Supply and demand, or worship a brand?

[Amag0k1]

My Nudge today:

Just heading out to work, but before i do, i wanted to ask this question.
When is it a good time for a company to abuse their consumers?

For me, it is never a good time, and it should not happen, but it does! Buying and selling should be a relationship build on trust, with the supplier garnering trust and pride in the quality of their work.

Some examples:

-From software
-Capcom (recent days, in the past even they have taken the p*ss (on disk dlc you pay for))
-Namco Bandai (also had a back and forth)

What are your feelings on this? Feel free to name some companys who have abused and some who have stayed true and perhaps too pure for this world...

 

[Yousef's iconYousef]

I feel feelings

 

[Amag0k1]

I feel feelings

Careful, i would not want a domain expansion!

 

[RageBurner]

The relationship is simple: customer, product and company. Sadly ethics aren't part of this triad, and the only thing stopping companies from being even more abusive is the possibility of legal sanctions that would lead to them losing face and thus market share and profit.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Honestly? Most companies out there are guilty of defrauding trust... Game companies specially, because most of them openly violate consumer law or make you sign unenforceable EULAs.

 

[Inkingsama]

I think the question is not "when is a good time to abuse your consumers?" but "when will a company abuse its consumers?" and the answer always will be when it becomes big enough that their source of income is not the consumers but the investors.

The relationship is simple: customer, product and company. Sadly ethics aren't part of this triad, and the only thing stopping companies from being even more abusive is the possibility of legal sanctions that would lead to them losing face and thus market share and profit.

Agreed. Although the only companies i know that abuse their consumers are video game companies, maybe due to the more lax regulations that they have for their products.

 

[RageBurner]

I think the question is not "when is a good time to abuse your consumers?" but "when will a company abuse its consumers?" and the answer always will be when it becomes big enough that their source of income is not the consumers but the investors.

Well said! the fact most indies don't reach this point is probably the relatively limited growth and the fact most studios are more directly legally actionable, being smaller and unable to put on heavy legal shrouds.

 

[Clippy]

I blame gamers. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gaming started decaying when Oblivion horse armor DLC happened and not only did Bethesda not get curbstomped into the ground, they posted record profits that year iirc. Why wouldn't you abuse gamers if their only reaction to said abuse is that they'll give you more money than ever before?

John Riccitiello was right when he said that game devs who don't think about monetization of their games are 'fucking idiots'. Why bother with creative and moral integrity when you can crack a whip at gamers and they'll be on their knees begging for more lashings? Riccitiello's only mistake was saying the quiet part a little too loud.

Even boycotts don't really work since most people who swear they'll never buy an EA game ever again cave as soon as the next Fifa/Battlefield trailer drops. At best you'll see some parts of the Internet raging for a few weeks but as soon as that launch date rolls around they'll be forking over $150 or however much the privilege to play 3 days before anyone else costs these days.

I don't like where the upper crust of the industry is right now but let's face it - ultimately it's the gamers who made it this way. We should've known better but we didn't so we get what we deserve.

 

[RageBurner]

People don't have enough commitment for true boycotting. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

 

[Clippy]

People don't have enough commitment for true boycotting. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

I get vindictive when someone wrongs me. Runs in the family haha.

 

[Nidoking's iconNidoking]

I must have missed whatever it is From Software did. I follow them pretty closely so this must be very recent.

 

[Prism_Red]

I would rather focus on side that we actively have control with, us.
We can blame all those companies all we want but it is all meaningless if we don't educate ourselves to be a better consumer.

 

[moonbits]

All they want is your money, there's no trust.

 

[Sir Auriel of Lionel]

My demand only comes with discounted prices. They have time, I have time it's only a matter of how long til they cave for sales to lower prices for a window for me to pick and choose. I never preorder and have usually waited out til 40% discount or a complete bonus edition and I can count on my hand the number of games I bought in the first week of launch. I don't call it willpower I call it ultimate sloth.

 

[miguk]

I blame gamers. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gaming started decaying when Oblivion horse armor DLC happened and not only did Bethesda not get curbstomped into the ground, they posted record profits that year iirc. Why wouldn't you abuse gamers if their only reaction to said abuse is that they'll give you more money than ever before?

John Riccitiello was right when he said that game devs who don't think about monetization of their games are 'fucking idiots'. Why bother with creative and moral integrity when you can crack a whip at gamers and they'll be on their knees begging for more lashings? Riccitiello's only mistake was saying the quiet part a little too loud.

Even boycotts don't really work since most people who swear they'll never buy an EA game ever again cave as soon as the next Fifa/Battlefield trailer drops. At best you'll see some parts of the Internet raging for a few weeks but as soon as that launch date rolls around they'll be forking over $150 or however much the privilege to play 3 days before anyone else costs these days.

I don't like where the upper crust of the industry is right now but let's face it - ultimately it's the gamers who made it this way. We should've known better but we didn't so we get what we deserve.

Let's be honest: the majority of gamers fit one of 3 categories: children, people who are ignorant of what's going on in the industry, and people with poor self control. There's enough of them to fulfill the 80/20 rule of business. And the industry encourages everyone else to behave like them.

I wouldn't blame the customer entirely, though. There's also a lack of regulation on the industry to stop them from pulling BS. At the minimum, they should be beholden to gambling laws to prevent scummy practices that get customers (including kids) addicted to micropayments.

Ultimately, you can not expect ethical behavior from a publicly traded corporation. They will always do what increases profits first, as they are beholden to the stock holders, not the consumer. They will only behave ethically if regulated strongly enough to do so. Even then, there is a risk of them following the Pinto rule of business: if the cost of fines for illegal behavior is lower than the potential profit, they will just break the law. If the only cost is public humiliation, they will wait it out until it's forgotten. And in the gaming industry, it's forgotten the next time a shiny trailer drops.

 

[RageBurner]

I wouldn't blame the customer entirely, though. There's also a lack of regulation on the industry to stop them from pulling BS. At the minimum, they should be beholden to gambling laws to prevent scummy practices that get customers (including kids) addicted to micropayments.

Yeah, that has to be the scummiest aspect of it all, but everything you said is sadly correct.

 

[Clippy]

I wouldn't blame the customer entirely, though. There's also a lack of regulation on the industry to stop them from pulling BS. At the minimum, they should be beholden to gambling laws to prevent scummy practices that get customers (including kids) addicted to micropayments.

But neither lootboxes nor microtransactions are gambling you see. That's because a casino has to pay out every once in a while whereas people who get suckered into modern gaming practices lose 100% of the time. So it's totally different.

*insert sardonic laughter*

 

[RageBurner]

But neither lootboxes nor microtransactions are gambling you see. That's because a casino has to pay out every once in a while whereas people who get suckered into modern gaming practices lose 100% of the time. So it's totally different.

*insert sardonic laughter*

Don't we all love technicalities? lawyers sure do, and that's how the rats that create these exploitative practices scurry around freely.

 

[Clippy]

Don't we all love technicalities? lawyers sure do, and that's how the rats that create these exploitative practices scurry around freely.

Piracy is not theft, it's a surprise discount.

 

[RageBurner]

Piracy is not theft, it's a surprise discount.

It's not piracy, it is wilful procurement.

 

[miguk]

People don't have enough commitment for true boycotting. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

Boycotts only work under very specific circumstances. And usually, that is when the majority of customers a company has are the same people feeling the full weight of the negative effects of their actions. That's why Nestlé, the world's most boycotted company, still does perfectly fine despite holding that rank for decades. Gaming has enough customers who don't even feel ripped off by anything that no boycott could ever effect them.

But neither lootboxes nor microtransactions are gambling you see. That's because a casino has to pay out every once in a while whereas people who get suckered into modern gaming practices lose 100% of the time. So it's totally different.

*insert sardonic laughter*

I'm sure that the current gerontocracy would totally buy this, as they aren't going to actually research or play games to see what's going on. And that's a huge part of the reason gaming never gets regulated, while TV gets plenty of it.

 

[RageBurner]

Boycotts only work under very specific circumstances. And usually, that is when the majority of customers a company has are the same people feeling the full weight of the negative effects of their actions. That's why Nestlé, the world's most boycotted company, still does perfectly fine despite holding that rank for decades. Gaming has enough customers who don't even feel ripped off by anything that no boycott could ever effect them.

Not even piracy puts a real dent on their bottom lines (despite companies loving to moan about it), so yeah, you're right.

 

[moonbits]

Legendary Boycott

 

[RageBurner]

Here's the only effective boycott I've ever seen:

 

[moonbits]

Not even piracy puts a real dent on their bottom lines (despite companies loving to moan about it), so yeah, you're right.

Piracy tends to boost sales down the line which is ironic.