RTW Expansion announced

Harun,
You're quite right. I wasn't actually trying to defend CA's behaviour, nor disrespecting those who voice their discontent at CA. I simply meant to say that an organised campaign to cause economic damage does carry with it a risk of severely damaging the entire TW series. Since the sales figures (and even the polls on this site) show that most people would at least prefer the game to exist (even though they may not be 100% happy with some of its shortcomings), that seems to me to be taking things too far. To my mind it encompasses a willingness to sacrifice the enjoyment of the wider TW-buying public to the grievances, however justified, of a minority of disappointed gamers.

For my part it's nothing personal its only business. That is how they look at it and that is how I look at it. They ignore, placate, lie, deceive, cheat, patronize, abandon and obfuscate issues related to their games. So I as a consumer have had enough and I will make it my purpose in life (in my free time) to do my best to draw attention to the issues at hand and the bad business practices.

I remember the car industry doing to same to someone back in the 70s called Ralph. He started his campaign as part of his graduate studies. He was called much worse by the industry back then but because of him and his campaigns the industry has changed for the better and now everyone enjoys a higher quality product and standards of service as well as pride in ownership. The same basic arguments given now by the gaming industry are exactly the same as the auto industry but it survived so why all the BS???

-Spartan

i feel i am a bit torn because i am on both sides of the issue. i sympathize with the 'lets get an awareness campaign going' crowd and i sympathize with the 'make sure you don't go too far and ruin it for the rest of us' crowd. i think the solution like so many things simply boils down to money. if CA decides that the awareness campaigners are just a small vocal minority, then no matter what the campaigners do, or where they raise the issue, CA will conclude that it isn't likely to sway thier core market or hurt them financially. if CA decides that the campaigners are a significant part of their market or could sway a significant part, then they will try to placate them so CA doesn't get hurt financially.

of course the million dollar question is ' are the awareness campaigners enough to sway CA's core market financially?'

@Nokhor, the campaigners make up most of the posts that are here and at other sites and not only the English sites. People keep forgetting that the world market is not just only the US/UK.



Further many of us are real working professionals and not the "main stream" market types (10-18 year olds) but we know how things work and are well educated and sometimes connected. So they should be worried, very worried.



Hell just tonight after I finished work, I was talking to a NHK News Producer friend of mine about doing a special interest story related to the international gaming industry. He was not so interested in the story since it's not an issue in Japan (yet) but told me he would ask others at his office and see about things.

-Spartan

If Activison/CA bases their business model on a two patch abandon game system regardless of the issues still outstanding in the games, then players can base their consumer model on an abandon developer/publisher if they no longer support their games after two patches system.

See how that works?

It's simply quid pro quo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa82

I'm not suggesting that you should buy something you don't enjoy, or that you should refrain from making negative comments about it. But to say that it might as well not exist if you, personally, don't enjoy it ignores the interests of the rest of the community.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Yes, it would, if I were to actually say that. Too bad I didn't.

---

It would be "too bad" if you hadn't. But you did:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

But "not existing" and "existing but unenjoyable" are close enough to the same thing that neither is preferred over the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Let's go over those inconvenient facts for you one more time. RTW has numerous flaws. I believe it was Puzz3D who listed them in another thread. CA (and Activision) have effectively decided to ignore those flaws. Therefore, if someone were to go to Amazon, or anywhere else, and write a review that highlights the flaws and the lack of support, those would be factual statements.

---

Those facts would be highly inconvenient for me if I had disputed them. But I didn't. If you'd like to go and take a look at my first post, you'll see that:
I did not say that the game was not flawed.
I did not say that CA were not behaving badly in their defective response to the flaws.
I did not say that people should not highlight these problems in reviews.
What I did say was that it is not right to embark on a course of action which, by economically hurting the devs and publishers, jeopardises the future of the entire TW series, with the intention of forcing CA to respond to the problem. That is to ignore and sacrifice the interests of those who want the TW series to survive and improve, and would rather have an imperfect game than no game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Where you run into problems is with trying to ascribe motivation. You seem to be under the delusion that people who would write such a report are acting in a vindictive or hurtful manner. I'm sure there are a few who would do so. But the majority would be doing it as a form of customer awareness. If I went to the grocery store to buy a box of bran flakes, but found a bunch of crap inside instead, I would inform the grocery store. If they refused to look into it, however, I certainly would make a point of informing anyone else who intended to buy bran flakes. That wouldn't be to "hurt the product/company", it would be to prevent other people from buying a box with crap in it. Now, if someone decided they actually wanted to buy the box with crap in it, I wouldn't be stopping them. I'd just want them to be aware that's what they are doing.

---

Your Bran Flakes example is entertaining, but actually exposes the difference between a legitimate informing exercise and what is happening with RTW. Firstly, A "bunch of crap" bears no resemblance to the expected and advertised contents of the box, whereas the game we bought, for all its imperfections, is nevertheless functioning and enjoyable by most people. (For evidence of this, check out the sales figures, the polls on this very forum, and the Amazon reviews which were not contributed by campaigners).

Secondly,The capaign which was being waged on Amazon is not an attempt to inform customers so that they may make an educated choice, but an attempt to persuade them not to buy the game. So much has been made clear not just by the statements on this forum but by the ludicrously unbalanced nature of the ratings and reviews submitted to Amazon by the boycotters. They are submitting reviews and ratings which are a very distorted reflection of the impact which the loadgame and other bugs might reasonably be expected to have on a potential customer's decision whether or not to buy the game. It is not, therefore, merely designed to make the consumer aware of the bugs (as many of the more balanced reviews on Amazon do), but to distort the impact and scope of these bugs with the aim of reducing sales. An information campaign would not be described as a "boycott", an expression introduced into this discussion not by me but by those attempting to organise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Done with the hysterics yet? Because that's all your post seemed to be full of. You did a wonderful job of ignoring all of the actual points I made, but lept right to a few emotional bits you could savage. Congrats, what a wonderful argument.

---

I'm sorry if my disagreeing with you causes you to get so very upset. If you are so easily hurt by different opinions, you are going to go through life thinking that everyone hates you, when they don't. I actually read your posts, don't dismiss your arguments out of hand, and don't insult you or accuse you of "hysterics." It would be mature of you to extend me the same basic courtesy.

"They are submitting reviews and ratings which are a very distorted reflection of the impact which the loadgame and other bugs might reasonably be expected to have on a potential customer's decision whether or not to buy the game." - Barbarossa82

I think you are generalizing and indulging in an "us" and "they" mentality here. It may surprise you, but not everyone who wrote a negative review knew anything about any campaign to do so. I personally thought CA was refering to THIS site when speaking about activities on another site which I hadn't known about until after that fact.

It is hard to argue with your vague generalization of what you call distorted, but let me offer this: I submit that playing RTW 1 or 2 turns a session and loading the game each session has about the same strategic challenge as playing chess against your toaster. While the toaster might look good and make fine toast, it doesn't know diddley about military strategy.

People are entitled to their opinions. You say they are distorted. Well, the same could be said of people who give the highest possible ratings and happy in the bliss of ignorance, don't understand the complaints of others. Is either review invalid? Certainly not.

If CA didn't want negative reviews, they should have taken test data seriously and taken care of the problem. Since they feel the voices of "a vocal minority" can't matter a hill of beans to them, they are willing to roll the dice. I think they made a serious miscalculation there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa82

It would be "too bad" if you hadn't. But you did:

---

Please. Try to read what's written instead of making things up.

'But "not existing" and "existing but unenjoyable" are close enough to the same thing that neither is preferred over the other.'

Nowhere in there did I mention anything about me, my personal tastes, or my opinions on the game. I was simply making a generic statement. It applies equally to anyone in that situation. If a game exists that you find no enjoyment in, functionally speaking, there is no real difference than if it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

What I did say was that it is not right to embark on a course of action which, by economically hurting the devs and publishers, jeopardises the future of the entire TW series, with the intention of forcing CA to respond to the problem. That is to ignore and sacrifice the interests of those who want the TW series to survive and improve, and would rather have an imperfect game than no game.

---

Yes, and you completely ignored all the arguments that show that such actions do not jeopardise it. In other words, completely ignoring the facts of the argument, as I first said.

edit: And since it's tinfoil hat time, let's turn the tables. Frankly, I find you and your ilk to be a much likelier cause of the downfall of TW than I. By meekly sitting there and accepting the idiotic "one patch policy", by ignoring the faults in the game, by ignoring the scorn that CA has demonstrated for people who spent a great deal of effort investigating the situation, you are being a silent accomplice. You are saying to CA "Your behaviour is acceptable".

That kind of blind acceptance of the lousy support is detrimental to the goal of having a quality game. And as such, despite your claims, you are actually acting in your own worst interests.

Quote:

---

Your Bran Flakes example is entertaining, but actually exposes the difference between a legitimate informing exercise and what is happening with RTW. Firstly, A "bunch of crap" bears no resemblance to the expected and advertised contents of the box, whereas the game we bought, for all its imperfections, is nevertheless functioning and enjoyable by most people. (For evidence of this, check out the sales figures, the polls on this very forum, and the Amazon reviews which were not contributed by campaigners).

---

No, actually my point stands up very well. If that many people truly enjoy the game, then they are free to post their reviews on Amazon as well. No one is denying them that option, or forcing them not to.

And, please, your "campaigners" comment is just silly. The people posting comments about the game are simply customers. Some of them have different opinions about the situation than others. I don't go labelling all the people who post positive reviews as "fanboys". Kindly return the favour.

Quote:

---

Secondly,The capaign which was being waged on Amazon is not an attempt to inform customers so that they may make an educated choice, but an attempt to persuade them not to buy the game.

---

What do you think a review is? It's a statement about one person's opinion. If, as part of that opinion, they want to recommend that you purchase the product, then they can do so. If they want to recommend you don't purchase it, then they can do so.

Quote:

---

So much has been made clear not just by the statements on this forum but by the ludicrously unbalanced nature of the ratings and reviews submitted to Amazon by the boycotters. They are submitting reviews and ratings which are a very distorted reflection of the impact which the loadgame and other bugs might reasonably be expected to have on a potential customer's decision whether or not to buy the game.

---

In your opinion. Others have a different opinion that they are expressing. Or are you suggesting that people can only review on Amazon if they share your opinion of the game?

Quote:

---

It is not, therefore, merely designed to make the consumer aware of the bugs (as many of the more balanced reviews on Amazon do), but to distort the impact and scope of these bugs with the aim of reducing sales. An information campaign would not be described as a "boycott", an expression introduced into this discussion not by me but by those attempting to organise it.

---

Actually, the word "boycott" was introduced with regards to the expansion, which is a completely different issue. I have yet to see anyone suggest they "boycott" RTW, as it's been out for 5 months.

As for your claims of "distortion" of bugs, again, that's merely your opinion. Others believe that the bugs are serious. And, really, it's not even so much the bugs themselves that is the issue, it's the company's handling of the bugs that have provoked the ire.

All of which is besides the point, that being that they are perfectly free to post whatever reviews they wish, as long as they follow Amazon's policies. You are free to complain here about it if you wish. Just don't expect that to stop them.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry if my disagreeing with you causes you to get so very upset. If you are so easily hurt by different opinions, you are going to go through life thinking that everyone hates you, when they don't. I actually read your posts, don't dismiss your arguments out of hand, and don't insult you or accuse you of "hysterics." It would be mature of you to extend me the same basic courtesy.

---

Upset? Try "amused" instead. And I'll extend to you the courtesy you extend to me. Which to date has been none, so I guess that explains why I'd refer to your post as "hysterics". I tend to call a spade a spade. I mean, did you even read your post? You take numerous quotes out of context, and somehow construe that I am personally advocating the destruction of the entire TW line. As if such was even in my power.

If you actually want to discuss the facts of the situation, fine. If you want to discuss the merits of each side of the argument, fine. If all you want to do is suggest I'm personally causing the fall of TW, then I'm not for a second going to take you seriously.

Bh

I don't think anything constructive can be achieved by responding to your post if you are intent on shifting the goalposts about what you mean from hour to hour, and on answering arguments i didn't even make.
But I did raise a smile to see that your method of disproving my contention that you get upset when I disagree with you was...to get upset when I disagreed with you. :laugh4:

Yes, I suppose there's no point in discussing things with you. Again, you seem to believe I'm upset, when I'm not. Obviously you're merely looking in posts for what you wish to see instead of what's actually there. Hard to argue against someone who is making up what others post. Guess arguing with the mirror is one debating style, if not a terribly useful one.

Bh

Bhruic,
Why would I need to do that when your own posts contain enough contradictions and inconsistencies to sustain a lifetime of comment from me? The reason I believe you're upset is because of the hostility and forced, desperate contempt you exhibit in your posts. That is how people behave when they are riled and nervous, not when they are confident in the correctness. own opinions
If you wish to continue this discussion, believe me I am more than willing. However I think we should at least move to some other thread where we are not getting in the way of people actually discussing the topic at hand.

Oh, please. Once again you're inventing a bunch of tripe to try and justify yourself. Get over it already. You've already amply demonstrated that you have no interest in discussing the points that I've made, you simply want to assault my opinion. I have no need and no interest in justifying my opinion to you. So save your amateur psychological assessments for yourself.

Bh

It's probably for the best that you have no interest in justifying your opinion, since you seem incapable of doing so anyway.
I now consider this discussion closed on this thread, and will not enter it again. If you wish to validate my criticisms of your attitude further by continuing to insult me, do it in a different thread.

Take it to PMs or take it to a mod. I dont care. Just stop with the attacks.
:blankg: