-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Gameindustry.biz] On Ubisoft's pandering to unreasonable players
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
User Banned (2 Days): Antagonizing other members and inflammatory commentary over a series of posts
Will the mods here ever clamp down on it or are they gonna let "gamers rise up" shitposting keep dragging down the quality of discourse in every thread? It adds nothing to the conversation.
So gamers should shut up because they didn't change the laws of a major global superpower?
I'm just glad Ubisoft don't extend their devotion to player feedback and iteration to post-release game narrative. Heaps of people demanded Ubisoft "fix" the ending of FC5. Ubi made plenty of design tweaks post-release, but they refused to kowtow to people who wanted a satisfying power fantasy conclusion to a narrative they didn't understand.
There is a place for sticking to your guns and a time for backing down. Censoring a game globally to please China is the latter. It was a bad idea. Seems like a poor hill to die on when better examples exist.
There is a place for sticking to your guns and a time for backing down. Censoring a game globally to please China is the latter. It was a bad idea. Seems like a poor hill to die on when better examples exist.
People were definitely overreacting to the changes (which I imagine were prompted so that the dev team didn't have to balance different versions of the same map in certain cases). They weren't egregious enough to have people react the way they did. Still, good that they got what they wanted.
Now, people comparing this to Pooh are comparing apples to oranges.
Now, people comparing this to Pooh are comparing apples to oranges.
More broadly, this is a totally reasonable thesis. I think it's important for developers/publishers to keep the premise in mind as they try to cater to players through service platforms; just answering loud voices doesn't serve the whole player base.
Except the example they chose to write this piece around is a case where censorship (in a literal sense) in a key market was going to result in changes in every other market. Players have every right and responsibility to be upset by that whether it's down to granular preference (which I'd rank very low in importance for this case) or a more principled stance.
Except the example they chose to write this piece around is a case where censorship (in a literal sense) in a key market was going to result in changes in every other market. Players have every right and responsibility to be upset by that whether it's down to granular preference (which I'd rank very low in importance for this case) or a more principled stance.
its more like the utter lack of context. both when gamers complain about something, and when media complain about gamers complaining
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
You would think writing an article about gamers complaining fiercely about completely mundane things would be an easy thing to do, given the amount of examples. And then you choose the one thing that really doesn't fit. Pretty amazing, honestly.
Like, what product ever got changed globally due to laws in certain countries? All those games being censored in Germany certainly weren't, and even risqué Japanese games were usually only changed for the West, if at all. I really wonder whether the author wouldn't have a problem with Wolfenstein retroactively removing all references to Nazis due to the German version existing. I guess not, according to that article.
Like, what product ever got changed globally due to laws in certain countries? All those games being censored in Germany certainly weren't, and even risqué Japanese games were usually only changed for the West, if at all. I really wonder whether the author wouldn't have a problem with Wolfenstein retroactively removing all references to Nazis due to the German version existing. I guess not, according to that article.
I'm half convinced it was thought up by gaming PR firms (and proliferated by astroturfers) to make criticism of corporate malfeasance and advocacy for consumer rights seem absurd and tie it with the alt-right.
Agreed. The gamers rise up meme is increasingly being use to shutdown and mock any sort of push back consumers make against corporate practices. Are there overblown reaction by gamers at times? Yes. And that should be called out. But not every instance of consumer push back deserves "gamers rise up!" style mocking. That just make you look like a PR tool for these corporations.
I apologize... I had to re-read the original article again. Yes, it's absolutely wrong to make universal changes to cater to a single country's rules!
(damn, I should've had more coffee before reading the original post)
That depends. Are you a gamer? Then yes. Otherwise you can politely disagree but I suggest you tread lightly.
Honestly with these big Ultracorporations I wouldn't even be surprised.
Especially not after Facebook got it's ass exposed for spreading Soros-conspiracies and other anti-Semitic shit to discredit protesters.
There is no such thing as ethical consumption under Capitalism.
Damn, the point went so far over your head it's on another planet.
Lmao it's pandering to listen to people who have been playing an online game that's not an MMO for 3 years now?
Okay Mr. Author Guy.
Okay Mr. Author Guy.
Nah, Gamers managed that on their own with the usual tantrums whenever women or LGBT people exist in games.
And this thread is another prime example for this. Not for the rainbow six thing itself - being against that is naturally fine - but for the inevitable "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! ALL GAME JOURNALISTS ARE EVIL AND OPPRESS US GAMERS".
See this very thread, with people crying about games journalism.
Because one dude didn't mind dumb changes to appease a dumb dictatorship and wrote an article.
That's why that dumb meme exists. Gamers don't HAVE to act that way. And yet predictably do. Every time.
This. When there are so many better examples of companies pandering to an entitled customer base, singling out this one is extremely misguided. What Ubisoft did here was the right thing.
This seems like the worst possible example you could use if you want to call out "unreasonable players". Not only is it extremely reasonable for players to be angry in this situation, but it will be an extremely easy article for the actually unreasonable players to hold up as their proof that "establishment" gaming journalists really are just a big publisher defenseforce
I mean I can't even understand how you could apply such flawed logic to this issue. "Oh, non-chinese players are angry that a company is imposing chinese censorship restrictions on them? How unreasonable!". It's like the writer is ignoring the context of those changes, and purely looks at the changes in a vacuum.
I mean I can't even understand how you could apply such flawed logic to this issue. "Oh, non-chinese players are angry that a company is imposing chinese censorship restrictions on them? How unreasonable!". It's like the writer is ignoring the context of those changes, and purely looks at the changes in a vacuum.
Last edited:
After launch, very few, but most games nowadays, especially big budget F2P, are designed with global launch in mind.
The double standard on this post is next level
Gamer says something stupid = ok to shit on gamers
Games press says something stupid = please don't shit on games journalism
Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Or Ubisoft could just, you know, make a version specific to china and avoid all this backlash. Valve and other companies solved this like 10+ years ago.
I can't even imagine what potential life circumstances someone would have to have endured to be brought to the point where they praise censorship, so this writer has my sympathies.
Whether or not a mob wants something is completely independent of whether that thing is right or wrong.
Whether or not a mob wants something is completely independent of whether that thing is right or wrong.
There's another thing, Ubisoft has been quite dumb about this matter. They could have done an specific version of that map for China and design all new maps with that in mind and they would have had very few complaints. Now everyone knows every map they design from now on will be catered to the Chinese censorship authorities.
No, they should just stop pretending they stopped censors. They convinced Ubisoft to change their workflows and maintain a few item placements.
Every one of these bloody stupid confrontations is spoken about in ridiculous terms and it all adds to the weird jumped up sense of importance that many in the gaming community bestow upon themselves.
The point of this article is that every time a company gives into a mob the to demand more.
I don't even disagree with the main issue here. It's fine to question why laws from one country should be imposed on every other country.
My issue comes in the way it is phrased, the language that is used and that success here will only empower the gaming community gate keepers who do their best to keep our hobby as uniform as possible,
Cut corners by not having to make a near-duplicate client + obtaining the Chinese market = win
I can't say Ubisoft wasn't thinking smart business wise.
I'm guessing this is the general thesis of the article. A small amount of people complained and you listened and this will be at the expense of your cost-cutting measures, therefore you've done the wrong thing.
I can't say Ubisoft wasn't thinking smart business wise.
I'm guessing this is the general thesis of the article. A small amount of people complained and you listened and this will be at the expense of your cost-cutting measures, therefore you've done the wrong thing.
Out of all the examples to point out outrage that was taken too far by gaming community, he picks a terrible example while carrying water for a paranoid, oppressive dictatorship.
They were *already* making a near-duplicate client for China, and they were *still* going to censor the game globally.
Seriously. As I was reading I was like "THIS is the example they're going to use?"
These corporations arent doing you favours for free. People pay for their products and are allowed to give feedback and criticism as such.
If you don't think people should be allowed to voice their opinions there's a communist dictatorship in Asia you might really like.
I don't think they are the same thing either, was just trying to tease out where your "red line" was on Chinese Government censorship.
Review bombing is petty. I can't say I've even reviewed anything on a metric based website in ages. Heck I'm bad enough at remembering to leave good reviews for CS surveys (emailed/texted to me), which I do try to do as I've worked in multiple customer services roles and know how badly you are under the corporate whip for reviews. Most of the time they are directly tied to your pay/bonus/keeping your mouth breathing boss off your back.
At the end of the day though, putting up reviews on metacritic and creating reddit topics that sometimes go viral are just ways someone has to respond to a corporation. As long as it isn't utterly toxic/threatening or against the law (inciting violence), some of this gamers rise up rebuttal shite that is used non-stop (especially on this forum), irrespective of context, is becoming even sadder than the outrage some of you are outraged about.
Chinese Government censorship is not the same as puddlegate either. Ubisoft did the right thing here, so I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise.
Last edited:
Not quite. One of them is a job, and one of them is a label people chose to apply to themselves as a point of pride while doing incredibly embarrassing shit.
In this case, yeah, the meme doesn't really apply because the censorship should be pushed back against.
In general, though? Yeah, tantrums are worth mocking, and meanwhile anyone insulting games journalism as a whole is suspect as fuck to me.
And of course, if you look at the tweet the author made linking to the article that was posted, you can see a few people actually getting angry just because he mentioned gamers at all, so it's not like everyone being critical got the point of why they should be critical either. (One of them is angry that he likes Pokémon Let's Go...?)
Who is pretending that they "stopped censors"? They stopped Ubisoft globally censoring their game, however.
Also if yours and the article's issue is with tone policing then perhaps it would better to frame it that way instead of in a way that basically says "shut up and deal with it ya nerds." The "entitled gamer" argument (and now the "gamers rise up" meme) is one that, from my experience, only serves to exacerbate the issue as it isn't used to improve the discussion but to remove people's ability to have that discussion.
Yep, you figure it out. It was clearly the corporations who helped this meme gain traction and totally not gamers acting like entitled assholes. Well done! Congratulations!!!
lol, why does he suddenly blame the fans for publishers bowing to Chinese censorship?
Its telling that some people conflate consumer advocacy with entitlement. Very telling.
See: CD Projekt twitter, Warhorse Studios, Activision's homophobic MW2 ad, etc etc.
The call is coming from inside the house.
Whole heartedly disagree on this.
One countries censorship laws should NOT affect the world as a whole when it comes to a game played by people in another country.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would hate for game companies to start following the law of one specific country and then using it as a whole when it came to designs their games and the things they can put in and not put in.
On top of that, didn't Ubisoft clarify when this first came out that they were already going to have to make specific changes to that version and keep it separate anyways?
One countries censorship laws should NOT affect the world as a whole when it comes to a game played by people in another country.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would hate for game companies to start following the law of one specific country and then using it as a whole when it came to designs their games and the things they can put in and not put in.
On top of that, didn't Ubisoft clarify when this first came out that they were already going to have to make specific changes to that version and keep it separate anyways?
Here's the thing though, they will, in the future, develop base games with China in mind. There will be no controversy on changes because the changes will not exist to be made. China has already won, for better or worse.
There has to be some financial reason they would choose to make the changes despite managing separate clients though. Otherwise, why bother in the first place?