138 réponses à ce sujet

[Xoahr]

Dridengx wrote...

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.

I'm not arguing that, either. I'm arguing about whether it's entitled to ask for something you paid for to be added/changed. In my case, I am dissatisfied with ME3. I am dissatisfied that my Shepard doesn't have the option to do what he would have done, and I am dissatisfied that there are only 3 ultimate endings, with colour changes being the only thing.

Official press releases suggest otherwise. I am unsure as to whether it constitutes false marketing, which is why I won't openly say they did falsely advertise. What they definitely did, however, was mislead, and hoodwink the consumer, to such a degree, it became more than marketing.

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

[The Razman]

Xoahr wrote...

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?

Surely, surely, anybody who's going to weigh in on an argument about artistic value would know the difference between a narrative artistic work and a visual piece of artwork before bothering to say anything?

You can't go to a movie, buy a book or play a video-game which is advertised as being "the best thing you'll ever see!!!" and then try and sue the creators or demand your money back when it isn't the best thing you ever saw. You can't claim false advertising for hype and embellishment on narrative artworks.

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
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. 

And I can understand it. I don't agree with it but I can understand it and I would not have objected as I've done if you would have put it this way in the OP, but there the thing was put in a completely different way and it could imply a totally different thing.

[MikoDoll]

Just gonna re post what Preistly wrote:

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

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.

So it's ok to change the novel. Just not the game. I guess novels aren't art anymore? Fans had reason to believe they had somewhat of a co-authorship with Bioware when Bioware did things like this. Bioware listened before, and openly stated it.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[Xoahr]

The Razman wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

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?

Surely, surely, anybody who's going to weigh in on an argument about artistic value would know the difference between a narrative artistic work and a visual piece of artwork before bothering to say anything?

You can't go to a movie, buy a book or play a video-game which is advertised as being "the best thing you'll ever see!!!" and then try and sue the creators or demand your money back when it isn't the best thing you ever saw. You can't claim false advertising for hype and embellishment on narrative artworks.

The Neverending Story was sued for not being 'Neverending' by the author, and failed his lawsuit. Did he not have enough artistic integrity?

Modifié par Xoahr, 07 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[The Razman]

Xoahr wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Xoahr wrote...

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?

Surely, surely, anybody who's going to weigh in on an argument about artistic value would know the difference between a narrative artistic work and a visual piece of artwork before bothering to say anything?

You can't go to a movie, buy a book or play a video-game which is advertised as being "the best thing you'll ever see!!!" and then try and sue the creators or demand your money back when it isn't the best thing you ever saw. You can't claim false advertising for hype and embellishment on narrative artworks.

The Neverending Story was succesfully sued for not being 'Neverending'.

... no, it wasn't. That's a Simpsons episode you're thinking of. <_<

EDIT: That you've changed your post after realising that any lawsuit was obviously unsuccessful just highlights the point that you can't sue people for this.

Modifié par The Razman, 07 avril 2012 - 09:09 .

[MikoDoll]

I'm not arguing that, either. I'm arguing about whether it's entitled to ask for something you paid for to be added/changed.

*sighes* agaaiiin time to quote Bioware:

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

" 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."

If you don't want them to feel like co-authors don't talk to them as if they are and don't go changing the story (like with the novels) over their opinions that it was defective. The argument of integrity is not on your side.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[Justin2k]

The retake people certainly have been acting entitled in my opinion.

But I don't think that people realise that isn't necessarily an insult. I mean when people call you entitled they are saying you are behaving as if you have a right to something.

This is a very accurate description of whats happening i thought? You believe you have a right to a new ending. You believe Bioware lied and you are owed. I mean that is a belief of entitlement in it's very definition.

You could also argue that the whining thing is accurate also as I believe that means to consistently complain about the same thing until you get your way.

All in all, the perceptions that the media and the non-enders have of the retakers is not all that far off the truth.  I mean, look at some of the threads and they are certainly "whine-fest" threads.

I see why people are retaking, i see why people are upset, i see why people are protesting.  But i can also see why people are saying they are spoilt/entitled/whiny etc too.  If you stand back, you will see it.  Theres a lot of emotion going around.

Modifié par Justin2k, 07 avril 2012 - 09:15 .

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
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.

He in fact has all the rights to do so, as you have all the rights to purchase it or not. To change it if he doesn't want? No.

Just make the contrary example, that's the same. If the artist pretended the commisioner to buy the work no matter what, would you call that fine? It's the same exactly thing also if it may seem the opposite. Both are pretending the other to do what you want about a thing that's not yours to begin with (in the former case the work, in the latter the money).

Xoahr wrote...
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.

It is flawed from your point of view, but not from his/hers and since the work is his/hers no matter if you commissioned it or not, the last word is only his/hers on changing it or not.

In this case it is not a defect because it is not just the execution that's flawed but also the "vision" behind it (and this is a matter of opinion).

Xoahr wrote...
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.

Laws in this sense have nothing to do with mechanical parameters. They are just method of workings or "visions" already estabilished before. They may become mechanical *after* but in the creation they were not, so abiding to only those may become a form of manierism and you can debate if manierism is art or not, but anyway it is always different from purely mechanical execution.

And anyway, as you say, this is not the issue.

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

You don't deserve it, no matter what. You asked for something and the author gave you that something in his/her point of view. Your point of view it's not the same? Too bad. The only thing you deserve is to buy or not to buy it.

It's not unfair because the artist had to employ time and money (using products) to make the work and you can decide to let it all go on his/her hand, having yourself the right to not buy it. It would be unfair the opposite, in fact, if you either had (apart the ability to buy or not buy) either the ability to change what you want when you want to.

Suppose you make him/her change the work as you please and s/he HAD to do it then you don't buy it the same because you are no more interested.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 09:22 .

[HopHazzard]

MikoDoll wrote...

Just gonna re post what Preistly wrote:

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

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.

So it's ok to change the novel. Just not the game. I guess novels aren't art anymore? Fans had reason to believe they had somewhat of a co-authorship with Bioware when Bioware did things like this. Bioware listened before, and openly stated it.

It's ok for them to change whatever they want to change. It's also ok for them to not change things if they don't want to.

Fans complained about Deception and bioware said "You know, you're right. That sucked. We're going to fix it." Now fans have complained about ME3, and bioware is saying "We disagree with your assertion that the ending sucks, and we stand by what we made."

[MikoDoll]

Justin2k wrote...

The retake people certainly have been acting entitled in my opinion.

*bangs head* the post above you...read it.

But I don't think that people realise that isn't necessarily an insult. I mean when people call you entitled they are saying you are behaving as if you have a right to something.

You mean the stuff Bioware said we were. Like co-authorship.

[Justin2k]

MikoDoll wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

The retake people certainly have been acting entitled in my opinion.

*bangs head* the post above you...read it.

But I don't think that people realise that isn't necessarily an insult. I mean when people call you entitled they are saying you are behaving as if you have a right to something.

You mean the stuff Bioware said we were. Like co-authorship.

And your point is that you are entitled?

I really don't get it.  You are entitled by the very definition.  You feel you are entitled to co-authorship because Bioware said you were.  Therefore you are entitled, congratulations.

I mean... why the hate on the word entitled?  It's not an insult.

[The Razman]

MikoDoll wrote...

You mean the stuff Bioware said we were. Like co-authorship.

One quote in an interview = legal and ethical commitment to allow fans to re-write any part of the game they don't like.

Yeah. Makes sense. <_<

[xsdob]

Your post was good up until the last part, where you turned into the regional psychic of Alberta province. Rule of thumb for trying to win over someone who isn't in complete agreement with you, never speak in certainty, about things that have not transpired yet.

People who say that this dlc will fix everything are fools, people who say it will fix nothing are just fools for the other side.

Oh, and the were different from them so that makes us better jab you did there with the "we are the responsible consumers." line, not very civil either.

Modifié par xsdob, 07 avril 2012 - 09:23 .

[MikoDoll]

HopHazzard wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

Just gonna re post what Preistly wrote:

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

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.

So it's ok to change the novel. Just not the game. I guess novels aren't art anymore? Fans had reason to believe they had somewhat of a co-authorship with Bioware when Bioware did things like this. Bioware listened before, and openly stated it.

It's ok for them to change whatever they want to change. It's also ok for them to not change things if they don't want to.

*sighes* Again this relies on the assumption of complete creative control over the product. When you have a history of changing the story upon fan demand and then saying fans are co-authors in addition to it you are setting your fanbase up to believe they can do things. That they can impact the lore. Stop slapping them on the wrist and admit that they have fault in communicating something to the fandom and then assuming another position. If you say your fanbase shares creative direction with you and then have made moves to act on that commitment, its not integrity to then go back on that.

Fans complained about Deception and bioware said "You know, you're right. That sucked. We're going to fix it." Now fans have complained about ME3, and bioware is saying "We disagree with your assertion that the ending sucks, and we stand by what we made."

They didn't say they thought it sucked overall just that they'd change parts of  the story. Not simply add content to clarify the existing things, but to actually change the novel.  As co-creators the fans still have the right to be unhappy because they are encouraged to see themselves as authors of the series as well. The whole idea that you've been presenting in defense of Bioware is that they have a right to be okay with the product and not introduce anything new because they were the authors. Well according to Bioware we are too. So we have just as much of a right to complain. It might not change anything but we have the right to express our complaints.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:27 .

[Grammarye]

People seem to keep missing the point. It is entirely true that in the generic sense, one can buy a novel, hate it, and take it back for a refund, and to demand the novel be changed to suit you would indeed come across as unreasonable.

However, ME3 is not merely a product purchased. It is a conclusion to a trilogy started years ago, with a large fan following, with enormous hype generated by Bioware in order to boost sales, with various statements about it flung about before any purchasing was possible.

At this point, it is not simply about purchasing or entitlement. It is about the producer-consumer relationship. It's about realising that when you hype something, you'd best deliver something close to the hype. It's about realising that when you set down a path to create multiple linked products, the first of which hooks consumers onto the second & third, that you are creating a bond of trust that, if broken, is extraordinarily hard to restore. Sequel authors learn this all the time which is why the great book series don't deviate too far from book to book.

This isn't about entitlement. This is about good business sense. In no other environment would a producer of goods be able to create an exclusive product, do a poor job of it according to the consumer, simply go 'well, tough, we like it' and not reap the whirlwind when it comes to lost sales subsequently.

That some fans are requesting a change to the ending is a good sign in my view. They have enough faith to stay and ask for that. Really annoyed consumers tend to just leave and never come back. There is a reason we have a saying in the software business which can be paraphrased as 'for every irritated customer that takes the time to report a bug, ten won't and will just badmouth your product'. Actually it goes beyond just that one industry...

[MikoDoll]

The Razman wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

You mean the stuff Bioware said we were. Like co-authorship.

One quote in an interview = legal and ethical commitment to allow fans to re-write any part of the game they don't like.

Yeah. Makes sense. <_<

1. It's still a statement from Bioware. It still refelcts on the company and creates a legtimate basis for expectation as if the novels weren't enough (and I'm pretty sure I noted them).  Game developers lie in interviews yes, but if they didn't think anyone would buy into the lie they wouldn't be there doing interviews to promote the game in the first place. It simply would have no signifficance. When you lie the argument of integrity is not on your side.  Especially when those claims comprimise views on your authority as the sole creative force.  To say "well many lie" as I'm sure some will, doesn't make lying right.

2. As for a legal commitment? That is questionable, doubtful and to assert that I was saying they were legally liable is false. Ethically? Of course they wouldn't be ethically backed. I said they also are changing the books which again only encourages fans to think they can influence Bioware to change parts of the story if they voice their opinions. So it's not just a press statement, it's other things as well.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[HopHazzard]

MikoDoll wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

MikoDoll wrote...

Just gonna re post what Preistly wrote:

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

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.

So it's ok to change the novel. Just not the game. I guess novels aren't art anymore? Fans had reason to believe they had somewhat of a co-authorship with Bioware when Bioware did things like this. Bioware listened before, and openly stated it.

It's ok for them to change whatever they want to change. It's also ok for them to not change things if they don't want to.

*sighes* Again this relies on the assumption of complete creative control over the product. When you have a history of changing the story upon fan demand and then saying fans are co-authors in addition to it you are setting your fanbase up to believe they can do things. That they can impact the lore. Stop slapping them on the wrist and admit that they have fault in communicating something to the fandom and then assuming another position. If you say your fanbase shares creative direction with you and then have made moves to act on that commitment, its not integrity to then go back on that.

Fans complained about Deception and bioware said "You know, you're right. That sucked. We're going to fix it." Now fans have complained about ME3, and bioware is saying "We disagree with your assertion that the ending sucks, and we stand by what we made."

They didn't say they thought it sucked overall just that they'd change parts of  the story. Not simply add content to clarify the existing things, but to actually change the novel.  As co-creators the fans still have the right to be unhappy because they are encouraged to see themselves as authors of the series as well. The whole idea that you've been presenting in defense of Bioware is that they have a right to be okay with the product and not introduce anything new because they were the authors. Well according to Bioware we are too. So we have just as much of a right to complain. It might not change anything but we have the right to express our complaints.

I never said fans didn't have the right to express their complaints. Or that they don't have the right to be unhappy. Of course they do. I'm saying they don't have the right to expect bioware to do anything about it.

I guess, I just never bought into the whole "You are the co-author" business. At no point playing any of the Mass Effect games did I ever lose sight of the fact that I was following someone else's script. It may have been more akin to a choose your own adventure story than a straight novel, but it was never my story. Did they take some of our feedback into account? Yes. But they ignored a lot of it too. Co-authors get overruled sometimes. It happens.

[palker]

All of you deffending their artistic integrity should read one of those collections of quotes from devs pre-release where they are telling blatant lies about the ending. Where is integrity in that.

[Amioran]

Grammarye wrote...
This isn't about entitlement. This is about good business sense. In no other environment would a producer of goods be able to create an exclusive product, do a poor job of it according to the consumer, simply go 'well, tough, we like it' and not reap the whirlwind when it comes to lost sales subsequently.

Then they will, but this has nothing to do with having the right to having it changed if they don't want to. Would they have to abide to their decisions even with the supposed (because we must see if they are so real) consequences? Certainly yes, every choice has consequences, but entitlement it's all another thing and it doesn't pertain at all to this.

They have the right to do of their work what they want, no matter what. You cannot pretend otherwise, end of story. An author can decide to do of his work what s/he wants, either if this spells bankruptcy. Nobody does that but YOU CAN IF YOU WANT, and this is the difference here. They could and can if they want and they have all the right to do so, as you have all the right to complain and not buy other products if you want to. Do they have the right to ask your money and you had to give it whatever happens just because you are a "trusted consumer"? No. Do you have the right to ask for them to change things as you like them to be because you are "trusted consumer"? In the same way, NO.

--------------------

As for the guy insisting that since they said that the fans are co-authors they really are, excuse me, but are you really serious? You are not really a co-creator at all, that's just a matter of saying, as when an artist can say (usually singers) "my fans helps me create my work". It is not real in the literal sense and if you think otherwise I'm sorry to say it to you but you are seriously deluded.

And apart this the consequences are entirely on them and yet you pretend to be a co-author? Let me guess, if sales go bad you will have any repercussion on that with your money? If many people are not happy about the product you will have any consequence from it? Who will care about your "co-authorship"? Be real, please.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[MikoDoll]

I mean... why the hate on the word entitled?  It's not an insult.

It can be however. I see what you mean now though.

[Kingofthebonggo]

I don't know who's more entitled - the retakers still bemoaning the free epilogue content being developed in an effort to placate them or people who waste an hour of their life researching topics they have no background in on Wikipedia and purporting to know something more than other users for the sake of gratifying their own need to feel validated that their way of thinking is correct and dissenters are wrong.

[Grammarye]

Amioran wrote...Then they will, but this has nothing to do with having the right to having it changed if they don't want to. Would they have to abide to their decisions even with the supposed (because we must see if they are so real) consequences? Certainly yes, every choice has consequences, but entitlement it's all another thing and it doesn't pertain at all to this.

They have the right to do of their work what they want, no matter what. You cannot pretend otherwise, end of story. An author can decide to do of his work what s/he wants, either if this spells bankruptcy. Nobody does that but YOU CAN IF YOU WANT, and this is the difference here. They could and can if they want and they have all the right to do so, as you have all the right to complain and not buy other products if you want to. Do they have the right to ask your money? No. Do you have the right to ask for them to change things as you like them to be for your "consumer trust"? Not the same.

You are still missing the point. You are attributing the concepts of rights & entitlement to anyone who disagrees with you, and it is that attribution that is false, and which the OP was attempting to point out.

Allow me to give you an example from the real business world. A little 3D CAD application that sells in the millions of dollars range called Revit released with a user interface overhaul a couple of years back. Fully two thirds of the userbase hated this overhaul. Support was drowning in complaints. They demanded change, in some cases change back to the way it was. Autodesk (the producer of Revit) listened, and made quite a number of changes. Was that userbase acting entitled? Was Autodesk giving in? Or was that simply a business listening to its customers and acting to preserve its sales? There were even discussions mirroring the whole 'artistic integrity' thing, where UX designers lamented that they knew their UI vision was right, and the customers must be wrong. Nevertheless, the changes were made, and sales recovered.

It is that point you are missing. It's not about rights. It's not about entitlement. You are using those labels as a bludgeon to silence people, or suggest that they should be silent. Expressing an opinion and asking for change does not equate to a right, nor is it entitlement. As the OP said, it's the customer expressing themselves. Companies listen or not to those customers at their peril. There is no argument around rights at all. There is simply whether there is trust, and money exchanged.

In short, people can hold an opposing opinion & express it, and at no point does that either validate or invalidate any others. However only a fool assumes their opinion to be the only one of validity when they want others to give them money.

Edit: The logical follow-on from that is that of course Bioware need do nothing if the majority are content to give them money regardless of this issue. That is eminently sensible. However, that they are busily 're-prioritising' to me suggests that they are at least a bit concerned...

Modifié par Grammarye, 07 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[MikoDoll]

HopHazzard wrote...
I never said fans didn't have the right to express their complaints. Or that they don't have the right to be unhappy. Of course they do. I'm saying they don't have the right to expect bioware to do anything about it.

Again Bioware has communicated through press statements and changing the stories of the books that they wanted people to believe they could do such things. They encouraged them to feel like co-authors of the franchise.  Therefore It's in within the the fans' ethical right to expect Bioware to do something about it. That doesn't mean they are legally entitled no. It is within Bioware's legal right not to and when a fan was (wrongly) assumed to dispute Bioware's legal entitlements, he was shot down on both sides. 
 

I guess, I just never bought into the whole "You are the co-author" business. At no point playing any of the Mass Effect games did I ever lose sight of the fact that I was following someone else's script.

Again look at the books. It was already published We were looking at someone else's text. Complaints were made, the story is getting changed. We'll still be looking at another person's text but the obvious implication through previous expressions of this is that, we don't directly contribute, but we can contribute general ideas to fix the story for them to incorporate.

It may have been more akin to a choose your own adventure story than a straight novel, but it was never my story.

Co authorship is more along the  lines of changing after the publication to add general ideas the fans complained over. In this sense we do have creative direction of the series in the sense we can revise the product after it's initial publication.

Did they take some of our feedback into account? Yes. But they ignored a lot of it too. Co-authors get overruled sometimes. It happens.

It does but it's still in the ethical right to want changes to the story.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 07 avril 2012 - 09:55 .

[TheGreenAlloy]

Extremely well said, OP. The myth of gamer entitlement was started by the so-called "journalists" of gaming, and it's appearently easy for others to defend their favourite game/developer/publisher with accusations of entitlement.