No not everyone supports the idea of BF:Bad Company Boycott. In her post today, Leigh laid into Sarcastic Gamer and made some pretty harsh remarks regarding our site, our community, and the motivations behind this boycott.
In my personal opinion her remarks were unfair and rather uninformed, for such a diversified gaming blogger.
Have a look for yourself, and if you are so inclined, let her know your honest impressions of her assessment of the situation.
Personally I’ve read her stuff all over the place, and have usually found her judgment to be quite sound. Today, however, I take a tiny bit of offense to her remarks. We might be obnoxious. But Dweebs? I think you went a bit too far there Leigh.
But at least that invitation to the EA Christmas party is in the bag now, right Leigh?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Love your comment on her blog Doc. Well said…
good post there Doc, and you outlined the main reason i support the boycott…where will they draw the line if people buy this? Here in England this game will be £40-£45, which is $80-$90 in or around…then another £5, making the total purchase to in an excess of $100 for one game….what a joke! And after this, who will be next, which game that i have been eagerly awaiting will add money ransactions to stuff on the disc already?
Excellent comment on her blog, Doc. I’ll post what I said, for those who care, when this hits the forums.
Unbelievable that a Gaming Journalist would resort to name calling of members of the community that she is supposed to be writing for.
When does she appear on Fox News?
Here is my comment. I didn’t have to be so restrained as Doc was. This is a copy/paste of my response to being called an “obnoxious dweeb.”
Well first of all I take offense to being called an “obnoxious dweeb” because I am member of this community and I support the efforts of this community. Perhaps if you had a “community” that you could support you might be inclined to agree to other people’s opinions. Oh, but wait, it’s sort of hard to be able to join a community when you run around trashing communities and calling them “obnoxious dweebs.” I really cannot help the fact that you are so delusional with visions of EA company picnics where they all bow down and worship you for saving them from the horrible era of (insert offended community here) that you cannot consider what this move on EA’s part does for the whole gaming community. And what it does, just in case you missed the point because you were too busy slamming and trashing a community that now has the backing of major blogs and gaming sites across the world by the way, is create a precedent for other companies and EA themselves to continue to dig into the pockets of consumers. Not to mention this “digging deeper into consumers pockets” is taking place in a time when people don’t have the extra money to just blow on trivial items that should have been included when they made their initial purchase.
I don’t care what credentials you have or where you came from, slamming and trashing communities by calling them “obnoxious dweebs” is childish, immature, and uncalled for. I regret to inform you that before today I had never heard of your blog and from this point on I will not waste my time reading such filth. I do believe that everyone that read your post is now less intelligent than when they started reading it. Thank you for being responsible for the dumbing down of all your audience members.
April 9, 2008 2:25 PM
I absolutely agree with you, Doc. And well done on the post – you totally outclassed her without resorting to her tactics.
Although … I would love to live in Leigh’s world, where all EA wants to do is give you as much stuff as they can for as little as possible.
In Leigh’s world, they’re doing it wrong.
I’d rather not click the link, if it’s all the same to you.
lol ouch! dweeb is a low blow!
This is what I posted on the blog…. maybe she’ll consider what she did and re-post something with a better attitude.
==========
So…. you’re writing about so called “obnoxious dweebs” but you don’t know anything about who these “dweebs” are or what they are being “obnoxious” about? Way to go with journalism. I hope to god you don’t write your professional articles with the same lack of integrity. And by the way, stating that you know absolutely nothing about the subject doesn’t clear you to be an idiot about the subject. It only makes you look like an idiot.
Now, if you’d take the time to make a respectful and informed post on the subject, myself and a lot of others would be happy to read it. You don’t even have to agree with Sarcastic Gamer. Joystiq gave a so-so post about it. No one complained about that because they decided to do their homework and then make their own decision.
==========
Lono is, as we speak, answering a Q&A with Leigh. She has apologized for the way she went about making her point, and I believe that a more balanced entry is incoming to her blog at this time.
I would hope so. We all have to be respectful to each other in this rather grey area of the internet where reputations can be ruined in one simple blog post.
Wow…what crawled up her ass and died.
Lemmywinks!!! NOO!!
Wait… you sicked Lono on her? Harsh, man. Harsh.
I guess when she wrote that article she was on that time of the month.
i believe everyone should visit her blog and voice their opnion… don’t be assholes, but just let her know that she is wrong…
TIME TO START A FLAMEING WAR AND SPAM THAT BIATCH
Simmer down guys… we didn’t get where we’re at today with the boycott by acting like jerks. Either ignore it or proceed with class if you’re gonna represent the SG community on other blogs.
I think it was the tear that Doc put on the sad SG face that made her change her mind. When I saw it, it pulled at me too
.
She also apparently isn’t a Battlefield aficionado.
If she thinks EA is trying to “fight the good fight” and test some sort of positive change, she’s failing to realize that their GOOD method of saving up lots of new later-developed content via future expansions and booster packs, as utilized in Battlefield 2 (one expansion and two boosters) and Battlefield 2142 (one booster), is being pushed aside for this brand new unapologetic marketing scheme.
That right there shows their lack of movement in a positive direction.
We are not obnoxious dweebs! We are standing up for the rights of ourselves and our fellow gamers!
you can tell her that Sven thinks she’s a smelly loser face!
Honestly she would have a point if we were talking about a game that cost $35 retail and would be brought up to the full $60 if you got all the DLC…. but a full priced game with only 50% of the content… I call shenanigans!
Here’s my response…
It’s unfortunate that you apparently decided to make you’re statement like this without talking to anybody from SG.
One of the commenters mentioned MLB08 earlier and I’ll use that as an example. Lets say EA puts out MLB08 with the same content argument, but you begin the game with St Mary’s High School and can only play at Yankee Stadium or Fenway by paying for DLC that’s already on the disc.
Next thing you know, you’re getting Madden 09… but all you get is an EA created Little League park with clay from the shared baseball field to play in. What’s that? You want to play at Lambeau Field? Pay $5. You want Giants stadium??? Another $5 please.
You really showed your immaturity and irresponsibility as a so-called “journalist” on this one.
Good luck digging yourself out of the hole you just dug. I’d offer a hand but I’m just an “obnoxious dweeb” so maybe you can ask someone else.
@Questionmarc: Do you know what irony is?
@peterocc: Where have I heard that Madden argument before… Hmmmm… LOL…8)
I can sorta see where she is coming from, but I think she’s missing the big picture.
This is EA here. EA will NOT reduce the base price of their console games to make way for microtransactions.
The majority of the industry doesn’t follow this business model (small base price + lots of microtransactions), so why would EA feel pressured to reduce the base price of the games?
EA is a business, and their first priority is serving their shareholders, not the gamers. They won’t make concessions unless they’re forced to.
And it looks like she’s already posted [url=http://sexyvideogameland.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-bad-company-big-mouth.html]a more fair blog entry[/url].
Sorry if the link doesn’t work, if it just looks like forum code, just click “Black-Eye Brick”.
@peterocc
I think theres a difference between a game starting with one stadium (having to buy the rest) and a game having a normal set of guns with the ability to buy more.
Im against the boycott for these reasons
1. Id like to see a wide range of downloadable content.
2. When downloadable content was first spoking of it was widley spoken about how great it would be buying new cars, weapons, music etc.
3. I hear the complaints about an unfair advantage if you have these guns. If people want to extend their game with more guns they can buy them and they deserve the advantage for buying them. For all we know t hese weapons could be worse than the ones you get.
4. Why are there no complaints about these? Motorstorm additional cars to buy. These could also offer a better advantage for online players. Dont see no complaints about that. Same with Ridge Racer, Need for Speed etc.
If you dont want extra guns you do not have to buy them! Simple as. Yes ok the people who buy them have an extra choice of weapons. Yes and they deserve so if they buy them. They are only going to be probally about £2.50 for the whole set. Which would be pretty good price to add some more add-ons to the game.
It seems downloadable content isnt going to hugely take off if communities are against a lot of these options. Apart from FPS Maps what other types of DLC would you like to see as add ons to games ?
Boycott the game if you wish. Im not boycotting the game but simply not buying it because it is of no interest to me.
If COD4 added weapon packs on the store I certinaly wouldnt be against it. Because it adds extra options and stuff to do for the player WHO WISH to have them. Notice I said WHO WISH you are under no obligation to buy these weapons. Its an extra bonus for the people that want them.
Im a big Sarcastic Gamer fan but I will not be taking part in this boycott unless someone can manage to see whats wrong with this.
Im happy to do an interview if you wish where Ill express my arguments as to why I think this DLC is acceptable. And a member of the Sarcastic Gamer team can argue with my points and tell me whats wrong with them etc. Just email me if interested: belgar06@yahoo.co.uk
There are a few things wrong with the way the BF:BC content is being released.
1. Releasing extra content for a retail game as DLC at the game’s launch date is almost always wrong. If the content is already finished, consumers shouldn’t be charged extra for it. There are some exceptions – if a game’s DLC can stand on its own and its exclusion doesn’t seriously harm the retail game’s experience, the DLC isn’t going to be seen in as harsh a light.
2. This is a competitive game, and this type of DLC could offer an advantage to those willing to pay for it. How is that ethical? Buying advantages over other gamers?
Kind of off topic, but Leigh did post an interview with Lono and retracted her name-calling.
DWEEBS??!?? Next boycott: Leigh Alexander
I like the idea of paying little or nothing for the basic version of a game, and then being able to buy only the parts I want. I said as much in my post on the original boycott article. But the argument that EA is using BF:BC to test the waters for that business model is pretty hard to swallow.
First, EA is not strapped for cash. They are the largest publisher out there, and apparently have a few billion dollars burning a hole in their pocket as they try to get their hands on Take Two. They can afford to release a cheap game in the hopes that people will pay for all kinds of DLC to make up the difference. It would be a risk, but so is every game they release.
Second, it doesn’t work with this type of game. If we were talking about an mmorpg or some purely single player game, that would be different. But in a fps, even a relatively minor imbalance can ruin the experience. How many times have you heard endless whining about n00b weapons, combos, tactics etc? Every game has at least one weapon that is considered overpowered and unfair. How much worse will it be when that weapon is only available to those who decide to spend money on it?
Third, even if games do become more expensive, it doesn’t drive those of us on a budget (or cheap people) out of the market. I have been gaming on a budget since I was a little kid. Games and systems are expensive for early adopters. If you wait, prices drop, and used units become available. It isn’t a dichotomy. Just because I can’t afford the fillet mignon, doesn’t mean I have to starve.
Fourth, even if the costs are spiraling out of control, this model doesn’t fix the problem. It still costs just as much (if not more) to develop the the game and all the add ons. And if the average gamer doesn’t want to spend another $30-60 and get enough add ons to make up the difference between the cheap price and what it should cost, the developer loses money. The company must get enough money out of us gamers to cover all their development expenses (not just the ones I decided were worthy), so if costs are going up, we still have to pay more, and all that would change is that we would be spending $20 on one game and $110 on another. The only way prices will actually go down is if the costs go down as well. Unless they can make the process more efficient somehow, that just means we get less game.
Furthermore, there is a problem with this model which limits it’s appeal. While some games would be fine in a stripped down form, the truly great games can’t be broken up so easily. To be truly great, a game must bring all it’s elements together into something greater than the sum of it’s parts. Everything is interconnected. Weapons must not only be balanced against each other, but must fit with the level design, enemies, vehicles, and story. If you take one part out of a truly well designed game, it alters the whole game. When I think back to the games that got cut to shreds in order to meet a deadline (KOTOR II being the most painful of them all) I can’t help but think: Do we really want to make that the norm? Is that really where we want to take the industry? Do we really want to settle for half assed budget titles with tons of add ons? Sure they might be fun, but I need more than that. I want a game which is a work of art, not just a mildly amusing toy. You can’t get that with this business model.
I think the idea has potential, but it also has it’s limits. If this is really the future, than count me out.