change to an artistic vision, and I am debating that BioWare has no claim to artistic vision due to the above process of corporate capitalism. 

You cannot make art if you are influenced solely by profit. For example, the CEO of EA - he was recently recorded saying that people should pay $1 for reloads in FPS'. That is not artistic vision. Going by what you're saying, he has the highest 'artistic integrity' of the company. What he is doing is merely exploitative business practice.

[MikoDoll]

Simple. An artist has always the last word, no matter what. S/He can make compromises but cannot be forced to adhere to them, no matter what.

GB: So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?
CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

...


CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.

We were hailed as co-creators which infers (especially since they said they took a LOT of our feed back) that we have a creative say just as they do. Regardless of what you feel, Bioware still bears fault in encouraging it's fanbase to think they were co-creators of the story.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[HopHazzard]

Xoahr wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about not liking the ending, or offer criticism. It's not the request that it be changed, or even people saying if it isn't changed, that they won't purchase any more bioware games that makes some people entitled. It's the assumption on the part of some that bioware MUST change the ending because they didn't like it. When buying a game, the customer has a right to expect that it will function properly. That's it. If the disk crashed your computer every time you tried to run it, you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to demand that the company either fix the issue, or give you your money back. But that's not what's happening here. People just plain don't like the ending. And the thing is, bioware doesn't actually owe them an ending they like. I've read plenty of books, and seen plenty of movies that I didn't like. I've played plenty of games I didn't like. But that's a matter of taste. Every time you purchase a work authored by someone else, you're running the risk of buying something you won't enjoy. If the author gave it their all, if they wrote the story they wanted to tell, it's not their fault if I don't like it, and they don't owe me anything. Now as a consumer, I'm well within my rights to offer criticism, or even say "You know, I don't like what you did there, so I'm not going to buy anything from you in the future." The difference comes in when people cross the line into "I paid for your game/story/movie, therefore you owe me a completely satisfying experience and if I don't get one, then you have to rewrite your story to give it to me." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd all like every book we ever read, and every game would be the best one ever, but it's not a perfect world. And not everyone is going to like the everything. I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to please their audience. I'm not even saying they shouldn't change the ending if they want to. I'm saying they don't owe it to us to change the ending. That's the difference. They owe us a functional disk. That's what we all paid for.

This is incorrect. You can also get a refund for false advertising, not just faulty items. Whether BioWare did falsely advertise, I don't know. What I do know is that Amazon certainly thought they did, and allowed complete refunds.

Yes. If the product you received is not the product that was advertised, you are entitled to a refund. You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product. Should they? Probably. Do they have to? No. Will there be financial consequences for the company in the future? Almost certainly. But that's on them.

[MikoDoll]

You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product.

again in case you guys seem to be missing it:



"CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback."

Again Bioware responded to fans that they'd revised the books to fill in plotholes etc. They then said fans were co-creators. But then the exact opposite is communicated and fans are too "entitled" for taking Bioware up on that to some people?

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
Their work is theirs, sure. But so is the work that my neighbour just did, fixing my boiler. Now, if my boiler broke, I'd demand a refund from him, or to fix it again.

That's a defective product, it's another thing.

If the artist for example sells a painting that deteriorates because the background was not well fixed on the canvas in this case the commissioner has all the right to have it changed or redone. But this is about a defect in the way the product is made, on the execution, not on the "artistic" side of it. They are two separate concepts.

The former is tied to execution only (as technique, method of work, etc.), the other abides to many other parameters that are not only formed of "mechanical" parts. This is the difference.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[Xoahr]

HopHazzard wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about not liking the ending, or offer criticism. It's not the request that it be changed, or even people saying if it isn't changed, that they won't purchase any more bioware games that makes some people entitled. It's the assumption on the part of some that bioware MUST change the ending because they didn't like it. When buying a game, the customer has a right to expect that it will function properly. That's it. If the disk crashed your computer every time you tried to run it, you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to demand that the company either fix the issue, or give you your money back. But that's not what's happening here. People just plain don't like the ending. And the thing is, bioware doesn't actually owe them an ending they like. I've read plenty of books, and seen plenty of movies that I didn't like. I've played plenty of games I didn't like. But that's a matter of taste. Every time you purchase a work authored by someone else, you're running the risk of buying something you won't enjoy. If the author gave it their all, if they wrote the story they wanted to tell, it's not their fault if I don't like it, and they don't owe me anything. Now as a consumer, I'm well within my rights to offer criticism, or even say "You know, I don't like what you did there, so I'm not going to buy anything from you in the future." The difference comes in when people cross the line into "I paid for your game/story/movie, therefore you owe me a completely satisfying experience and if I don't get one, then you have to rewrite your story to give it to me." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd all like every book we ever read, and every game would be the best one ever, but it's not a perfect world. And not everyone is going to like the everything. I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to please their audience. I'm not even saying they shouldn't change the ending if they want to. I'm saying they don't owe it to us to change the ending. That's the difference. They owe us a functional disk. That's what we all paid for.

This is incorrect. You can also get a refund for false advertising, not just faulty items. Whether BioWare did falsely advertise, I don't know. What I do know is that Amazon certainly thought they did, and allowed complete refunds.

Yes. If the product you received is not the product that was advertised, you are entitled to a refund. You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product. Should they? Probably. Do they have to? No. Will there be financial consequences for the company in the future? Almost certainly. But that's on them.

As I have previously mentioned, in the UK, under your consumer rights, you can demand the product which was advertised. If they can't provide it, you can take them to court under false advertising (unless the advert was in a newspaper).

[AJRimmsey]

MikoDoll wrote...

You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product.

again in case you guys seem to be missing it:



"CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback."

Again Bioware responded to fans that they'd revised the books to fill in plotholes etc. They then said fans were co-creators. But then the exact opposite is communicated and fans are too "entitled" for taking Bioware up on that to some people?

only to the gullible who believe pre release twaddle.

games companys have been lying through thier teeth for years,its nothing new.

you would have to be a bubble person to have believed ANY hype from anyone in the last 4 years.

[Dridengx]

Xoahr wrote...

As I have previously mentioned, in the UK, under your consumer rights, you can demand the product which was advertised.

really now? I recall hearing the last few weeks that Gamestation and other stores in the UK were denying returns, how could that be if your consumer rights say you can?

[The Razman]

Xoahr wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about not liking the ending, or offer criticism. It's not the request that it be changed, or even people saying if it isn't changed, that they won't purchase any more bioware games that makes some people entitled. It's the assumption on the part of some that bioware MUST change the ending because they didn't like it. When buying a game, the customer has a right to expect that it will function properly. That's it. If the disk crashed your computer every time you tried to run it, you'd be well within your rights as a consumer to demand that the company either fix the issue, or give you your money back. But that's not what's happening here. People just plain don't like the ending. And the thing is, bioware doesn't actually owe them an ending they like. I've read plenty of books, and seen plenty of movies that I didn't like. I've played plenty of games I didn't like. But that's a matter of taste. Every time you purchase a work authored by someone else, you're running the risk of buying something you won't enjoy. If the author gave it their all, if they wrote the story they wanted to tell, it's not their fault if I don't like it, and they don't owe me anything. Now as a consumer, I'm well within my rights to offer criticism, or even say "You know, I don't like what you did there, so I'm not going to buy anything from you in the future." The difference comes in when people cross the line into "I paid for your game/story/movie, therefore you owe me a completely satisfying experience and if I don't get one, then you have to rewrite your story to give it to me." Yes, in a perfect world, we'd all like every book we ever read, and every game would be the best one ever, but it's not a perfect world. And not everyone is going to like the everything. I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to please their audience. I'm not even saying they shouldn't change the ending if they want to. I'm saying they don't owe it to us to change the ending. That's the difference. They owe us a functional disk. That's what we all paid for.

This is incorrect. You can also get a refund for false advertising, not just faulty items. Whether BioWare did falsely advertise, I don't know. What I do know is that Amazon certainly thought they did, and allowed complete refunds.

Yes. If the product you received is not the product that was advertised, you are entitled to a refund. You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product. Should they? Probably. Do they have to? No. Will there be financial consequences for the company in the future? Almost certainly. But that's on them.

As I have previously mentioned, in the UK, under your consumer rights, you can demand the product which was advertised. If they can't provide it, you can take them to court under false advertising (unless the advert was in a newspaper).

The product was delivered as advertised. Under every single conceivable interpretation of British law, it was delivered as advertised.

That is simply an end of that argument.

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
Their work is theirs, sure. But so is the work that my neighbour just did, fixing my boiler. Now, if my boiler broke, I'd demand a refund from him, or to fix it again.

That's a defective product, it's another thing.

If the artist for example sells a painting that deteriorates because the background was not well fixed on the canvas in this case the commissioner has all the right to have it changed or redone. But this is about a defect in the way the product is made, on the execution, not on the "artistic" side of it. They are two separate concepts.

The former is tied to execution only (as technique, method of work, etc.), the other abides to many other parameters that are not only formed by "mechanical" parameters. This is the difference.

You seem to have ignored the part where I mentioned the idea of interior decoration, however.

How about if an artist sold a painting which he promised was 'a beautiful puppy' in watercolours and instead you received a crayon sketch of an ugly duck, and when questioned, he merely blathered on about artistic vision, and how your subjectivity is blinding you. Could you request him to paint you the beautiful puppy picture? Is that a defect in the artwork, or the artist, or the consumer? Surely the 'artistic' side there is deeply flawed.

Regardless of how you perceive art, you will find many mechanical parameters within it. Even surrealist art abides by certain laws. This, however, isn't the issue. We're debating entitlement. Do I deserve an ugly duck crayon sketch, or a beautiful puppy watercolour, if I was promised the puppy?

[Dridengx]

Xoahr wrote...
Do I deserve an ugly duck crayon sketch, or a beautiful puppy watercolour, if I was promised the puppy?

You don't deserve anything that's the point. You wanted a video game. you got one, it works, done deal. regardless if you like it, how long it is, how bad it is. you got what you paid for a working video game in the mass effect universe. details could be wrong things change during production.. its called marketing.


but but but someone said a year ago I could have a pony! yeah, well things change.. get over it. but someone said I could have 16 endings. you do.. just minor differences.. BUT I was under the impression these 16 endings were going to be waaaay different? well, you fell for marketing.. blame yourself?

Modifié par Dridengx, 07 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[Xoahr]

Dridengx wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

As I have previously mentioned, in the UK, under your consumer rights, you can demand the product which was advertised.

really now? I recall hearing the last few weeks that Gamestation and other stores in the UK were denying returns, how could that be if your consumer rights say you can?

Gamestation doesn't exist in the UK (except for 2 stores in central London), and GAME can't refund, as they're going insolvent. 

Furthermore, as these are retailers, they give you 30 days to get a refund. However, you've ignored the case of Amazon which gave out a massive number of refunds.

only to the gullible who believe pre release twaddle.

games companys have been lying through thier teeth for years,its nothing new.

you would have to be a bubble person to have believed ANY hype from anyone in the last 4 years.

Official statements released are perceived as marketing, in the UK, at least.

The product was delivered as advertised. Under every single conceivable interpretation of British law, it was delivered as advertised.

That is simply an end of that argument.

I didn't say it wasn't. I still do find the Amazon refund very curious though - they have no vested interest to do that.

[MikoDoll]

AJRimmsey wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

You're not entitled to expect that the company will change the product.

again in case you guys seem to be missing it:



"CH: Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback."

Again Bioware responded to fans that they'd revised the books to fill in plotholes etc. They then said fans were co-creators. But then the exact opposite is communicated and fans are too "entitled" for taking Bioware up on that to some people?

only to the gullible who believe pre release twaddle.

Basically it's okay to lie about involvement in the franchise. If you were too stupid enough to believe it that's your fault. Lying is still lying. It doesn't speak volumes about your "artistic integrity". In any event, I also said this:

Again Bioware responded to fans that they'd revised the books to
fill in plotholes etc.

So understandably many people would feel confident in Bioware not simply being 'all talk' but actually announcing that they'd revise their stories after people complained.

games companys have been lying through thier teeth for years,its nothing new.

This doesn't make it right and you don't get to howl the "integrity" card if you lied and people bought into it. What you're essentially doing is blaming the victims when again Bioware has actually listened to their fans (when it came to the novels) and has announced that they'd revise the books.

Mass Effect fans have been asking for a comment on recent concerns over
Mass Effect: Deception. We have been listening and have the below
response on the issue.

The teams at Del Rey and BioWare would
like to extend our sincerest apologies to the Mass Effect fans for any
errors and oversights made in the recent novel Mass Effect: Deception. 
We are currently working on a number of changes that will appear in
future editions of the novel. 

source: http://social.biowar...index/9150901/1

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:01 .