BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Came across this post in another forum:
Link
(emphasis mine)
(my response below)
Apropos the motivation to fix the game following release: would you accept any other good that had to be fixed after your purchase? Particularly a new good, rather than a used one? The sentiment that gamers should accept a flawed product on the trust that problems with the product will be fixed in the future is bizarre. No other set of consumers that I can think of would accept such arrangement, particularly when there is no warranty to protect the consumer against faulty video games except physically damaged discs. I'm uncertain if the attitude above (which is widespread in the video game community) about how video game consumers should interact with buggy video games is actually good for the consumer.
Of course, the difference between fixing and improving a game can be a fine line. Civ 4:BtS is superior to Civ 4 Vanilla, but I don't know if BTS fixed the game as much as it improved it (although there certainly are overt fixes in BtS).
--
What do you think? This being a subforum on a video game forum, it seems likely that many of us play video games. Are we, as consumers, more likely to accept a poor product from a video game company that a poor product from another company on the assumption that a later fix can be provided? Obviously this behavior is integrally linked to the new information economy with its focus on early adopters. I said above that I couldn't think of another group of consumers that would accept a poor product, but now that I think about the SNAFU over the new iphone's map program demonstrates that plenty of people will buy the new new thing regardless of its flaws just to have the new new thing. (although, to be fair, the iphone's map problem is just one minor element of the phone itself. I assume that the iphone is, in other ways, adequate.)
Equally, what does this mean for the consumer? Will or should consumer expectations of products be lowered now that companies can roll out hot fixes later on? Should we demand that products be released in a largely bug free state? Could you imagine a similar situation with non-technology-based goods like, say, a refrigerator or a car? (Keep in mind that we are rapidly coming to the point, if not at it already, were cars and fridges can be attached to the internet so it might be possible for GE to send your icebox a hot fix.)
japester said:And glancing at how well XCOM:EU did on Steam (the only presale numbers we had the slightest clue about, due to it's rank), and the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I'd say Jake is plenty happy. And whether the game needs significant work or not, all that really matters is that it sold well. If it did, it means they will be motivated to fix, improve, expand, etc. And that is a very, very good thing for us X-COM fans.
Link
(emphasis mine)
(my response below)
Apropos the motivation to fix the game following release: would you accept any other good that had to be fixed after your purchase? Particularly a new good, rather than a used one? The sentiment that gamers should accept a flawed product on the trust that problems with the product will be fixed in the future is bizarre. No other set of consumers that I can think of would accept such arrangement, particularly when there is no warranty to protect the consumer against faulty video games except physically damaged discs. I'm uncertain if the attitude above (which is widespread in the video game community) about how video game consumers should interact with buggy video games is actually good for the consumer.
Of course, the difference between fixing and improving a game can be a fine line. Civ 4:BtS is superior to Civ 4 Vanilla, but I don't know if BTS fixed the game as much as it improved it (although there certainly are overt fixes in BtS).
--
What do you think? This being a subforum on a video game forum, it seems likely that many of us play video games. Are we, as consumers, more likely to accept a poor product from a video game company that a poor product from another company on the assumption that a later fix can be provided? Obviously this behavior is integrally linked to the new information economy with its focus on early adopters. I said above that I couldn't think of another group of consumers that would accept a poor product, but now that I think about the SNAFU over the new iphone's map program demonstrates that plenty of people will buy the new new thing regardless of its flaws just to have the new new thing. (although, to be fair, the iphone's map problem is just one minor element of the phone itself. I assume that the iphone is, in other ways, adequate.)
Equally, what does this mean for the consumer? Will or should consumer expectations of products be lowered now that companies can roll out hot fixes later on? Should we demand that products be released in a largely bug free state? Could you imagine a similar situation with non-technology-based goods like, say, a refrigerator or a car? (Keep in mind that we are rapidly coming to the point, if not at it already, were cars and fridges can be attached to the internet so it might be possible for GE to send your icebox a hot fix.)