Shogun's response to patch campaign

[Marcus Maxentius]

Sabotage doesn't have to be an inside job. It doesn't matter who does damage a disgruntled employee, a rival, a spy, or a terrorist. It's still sabotage. It doesn't matter whether the thing damaged is inside or outside. Even Abstract concepts like ratings can have their meanings damaged. I read game reviews with a pound of salt. I discount extremely favorable reviews like 5's or 10's and extremely low reviews such as 1's. These reviews I see as very suspect, a personal agenda as some have said or a troll who thinks he's cool.
With this issue in particular, It doesn't matter how well written they are. Their intent is not primarily to review the game for customers, but as another venue to cry out to CA for a patch.

[Bhruic]

Perhaps you should say that it is your perception of their intent. As you weren't there when they wrote it, so you can't really say why "they" chose to do so.

Bh

[Marcus Maxentius]

While were on semantics, please correct me if I misread something somewhere. But blackmail and extortion only involve money? Anything of value can be threatened by hurting something else of value to the victim. It can be a promotion, "companionship", plane ticket out of the country, freeing of "wrongly imprisioned compatriots. In this case, the thing of value wanted is a patch for a video game. Threats can be like do this or I'll kill your family or blow up this shopping mall. In this case, it's lost sales.

[Marcus Maxentius]

good point.

[Bhruic]

While were on semantics, please correct me if I misread something somewhere. But blackmail and extortion only involve money? Anything of value can be threatened by hurting something else of value to the victim. It can be a promotion, "companionship", plane ticket out of the country, freeing of "wrongly imprisioned compatriots. In this case, the thing of value wanted is a patch for a video game. Threats can be like do this or I'll kill your family or blow up this shopping mall. In this case, it's lost sales.

Sorry, can't give you that one. Blackmail is basically saying "give me this, or I'll do this". There is no "or I'll do this" here, because people already are writing their reviews. Also, blackmail can only be done to someone. People arranging the so-called "campaign" here, or on other forums isn't doing it to CA. People would have to be emailing CA and saying "give us a patch or we'll go write bad reviews on Amazon". Which would be a ridiculous email to send.

Bh

[Marcus Maxentius]

I'm not focusing on this as much as other people. But every now and then I need to vent at the pointlessness of arguing on the internet

[Bhruic]

It's no skin off my nose either way. I haven't written a review on Amazon (or anywhere else), nor do I intend to. And while I personally find CA's (and Activision's) lack of support distasteful, I'll simply be "voting" with my wallet.

But I do find it annoying (and somewhat hypocritical) when people suggest that people shouldn't be writing the reviews if they feel it's warranted. Write your own if you want. But leave it to others to decide what review they wish to write, and what score they wish to give.

Bh

[Marcus Maxentius]

Yep, it's all ridiculous what's going on. I think the mod was right about this thread getting ridiculous. First the dictionary and now philosophy.

[HarunTaiwan]

Gregoshi,

Unfortunately, your internet poll about RTW is not scientific and could not be used to compare to Amazon ratings to determine if the reviewers are "lying" or not. It's not a random sample and neither are the Amazon ratings.

Also, playing a flawed game is not the same as saying it deserves more stars. Again, if you bought a Jaguar and were not satisifed with the quality and service, would you say that the fact you still drive it to work means that "secretly" you are satisfied with the car?

I think you all need to let people's opinions stand and stop second guessing. Besides, the whole purpose of Amazon rating is to inform potential buyers. Are you actually saying that if you read the reviews that you wouldn't come out more informed? There are glowing reviews that explain the game, and poor reviews which explain some of the drawbacks..I guess we could retract all criticism - I mean, let's not be arbritrarily unfair to a company with an arbritrary 2 patch rule.

[Red Harvest]

It isn't sabotage to give your opinion of a game, and to warn others off. Calling reviews or ratings sabotage or blackmail because you disagree with them is nonsense. It clearly implies a serious wrong is being committed. That's nonsense and that's why this debate is continuing.

Another reason for giving it the lowest possible ranking: prospective buyers would do better to wait for the XPack and the typical "bundle." Why buy an unfinished product twice? It makes no sense at this point. Buyers would be wiser to wait for a bundle (and a patch) at any rate. It is certainly a better use of their playing time.

And just a reminder of why we are all here discussing this in the first place: The problem is not with the customer, it is with the developer. The developer is the only one that can rectify the situation.

[Benny Moore]

Some people try to justify Creative Assembly and portray them as being the victims by pointing out how it is Activision's fault that the game is shoddy.

It is not a lie. However, it is a half-truth. It may be Activision's fault that the game is shoddy, but it is not Activision's fault that Creative Assembly has chosen to lie, insult customers for pointing out errors in a civil manner, and forbid all discussion of a particular area of the game.

As far as I know, no discussion of the Amazon campaign has occurred on the official forums. Who would be stupid enough to post that thread? It is exactly like, as some of you have argued, loudly telling people not to shop at a certain store, while in the store. I would be amazed if anyone told me that they know of any discussion of the Amazon campaign at the official site.

No, Creative Assembly's knowledge of the Amazon campaign comes from this board. One of the developers posted in one of the deleted threads here. Therefore, Shogun's hidden meaning must mean that people who promote the Amazon campaign at this site will be banned from the official site.

That kills the argument which states that Creative Assembly are being perfectly fair in their threat to ban people who promote the Amazon campaign.

Quietus, your underhanded and slippery manipulation of this argument has made you stand out from among all others who take the same position as yours. The truth is not in you. You have lost one more man's respect by your word weaving.

[screwtype]

But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!

LOL.

[Colovion]

I'd really just like CA to come out of their caves and let us know their thoughts on the matter and actually inform us on the hows and whys of the situation.

Obviously a lot of people are... let's just say 'annoyed' to put it mildly and it is to do with a faulty product. Not one that has plans to be fixed like any other form of entertainment that doesn't perform as advertised - no, one who's creators have declared that they have washed their hands of the respected problems.

Well unless you want to buy the expansion pack.

hey guys, remember when we joked about this a long time ago that they wouldn't fix the problems but would make us buy the XP to fix them?

those buggers jumped the shark on this one, mooning us as they did it

[Quietus]

Quietus, your underhanded and slippery manipulation of this argument has made you stand out from among all others who take the same position as yours. The truth is not in you.

I don't know what to say but disagree with this, especially when you didn't even mention the act of blackmail or sabotage as "underhanded". But you call someone crying "blackmail!" and "sabotage!" as underhanded. I'm fairly straightforward with my statements and still abide by them.

You have lost one more man's respect by your word weaving.

No offense taken. In fact, I don't even believe you at all. I think you're just venting and I'm the closest man around.

Your statement is merely dictated by emotion not by reasoning - stemming out of the frustration that the game is not being patched by CA. Am I right? Thus, it's not admissable by my account.

Believe it or not, I lament CA's inaction in this matter. I test a LOT for my Guide and I save every single turn (while simultaneously playing the campaign). And I had the sinking feeling when Tai4ji2x first posted the siege bug thread here (because it instantly explains why the AI wasn't expanding in my game).

So there you go.

[screwtype]

My take on the semantics:

I think "sabotage" is probably a fair description of the one-star ratings on Amazon, given that they are designed to, well, sabotage the game's average rating there.

But, so what? The average rating was 5 before the campaign began - the highest possible rating which is clearly absurd. Vanilla RTW deserves a 3 at most, I personally would rate it at a 2. And arguably the "read our lips - no new patches" policy deserves a further downgrade, which would make it a 1. So the 1-star ratings are at least defensible.

As to "blackmail" and "extortion" though, I'm sorry, I don't regard a person exercising his legitimate right to post a review on Amazon as being tantamount to criminal activity.

In any case, I think anyone who reads the latest reviews on Amazon will get a very clear picture of the debate, since the issues have been thrashed out there in the various pro- and con- reviews as well. Readers will quickly realize that (a) there's a deliberate campaign in progress to bring the average rating down, and that (b) some gamers are very dissatisfied not only with the state of the game but also the lack of support from CA.

No-one is being misled. No-one is being tricked. There's just a very open public debate going on, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Oh and BTW, the reviews are probably helping to raise the org's profile since several reviewers have mentioned it by name. So people can come here, read the threads and be as well informed as anyone about the issues before making their choice about whether to go ahead and buy. And that can only be a positive IMO.

[Browning]

In order to make a proper decision, the customer must be provided with a proper information. Advertising is not such a proper information, it is a part of information at the best. Reviews in computer game magazines have been, possibly, a part of the advertising campaign for the product. The customer, seeking information, could turn to the internet fora like this one but it seldom happens. Moreover, the official forum displays only the part of the information of the product (its positive side) while hiding the other part (deleting the posts on bugs), thus it can be considered a part of the advertisement campaign.
Disillusioned users of the product, posting their angry reviews on Amazon and other sites dedicated to selling, do a good thing, since they provide a potential consumer with a valuable information he would not obtain otherwise.

[HarunTaiwan]

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

[Colovion]

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

/support

[player1]

CA should print the following onto it's packaging:

CONSUMER ADVISORY: THIS PRODUCT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY A MAXIMUM OF TWO PATCHES.

Well, I think it would be great if there was a LAW (at least in US, all roads lead to US), which would order all gaming companies to have such declaration on thier boxes.

It would detail how long is guaranteed patch support (how many months).
And what is guaranteed number of patches.


That would be a campaign I would support.

[Colovion]

Well, I think it would be great if there was a LAW (at least in US, all roads lead to US), which would order all gaming companies to have such declaration on thier boxes.

It would detail how long is guaranteed patch support (how many months).
And what is guaranteed number of patches.


That would be a campaign I would support.

this is more like something to be thought of all across the internet, something which would be MUCH more supported by the gaming magazines - which would most likely support a campaign as far sweeping as this.

[SpencerH]

Its funny but I mentioned that the Amazon rating had fallen to 3.5 in another thread (as an interesting aside) and my comment was expunged by the mods, yet here y'all are discussing it.... hmmm.

Congratulations to whomever thought of expressing our views at Amazon. Brilliant!

"Sabotage", what drivel! CA have sabotaged this game with their behaviour much more effectively than a few patrons who gave the game 1 star. As far as I'm concerned, even if the 'campaign' does negatively impact the development of the TW series or even if CA calls it quits it may remind other developers and more importantly we (the consumers) of where the power truly lies. Its time that all game developers stop foisting buggy software on the public. What do we need to do, agitate in congress for a software lemon law?

[Turbo]

The latter.

Most people rate something early on when it is new. So waiting until after the final patch is a rather interesting approach. There is nothing to prevent others from rating it higher. The difference is mainly that people were reminded that they could send a clear message with their ratings and reviews (since the .com had been shut down to them.) And they did so.

Good point Red Harvest.

[Turbo]

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

The reviews are anything but an afterthought. You obviously haven't read the reviews.

[Catiline]

.org's views on the discussion of this campaign have been made clear. Thread closed.