Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sean Mirrsen]

If a good game is ignored by the community because of its creator's past misdeeds (or even stupider, the creator's chosen publisher's past misdeeds), then it's the community shooting themselves in the foot, not the creator (or publisher). Vengeful dismissal does no good to anyone.

[Neonivek]

If a good game is ignored by the community because of its creator's past misdeeds (or even stupider, the creator's chosen publisher's past misdeeds), then it's the community shooting themselves in the foot, not the creator (or publisher). Vengeful dismissal does no good to anyone.

Hey, if I poison children... I am not exactly going to be wondering why people won't buy my Apple Juice even if it was the best dang apple juice in the world.

Likewise I don't see why people should trust Chucklefish or even accommodate them... for being pricks... just because a few people "say" their games are good.

[Gabeux]

Yeah, Spore was not overhyped -

I actually followed what was happening with Spore

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You mean the aquatic stage, much better looking creature stage, city stage and the better looking cell stage that were all either omitted or kiddified weren't misleading?

C'mon. Only difference is Maxis reached technical limitations while CF actually screwed up (or screwed itself up by losing team members).
Both were overhyped, which I don't think was intentional to harm consumers or the product..except EA kinda made a circus by itself back then without them apparently not even knowing if it was doable (hence the downgrade to different stages of the game) while Starbound was picked up by mainstream media and indie sites, which gave them infinite amounts of attention for minimal input for like..years.

In my mind I see two trains, and both added nuclear fuel to the locomotive, they exploded and it went forward until it derailed.
i.e. Almost same story, in different contexts.

Vengeful dismissal does no good to anyone.

Isn't that called boycotting? Which is what I do to say, Keen Software House after they took me and other friends money and didn't deliver even 25% of what they had proposed.

[Chiefwaffles]

Poisoning children ~= failing to live up to expectations of an in-house game.

[Neonivek]

Poisoning children ~= failing to live up to expectations of an in-house game.

No, they are equivalents. Albeit on different levels.

They poisoned their own dang well and now they have to drink from it.

Why make excuses and put blame onto the consumers because CF messed up? Because otherwise it might mean actions have consequences? OHH NO!

I know we live in a world where people are so used to being screwed over, or knowing others are being screwed over, by corps that it feels like a fact of life. Yet frankly NO, it is still not and never will be acceptable no matter how prolific.  If a company loses the trust or goodwill of its consumer base it isn't the consumer base's fault.

Don't become a corporate apologist.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you were known to poison people, I would be highly suspicious of your apple juice. That doesn't mean I would completely ignore it if it happened to be the only one standing on the shelf, surrounded by prune juice. Since (potentially poisonous) apple juice is not (potentially bad) software the analogy breaks down, but I'd obtain a sample, have some quick tests done, and if nothing turned out to be amiss I would buy it. Simple as that.

Ignoring or hating on a good product because some bad company had something do with it is just stupid, in my opinion. I may dislike every game Gas Powered Games made since the first Dungeon Siege, and I dislike the company itself even more ever since it was bought by Wargaming to make them some new MMO based on Wildman. That does not mean I'm not going to take a look at any hypothetical Total Annihilation sequel they make - because the idea of an actual Total Annihilattion sequel made by Chris Taylor still interests me, even if GPG turned into a maker of flat, shallow multiplayer games, lost all their assets to bad business decisions, and got bought by one of the bigger developers/publishers of vehicular MMO shootfests that have no business making an off-genre classic RTS like Total Annihilation anymore.

The only question is whether or not I'll buy it when it comes out - but I will definitely look at the game and consider it. I gain nothing by ignoring it. The only games I will ignore are those that I know I will not like due to their genre, or will not be able to play due to system requirements. The developer and publisher just do not factor into it.

[Neonivek]

Ignoring or hating on a good product because some bad company had something do with it is just stupid, in my opinion.

They cannot have their cake and eat it to. If they try to benefit from a good reputation you cannot pull the rug under someone and say that they cannot suffer because of a bad reputation.

It cannot go one way but not the other.

[Chiefwaffles]

I find it pretty simple for me.

If it's a good product that I want, I'll get it.
If it's a [bad/good] product that I don't want, I won't get it.

And if I don't trust the company in charge of the product, then I'll be a bit more careful with my purchase. (Just in general more consideration before purchase)

[Neonivek]

And if I don't trust the company in charge of the product, then I'll be a bit more careful with my purchase. (Just in general more consideration before purchase)

Times like this I wish I could make a Satire without being a total jerk :S

[Sean Mirrsen]

Ignoring or hating on a good product because some bad company had something do with it is just stupid, in my opinion.

They cannot have their cake and eat it to. If they try to benefit from a good reputation you cannot pull the rug under someone and say that they cannot suffer because of a bad reputation.

It cannot go one way but not the other.

Extra scrutiny before purchase would be the extent of the bad reputation, just as less attention paid to details would be the extent of the good reputation. No matter how good a company I still won't buy a game I don't like - to me, it goes neither way.

[Neonivek]

So your not a believer in Dollar Votes?

[Mephisto]

So your not a believer in Dollar Votes?

And by extension you're not a believer in positive reinforcement?

[Sean Mirrsen]

So your not a believer in Dollar Votes?

And by extension you're not a believer in positive reinforcement?

How is buying good games and not buying bad ones, regardless of whether or not their creator or publisher has/had a good or bad past not positive reinforcement? O_o
Reward for doing good, don't reward for doing bad, me and my understanding of English thought that that's what it meant.

[Mephisto]

So your not a believer in Dollar Votes?

And by extension you're not a believer in positive reinforcement?

How is buying good games and not buying bad ones, regardless of whether or not their creator or publisher has/had a good or bad past not positive reinforcement? O_o
Reward for doing good, don't reward for doing bad, me and my understanding of English thought that that's what it meant.

My bad, not you. I meant Neonivek.

Questionable developer makes a good game? Buy it to show them what kinds of games they should be making. Positive reinforcement.

[Blue_Dwarf]

My bad, not you. I meant Neonivek.

Questionable developer makes a good game? Buy it to show them what kinds of games they should be making. Positive reinforcement.

Buy it after they release it, maybe. Good luck getting funding with that reputation.