What non-game reasons do you support or not support a publisher/developer?

If you are the kind of person who chooses to support or boycott things based on principles, what is it about a video game publisher or developer that makes you choose so?

Their business practices? Their workplace environment? Their engagement w/ their fanbase?

Some quick, simple examples are, say, Motion Twin has no titles or positions in their company. That's pretty cool (and they make a great game). Motion Twin should get my money. Or the opposite being Rockstar does not credit employees who worked on their games if that employee is not employed at the time of game going gold. That's not cool. I don't want to give Rockstar my money (btw, these are just for the sake of thought-processing. You don't have to explain specific cases).

Or, do you just not give af and buy whatever games/franchises you like to play, simply for the gameplay/story/etc?

What if you were one of these ppl who support/boycott out of principle and a long-loved publisher/developer started to become gradually scummy over the years? Would it be difficult to no longer buy their products?

There is no ethical consumption etc. etc.

I think it's silly not to enjoy a good thing because someone involved in the making of that good thing is scummy. There's a lot of different people and cogs that go into making a game and I don't think it's a just action to punish a family for the actions of some of the members.

I think boycotting is an important tool for when companies act so thoroughly against the common good of The People, which gaming companies - despite their trouttiness - don't.

Having said that, I have no horses in this race. I almost never buy games anymore, so I guess I'm boycotting everything by proxy, which I'm fine with. Games industry is wank xD

I do very support companies that are great. Supergiant get all my money, all the time, every opportunity I can give them it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Pint of Quinness (pissboy)

I think boycotting is an important tool for when companies act so thoroughly against the common good of The People, which gaming companies - despite their trouttiness - don't.

---

I mean, how many of "The People" need to have their common good violated before it becomes a problem? I certainly don't think it needs to be "everyone." Activision-Blizzard, as the current en vogue example, has made the lives of MANY people materially worse in important ways, and disproportionately certain classes of people. This isn't enough, for you, to say they are acting against the common good of The People?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

This isn't enough, for you, to say they are acting against the common good of The People?

---

Nope.

That is a very high bar. Well, I guess it's a good thing the games they make are also bad, then.

I'd see it like boycotting Mercedes; it's so niche and specific, whereas "The People" things I would consider to be general and horizontal across society, rather than limited within a specific vertical of badness.

I should also point out that I differentiate "boycotting" from "not buying their games" in this context. I would expect a boycott to be an organised rejection with specific terms for re-engaging with a company and I wouldn't say that the person who chooses not to buy the garbage games from garbage company as "boycotting" them, but I do appreciate that's a personal semantic distinction. I know that boycotting includes rejection for the purpose of expressing disapproval, but in my head there would need to be a more active component for me to consider myself "boycotting" something.

I'm hoping the Blizzard situation acts as the trigger for wholesale unionisation across the gaming industry, because it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

You're bang on about their crap games not being particularly difficult to not buy. xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Pint of Quinness (pissboy)

when companies act so thoroughly against the common good of The People, which gaming companies - despite their trouttiness - don't.

---

I do like this wording and specificity.

I think "anti-consumer" gets thrown around too much. Another word/phrase whose true meaning has become basically destroyed by this generation/the internet (I hate to sound like a grumpy old man). Raising prices is not anti-consumer. Console/platform-exclusive games are not anti-consumer. iirc, luxury goods, such as video games, cannot have any element to be considered "anti-consumer", b/c they are just that - luxuries.

Charging $100 for a rice/potatoes/bread/etc while still having a surplus of rice/potatoes/bread/etc is anti-consumer. Like you alluded to, the public welfare has to be at stake. Not just gamers spending excess money.

What is your basis for the belief that only necessities can be subject to anti-consumer decisions? I truly can't imagine thinking that. It is an anti-consumer decision for a company to refuse to let you repair devices you buy from them, or to use exclusively proprietary ports that offer no additional functionality over industry standard ports, for instance, on electronic devices. Why would it matter whether I "had to" buy it or not?

I don't think about it that much other than I try to look at independent game developers and give their games a chance. If there is an Activision game I like, I'll buy it, though I can't remember the last time I was interested in an Activision game. Probably back to PS1 era.

It's not 100% correlated but I do think there is a relationship that 'good' companies tend to make more 'good' games.

While I understand why people would call for boycotts, I don't think it's helpful overall. Regardless of what company heads are doing, there are still hundreds of employees that are just trying to make great games; deciding to boycott a company affects them, too.

I'd be reluctant to buy an Activision-Blizzard game again, because I don't like the way they treat their (particularly female) employees, but like Quin said earlier, I don't see that as boycotting. I don't judge anyone who decides to still play WoW.

The whole games industry needs an overhaul. I think the way to do it is to bring attention to the problems across the industry. Doing it that way may be a slow way to make changes, but incremental progress is better than none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

What is your basis for the belief that only necessities can be subject to anti-consumer decisions? I truly can't imagine thinking that. It is an anti-consumer decision for a company to refuse to let you repair devices you buy from them, or to use exclusively proprietary ports that offer no additional functionality over industry standard ports, for instance, on electronic devices. Why would it matter whether I "had to" buy it or not?

---

because, by definition, raising prices on games isn't "anti" anything. "Anti" means "opposed to" or "doing harm to", etc. Companies STILL want to sell video games, even if they're exclusives, have a $10 price hike, etc. They're only raising prices to match inflation. They're only doing exclusives b/c it's their prerogative to make money and the "consumer" still has all options available to play their game (even if it means spending more money or waiting). They aren't saying "hey, let's do harm against the interest of our consumers". $10 won't bankrupt a single consumer. I'd say these types of decisions are more about being "out of touch" w/ what the consumer wants, rather than being actively against the consumer.

Plus, again, luxury good. Not a necessity, therefore it's all optional anyway, so the consumer has no "right" or legal/ethical claim to it anyway. So, "no harm, no foul" if I can't play God of War Ragnarok on launch since I don't own a PS4/5. I don't need it anyway. Of course, I would even argue a littlbe bit against my own point, since I DO believe that entertainment SHOULD be considered a necessity, to a degree. But I'm simply explaining a defition as it exists. I get how terms can easily be misunderstood.

(it's akin to "anti-social" being another phrase that has lost its meaning in today's generation. Ppl use it in place of "UNsociable", which is actually the correct term. "Anti-social" actually means wanting to do harm/"anti" to society/"social", related to psycho/sociopathy)

As for your example, I can't really say much about ports. I think that's a bit of a rabbit hole I'd have to think more on. I have no issue if my phone or someone else's had some exclusive port. But not repairing devices...I'd say that depends on what sort of small print is in the agreements that always come w/ hardware. And if it's that relevant of an issue, the consumer should research first whether or not repairs are offered. Not offering repairs at all (charged or otherwise) is definitely a bad business practice. Not sure i'd say it goes "against" or "harms" the consumer, since it's sort of presumed, even expected, for electronics/devices/hardware/etc to all be at risk of breaking, so it's always a "buyer beware" type of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Acula

While I understand why people would call for boycotts, I don't think it's helpful overall. Regardless of what company heads are doing, there are still hundreds of employees that are just trying to make great games; deciding to boycott a company affects them, too.

---

Yeah, that is a good point. Ppl who boycott games potentially punish the employees/developers for decisions made by the suits/publishers. It's definitely something I think about if I'm in a salty mood against a company lol.

Making the products I buy worse is doing harm to me, though. I really still do not understand your distinction. It might not be IMPORTANT harm, and it might be justifiable and for valid reasons, but it still causes harm to me.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../anti-consumer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Making the products I buy worse is doing harm to me, though. I really still do not understand your distinction. It might not be IMPORTANT harm, and it might be justifiable and for valid reasons, but it still causes harm to me.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../anti-consumer

---

How is a price increase or exclusivity making a product worse? And how is that harmful?

Is McDonald's getting rid of their double cheeseburger for $1 and replacing it w/ a McDouble for $1.40 anti-consumer? It's a 40% price increase for less product. Is Mt Dew selling specific drinks only at Taco Bell anti-consumer? These aren't rhetorical questions, btw.

This is definitely a philosophical topic that I participate in, in my day-to-day life. My daily routine is pretty miserable and video games is a great escape, so they take up a lot of space both in my head and my life. Even if I can't spend very much time playing them, I overly consume Let's Plays, and I buy games for my backlog to support developers, even if it's a pipe-dream if I ever will actually play some of them. And I will actively avoid certain companies, or buy strictly used just to have in my collection, but to not give that company any of my money. It's not really a hill I try to die on, and I don't beat people over the head very much. But it's about the same as refusing to shop at Walmart, which is a surprisingly common mentality these days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

This is definitely a philosophical topic that I participate in, in my day-to-day life. My daily routine is pretty miserable and video games is a great escape, so they take up a lot of space both in my head and my life. Even if I can't spend very much time playing them, I overly consume Let's Plays, and I buy games for my backlog to support developers, even if it's a pipe-dream if I ever will actually play some of them. And I will actively avoid certain companies, or buy strictly used just to have in my collection, but to not give that company any of my money. It's not really a hill I try to die on, and I don't beat people over the head very much. But it's about the same as refusing to shop at Walmart, which is a surprisingly common mentality these days

---

This sounds just like me! lol. Especially the bolded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesesteak

How is a price increase or exclusivity making a product worse? And how is that harmful?

Is McDonald's getting rid of their double cheeseburger for $1 and replacing it w/ a McDouble for $1.40 anti-consumer? It's a 40% price increase for less product. Is Mt Dew selling specific drinks only at Taco Bell anti-consumer? These aren't rhetorical questions, btw.

---

It depends. Is the price going up because the cost of producing it going up? If so, that is fair. Is the price going up because McDonald's wants the CEO to get a bigger bonus this year even though it costs less to make? That unfairly favors the interests of "the business" over the consumer. Obviously, any price increase harms anyone who is buying the product, because they end up with less money. Sometimes, it is for a fair and justified reason. Other times, it is not.

I never once, anywhere in my posts, said that exclusivity of a product is anti-consumer, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. The specific examples are always debatable anyway - there only needs to be SOME decisions that a business makes that qualify as anti-consumer to prove my point. But to humor you, I do not think it is anti-consumer to sell a game on Epic but not Steam, for instance, but I do think that it is anti-consumer to force me to buy a specific $300 console to buy a game with no technical reason not to exist on other similar platforms. Again, it doesn't have to be a huge deal to be anti-consumer. I buy tons of products from companies that make anti-consumer decisions all the time! It is just a demerit to consider in the evaluation, some big, some small.

I guess the real question is what developers/publishers do you support or not support.

Personally, I support Square Enix because they make good games and as far as I am aware have no major bad press.

I don't actively boycott any developer I can think of. I tend to judge them by their games more than by their senior management, but I do pay attention to things like buying out exciting indie companies to leave them doing work on their AAA titles (eg. Valve acquiring Campo Santo and putting them to work on Half-Life), Blizzard/Activision's many issues at present, and tendencies by certain companies to oversell their games through various methods (for me this applies to Pokémon, Sims, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Pint of Quinness (pissboy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

This isn't enough, for you, to say they are acting against the common good of The People?

---

Nope.

---

Well now I'm actually curious how many people need to be sexually abused, bullied into suicide, how many rapes need to be covered up, and how many customers need to have gambling addictions taken advantage of before you think they're acting against the common good and organized boycotts make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Personally, I support Square Enix because they make good games and as far as I am aware have no major bad press.

---

I chuckled a little bit since I was just reading threads/articles and watching videos about the "bad" FF7R PC port (which, from what I've seen actually doesn't look THAT bad. Some missing graphics options, yeah, and near-irrelevant frame stuttering is what I've witnessed. I think the ppl saying it's one of the worst PC ports ever are being melodramatic and hyperbolic. Being on lackluster EGS doesn't help, of course, nor does the higher price cost).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

I don't actively boycott any developer I can think of. I tend to judge them by their games more than by their senior management, but I do pay attention to things like buying out exciting indie companies to leave them doing work on their AAA titles (eg. Valve acquiring Campo Santo and putting them to work on Half-Life), Blizzard/Activision's many issues at present, and tendencies by certain companies to oversell their games through various methods (for me this applies to Pokémon, Sims, etc).

---

Yeah, I always get a bit wary when big AAA publishers acquire indie studios. But luckily some are fairly hands-off (MS, Embracer, Sega, etc).

And I had to look more into what you mentioned re: Camp Santo. Is In the Valley of Gods now RIP? Looks like it was put on hold, but now it's not on Camp Santos's web page or socials.

If their profits contribute to the unwanted behavior then I feel a bit icky about giving them money. Like if a company donates some of their profits to an organization that uses that money to lobby for laws that hurt people, then I feel like my purchasing of their products is contributing to that harm.

If interacting with their products is an unpleasant experience because of how the company conducts itself, then I will stop doing that. For example if in order to use the product I am required to interact with a toxic userbase that they have cultivated.

Or of course, if they have been consistently putting out products of poor quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesesteak

And I had to look more into what you mentioned re: Camp Santo. Is In the Valley of Gods now RIP? Looks like it was put on hold, but now it's not on Camp Santos's web page or socials.

---

"on hold" - basically it looks like it's vapourware until Valve feel it's profitable enough (heh) or the Campo Santo guys get free reign on their work again. I wouldn't expect anything soon. Steam page still exists, but that's it, really. Sucks.