I was thinking about Torchlight 2 vs Diablo..and I was saying to myself..D3 might end up being a very good game but my values as a gamer are violated by the always on internet and real money auction house. So even if D3 ends up being as good as d2 I'll never play it and no one else should either. Whoa...what was that last part? Thats the question.
If a game violates core values is it ok for other people to play it? Other are enablers of said broken values and thus enemies of gaming?
No man should enforce his morals upon another.
Leave that to God. (If you believe in Him that is.)
Everybody should always have morals. Certain companies I won't buy games (Not Blizzard fyi) from because I know in the long run it hurts the industry.
Even a good company can produce a bad game that shouldn't be bought.
Sounds like the same argument people have against DLC, copy protection, service enabled gaming...
'It includes something I don't want so I'm not gonna play it.'
Which is fair enough, but calling it 'morals'...huh, seriously? Because people don't share your viewpoint they're immoral, or enablers?
I don't care about always on gaming, DLC, DRM, or any of that. So I must be as immoral as they come. If I want to play a game (which isn't the case with Diablo 3, but not for any reasons you specified) I don't care if it has some awkward design choices.
@OP
I don't really care if you think it's "ok" for me to buy the game or not. Your opinion doesn't affect me. If I decided to never buy games because some random person on the internet found a feature they don't like about it - well, I'd never play a computer game then. My morality is different from yours and I'm not going to alter it to accommodate your thoughts on certain matters.
I for one think the original poster sounds very reasonable. (S)He's not asking everyone to boycott the game, just stating that it includes something (s)he has issues with the industry doing and therefore no matter its quality (s)he will not play it. I think that's a good idea, and in fact I refuse to play most military hooters because i have political issues with them.
But they're not asking if they should play it. They're asking if it's ok for OTHER PEOPLE to play it. And why wouldn't it be?
Why should everyone share the same values on this? I understand, you know, killing, stealing, raping, totally immoral. Buying games with an always on connection...umm, no.
Hm. I didn't read that in at first. I can see how you could read that in the post, however.
Pick something you think is "bad". Lets assume there is a website dedicated to it. Is it ok for people to give money to that website? To visit it? To partake in its content? Or does that make them "bad" too? Is it different for a game that does something "bad" and the people who play it?
Interesting...and what do you think "laws" are?
Why are you attempting to argue through analogy? It does not help your position, it only muddies the discussion. Argue the point you wish to make instead.
I'll give money to whomever I please. If it offends you, that's your problem. If I'm disturbed by your donations, that's my problem. Neither you nor I have any business telling the other what to do with our money or time.
As far as games or anything else goes, I think it comes down to value for money. That's a recurring theme for me. If the goal is entertainment, it's a good buy if you're entertained. If that entertainment is outweighed by something you firmly disagree with, don't buy it. Hell, go ahead and protest / picket it if you feel that strongly. Just don't get in my way when I brush past you to make my purchase.
I guess it's no secret by now that I'm Christian. As far as I'm concerned, morals are morals. They are etched in stone, part of our universe, just like the law of gravity is. It may not always be obvious what they are, but neither is the behavior of a top quark particle.
Now, enter gaming: what morals exactly are we talking about? Pirating a commercial game and playing for free against the publisher's wishes I think everyone can say is immoral. Playing an evil character and slaughtering angels, pixies, peasants, etc. I think most everyone would say is not immoral. Not really. It's a game. Mercilessly killing the common people is kinda funny, actually.
Paying real money for a Stone of Justice in Diablo 2 I think is kind of a grey area. In my view, if you're doing that sort of thing on Blizzard's servers then Blizzard gets to say whether that is moral or not. If they say, "players caught trading items for real money will be banned", then if you do it that is immoral. But if they say nothing at all, it's their server, their game, their game rules. If it's not banned then it's permitted.
Whose "core values"? Yours? Theirs? You want to impose your values on all those who may not agree with you? Some religions use alcohol (wine) as part of the service. Other religions believe that any use of alcohol is wrong. Still others have no religious affiliation at all. Who is correct? Which of these groups has the right to enforce their guidelines on the others?
If 100 million young people purchase product x that you think is bad/wrong..and play it..and it becomes successful so that 300 million more people buy and play it...doesnt what was originally considered "bad" become the status quo? And what was right now become pase or wrong.
If gamers have morals, are they required to act on them less said morals be decayed and go extinct? If we are the "parents" of gaming should we just respect the childs mistakes or correct them?
If 300 million people think a PC game is right for them, it is right for them. But don't worry, you can always play with your high horse that you seem to think you're on.
To sum up; you don't know better. It is a choice, and what you perceive as "bad" is your perception of something, not an absolute truth.
If your values say something is wrong..and you ignore them and just move on with your life...do you have values? Is it enough just to say you have them or are they a product of actions not words? And if do have values can they be about games or are games too trivial to have values about?
You can care about whatever you want, you won't win any support for your cause by naming other players "enablers", "enemies of gaming" and "child".
I don't fault anyone if they choose not play a particular game for whatever reason. I'll even listen to the reason for not playing a particular game. What I won't do is refuse to play a game because of someone else's belief. Do I like the always on DRM of Diablo 3? Nah. Do I still enjoy the game? Yup. Am I going to boycott activation/blizzard because of their decision to have that drm? No. Honestly, I don't care that much and don't find myself all that violated by an annoying restriction that potentially cuts down on piracy or preserves the integrity of the game (item drops, etc).
I think the problem with the OP is how intentionally vague it is. Talking about the morality of an always on the internet requirement is well.. silly. What does that have to do with morality or "values?"
If you have something specific to talk about, please do so - specifically - and perhaps we can all have a more interesting conversation.
To each his own. I dont buy stuff with always online for single player, but I know that I do not determine what others choose.
Laws are the byproduct of a democracy where three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner....
You did not thought about this very much, did you?
Or are you strictly speaking in context of games?
I did not thought?
Grammer aside, I was answering a post that you chose not to include in your quote.
You're welcome.
English is not my main, i am sorry.
I know what you answered to. I just wanted to know if that is really what you are thinking or if that was just a quick belly answer without much thought behind it.
Because there are some very, very clear examples where i really hope you would have another opinion about the matter.
I'm not sure what you're driving at. I stand by what I said. I donate time and/or money to the political parties that I choose to. I also donate time, money or endorsements to various activists if they suit me. For instance, I'm straight, but I support gay marriage. I support our rights to own and bear arms. If you think that's wrong, I don't care.
The post I responded to was asking if it's right for others to donate to a site that I thought was wrong. I don't think it's my call to determine that for someone else. I also don't think it's anyone else's call to determine that for me.
Essentially, my money and time is mine. Yours is yours. You have no say in what I do with mine, regardless of what you consider moral. i have no say in what you do with yours, regardless of my morals.
Is that difficult to grasp?
In a way, there's a bit of a free rider problem here.
If gamers collectively did what was moral, we'd likely have better games, as voting with the wallet would cause real change. That said, most of us aren't willing to sacrifice a great game for the sake of what's right.
I do think in the PC marketplace, DD has caused some good in this regard, as it has increased the supply of lower pricepoint games, and so morals are more easily enforced there since there is a strong substitution effect.
Building a good reputation by doing the right helps when a game bombs. Let's compare two games that bombed: War of Magic and Street Fighter x Tekken. Both companies are mid-market players in a niche genre (fighting games and TBS's are about equivalent in niche status, Capcom is closer to Firaxis, if I was to compare Stardock to a fighting game maker- Arcsys might be a good choice, though ironically I tend to really dislike their games- I'm more of an SNK/Sega fan)
Both those games were equally disappointing as a fan of both genres.
War of Magic- game bombed, some folks scream bloody murder, plenty of folks are willing to give Stardock a second chance. Some folks did swear off Stardock forever, but they can be won back with a good game.
SF x Tekken- game bombed (400k sales may seem like plenty, but they expected 2mil and plenty of copies are on the shelves unsold, with plenty of resold copies). Capcom burned bridges with their business strategies over their previous titles. Many folks now lump Capcom in with the unholy trinity (EA/Acti/Ubi), competitor companies have had a banner year for the first time ever, just from not being Capcom. Major conventions are full of rage towards Capcom, both online and offline. They still have their hardcore fans due to years of brand loyalty, but they've lost just about everyone else.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
