5 Innovative Ways the Gaming Industry is Screwing You
With any exciting and new industry, there are all sorts of previously unheard-of ways to screw the customer. Video games are no different. As the technology changes, the rules start to get blurry, and publishers are eager to see just how much they can get away with.
These five brazen attempts to screw over gamers gives us a glimpse of what could be a very annoying future:

The Battlefield games have, for several years now, been known for the massive scale and depth of their multiplayer action. In non-nerdspeak: There are lots of people online, that have to use teamwork to get anything done.
Oh, one minor thing. There's a regular version of the game, and a "gold" version that isn't made of gold, but does have some extra guns available.
So what's the problem?
It shouldn't come as a surprise that people start to get angry when you can pay actual money to make yourself more powerful than your penniless opponents. Suddenly, our online fantasy world starts to look a whole lot like the real one.
But, hey, that's capitalism, right? And after all, on the regular version if you reach the highest level the new guns open up anyway.

You pay more for the ridiculous box
To call this an ominous development is a huge understatement. EA has said this is a marketing experiment that they will continue, should they find it profitable. Fans aren't happy:
Real-life Equivalent:
Buying a car that comes with air conditioning, then finding out you have to pay extra to have it activated.

Blizzard Entertainment is well known for its nine-million-plus World of Warcraft gamers, along with millions still playing Starcraft and Diablo II. Unfortunately, there are always some bad apples in the bunch who want to cheat at a computer game and really, that's one of the most pathetic things a person can do in this life.
So in an attempt to end cheating, Blizzard Entertainment set up its servers so that online games would automatically download a client that scans your computer to ensure that you aren't using cheating programs.
So what's the problem?Take a look at this piece of the EULA agreement that was added after all the hype, complaining and lawsuit threats reached their peak. Basically it allows Blizzard to scan your computer and ...
"... COMMUNICATE INFORMATION BACK TO BLIZZARD, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION YOUR ACCOUNT NAME, DETAILS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM DETECTED, AND THE TIME AND DATE THE UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY PROGRAM WAS DETECTED; AND/OR (b) EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE USER ..."
In other words, the client can (and will) scan your entire computer looking for a program that seems "unauthorized," and reports back to Blizzard on what it finds. It is never stated whether the client considers your passwords, credit card numbers, web history or email addresses to be "unauthorized" so we're forced to assume that is does.
Although there is no "actual" evidence that Blizzard has done anything with our personal information, this is exactly the kind of thing people are pressing in courts to be considered illegal. Regardless of whether Blizzard is a "trustworthy" company, giving that sort of information-gathering power to a company is dangerous the moment an employee decides that he is underpaid and wants to make a few "changes" to the client that we are forced to keep on our computer.
Real-life Equivalent:
Hiring a maid to clean your house, and catching her snooping around your family photos and financial information in that drawer you told her not to touch.

Activision developed and released several commercials that displayed the new Call of Duty in all its high-resolution glory. And to make it look extra good, they created a pre-rendered sequence that, as it turned out, looked far better than the actual game. They showed this in the ads instead of the real gameplay.
The visuals were set up specifically so that they appeared to be gameplay (playing out from a first-person perspective, just as the games do). Keep in mind that this was a time when hardly anyone knew what the Xbox 360 was capable of, so they would believe just about anything.
Angry Xbox 360 owners were rather upset to find that the graphics, while better than any previous Call of Duty game, were absolutely terrible in comparison to those shown in the TV commercial:
It's common for publishers to feature cutscenes instead of gameplay in their ads, but Activision admitted that the whole thing had been produced purely for the commercial. This created enough controversy in the UK that the Advertising Standards Authority forced Activision to pull these ads from British television entirely.
Real-life Equivalent:
Advertising this:

And selling you this:









The "Madden Monopoly" is my favorite. Then they have the balls to say used games should be banned. They can go anally f**k themselves with a large dildo.
ReplyI love how EA are in most of these.
Replyi find it ridiculous that they knew nearly 4 years ago that madden 11 would look like tecmo bowl. Biggest waste of money ever. I think ea should switch their nfl monopoly with 2k's mlb monopoly because ea killed with baseball games, i still prefer to play mvp baseball 2005 over mlb 2k11.
ReplyI mostly played sports games so the whole EA thing really pisses me off. 2K consistently made better games regardless of sport, and whereas EA bought out their exclusivity 2K took EA out of the NBA market by simply making a better game year after year. That is how capitalism is supposed to work, the better product controls the market.
ReplyI haven't laughed so hard in ages at anything since that "If you found out Roger Ebert had spent his career offering positive reviews to any director who supplied him with heroin" bit xD very, very good stuff lol
ReplyI've known all these things for a time, especially about Gamespot and its bullshit reviews, though I still go for game information and player reviews.
ReplyYou left out xbox live "gold" accounts (while we pc gamers don't drop a dime for the superior Steam platform)
The only thing truly enabling them is you, the consumer. One of the first arguments people use against my PC is that it cost more. Uhuh.. $300 for the 360, $120-$160 you've payed to play online every year. Real smart, jackass.
If you can make a kick-ass system for under a thousand, you're doing great. I'm all for PC gaming over consoles, but the one thing that's different is the pricing and the maintenance. I'd rather spend 200 and get something I know will work, instead of saving for half a year and throwing parts in monthly. Still can't afford that video card, can't wait till I finish my system, but alas, bills to pay...
I hate it when games give an extra leg up to whoever pays more. You might as well not even play because you'll never be as good as them...
ReplyF#ck COD
ReplyYAY! f**k fish up the ass!!
Rodericf1: Took me a few seconds, but once I got it, that made me laugh so damn hard. Thank you for hat :D
Anyone who thought that the COD 2 commercial was in game footage is clearly retarded.
Replynot really, at the time nobody knew what the xbox360 was capable of
I loved Tecmo Bowl!
ReplyThat COD2 video isn't exactly a screw over. I could see that someone not familiar with games might think it's from the real game and buy it based on that, but it's called a pre render for a reason. It doesn't even look that good, it's like a flimsy CGI intro.
ReplyAlong with the fact that it happens all the time today
yea and now we get theses crappy games eventho ncaa football 12 is better its still not amazing but its good 2k was alot better tho EA just isnt that great
ReplyHuh?
I always kind of suspected Gamespot reviews were BS. Now I have proof.
ReplyMost of the things in this article are outdated but were still legitimate complaints 3 years ago. The only thing I actually think wasn't fair is the Gamespot one. The review was published early and the publishers apparently have the right to force reviewers to wait until the game is released to put up the review if they don't like the review score.
If you wanna look for suspected bribery, check out PC Gamer's Duke Nukem Forever and Dragon Age II scores. See The Witcher 2 for an example of a publisher who forgot to give PC Gamer the extra $
where you been Caspian, they are using the same methodology to this day. You see a single AAA publisher title get less than 8.0 from them? If you can't give a game like Mount & Blade made by TWO FREAKING PEOPLE higher than a 6.0, you've failed as a reviewer.
Author doesn't comprehend capitalism.
Reply Hide All See All 9 RepliesHe comprehends it, apparently better than you, because he comprehends how bats**t f**king stupid capitalism is.
Capitalism is like owning a gun, its a great tool for killing your enemies and defending your land, but once you start pointing at your wife and kids you are out of control and need to go to jail.
capitalism is economic Darwinism basically. For a company to survive, it has to provide something that people are willing to pay for. This kind of sucks when one company gets so big that it can just buy every other company (same thing kind of happened in nature with humans, we became "fittest" to a point where no other animal offers a real challenge, at least not with our tools in hand. Sure a bear could win in a fair fight, but humans don't fight fair although to be fair neither do bears.
But bears and gorillas are catching up fast. Today it's painting, sign language, and increasingly skilled combat tactics (and of course riding unicycles) tomorrow it's inventing some weapon that makes guns and nukes look primitive.
I for one welcome our new bear masters, they are the only ones that will defend us from the gorillas (once they enslave us that is) and since everyone else sucks up to their fascist captives (at least when they're human) why shouldn't I side with the obvious winning team?
Capitalism is really just economic Darwinism. A company that sells something that people want will become more powerful than a company that doesn't. The problem (as with nature) is that one company (or species, like humanity) can get so powerful, if the consumers pay no attention to where they pour their money, that one company can just dominate all others.
Sorry first didn't show up so i thought it didn't go through. Also I'm a minority of some kind so judging me for this would probably be racist or h**ophobic or offensive somehow.
What one? um.....black Irish?
Capitalism has nothing to do with Darwinism. There are fabricated rules which vary from country to country, for example, a company in the U.S. has more rights than an individual. There are other rules in other nations, some similar, some different. Some are changed depending upon whether it is economically viable to the competing country. The wild does not work like that. There are no arbitrary rules placed upon evolution as it develops by its proponents. Why is it that the biggest capitalists understand capitalism the least? Jeez...
He comprehends it completely. Just because he doesn't blindly believe it is completely good doesn't mean that he doesn't understand it.
There's capitalism, and there's money being used like a blood stained club by barbarians, learn the difference.
Just had to say, very well put hobomagic
The NFL initiated the exclusive deal with EA for Madden so that's not entirely on them, they just outbid 2k for it.
Reply#4 severely overestimates what Warden does. The RL equivalent is more like hiring a maid and her calling the FBI because you were watching kiddie porn while she was cleaning...
ReplyIt would be more like hiring a maid and after she discovers you cheating on your wife, she calls your wife.
And it also misses the point that to even use World of Warcraft in the first place you need realID(which has your name, adress, email, etc...) and you are paying for a subscription which is mostly done with credit cards. So Blizzard already has the "private info" the they could steal from your harrying by virtue of you giving it to them. Not to mention that everybody welcomed this addition because it mostly stops people from using bots which wrecks the in-game economy.
EA create a mini-monopoly? It's not that mini. You only mentioned Madden. They literally have the Football (i.e. Conventional football) market cornered with their line of FIFA games, and Formula 1 games too - especially in the PAL region. They own the entire fricking sports game genre. Mini is an understatement (unless that wasn't an understatement, in which case... damn.)
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesUnlike with the NFL, it's been proven soccer games can be successful without a FIFA license, so it's not quite a monopoly. Still ridiculous, but EA sure knows how to lobby and protect themselves.
Problem is the countries where football is popular you do need a FIFA licence, its a bit like how an American Football game could probably get away without an NFL licence in Europe.
Well, probably helps that real football has a more global appeal than our "rugby for dummies" football. ( I could go on a long rant about how ridiculous it is that there are so many Americans who think we're so badass, but then you look at things like how our version of rugby we call "football" is so wimpy and our version of beer is more like watered down piss than real beer...... )
I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, FullBids.com
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesBE DRAINED OF LIFE.
life drain does not affect constructs. I'll see if I can roll a high enough Disable device Check
I rolled a net one on a diplomacy check (to talk the person that created the bot into getting rid of his or her internet connection) but I have a 16 for diplomacy, does that still fail or how does that work?
And you sucked c**k for crack: Priceless...
Psyker coming through to the warp with ye *vortex of dooms the bot*
#1 is why I get all of my reviews from Destructoid.
ReplyYou can claim they're "trolling for hits" when they give a popular/hyped game a 4 or 6, but when I tend to agree more often than not, I'm inclined to doubt it. >_>
I use to love "game revolutions" myself until they did their GTA 4 review. I love the game but I would have been fine with a negative or positive review, the problem is they gave the game a high score and then spent the ENTIRE review picking apart everything and listing every flaw they could find.
Their defense was "everyone knows a gta game is great so I just wanted to spend the time talking about the bad, it still outweighs the good" of course a person relying on their review wouldn't know this because they maybe said two or three good things and then about twenty things they said ruined it. Sure they gave GTA SA a glowing review that matched the score but I guess if a game gets super popular they need to give it the good "safety score" and then give it the "safety criticism" so they seem edgy while also defending themselves from both sides.
That's simply not the way a professional does a review. Even the hated Ebert wouldn't spend an entire review bashing a movie and then recommend it and give it a thumb up.
That said, there are many reviewers who DO treat that as modus operandi - Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd comes to mind. They're mostly doing it for humour however.
Want to give a shout out to Jeff G here.. I've known him since I first started using the internets. Back in emulation IRC rooms and was saddened by that crap. I am sure he enjoys his new role, though :)
Reply