Petition : Recall 2k Elizebeth

[Thyrwyn]

I read these as someone went in front for the Firaxis people and suggested the Iraqis would greet the American army as liberators..I'd like to see the data. Because the data would likely show less than stellar support for Steam, she's not going to share it because it would be bad for the marketing. So now the line is "Steam was the fans idea" and "its for the benefit of the community" which is the first of possibly many dishonest marketing lines...

I call shenanigans. Or willful misinterpretation, take your pick. She never says that Steam was the "fans idea" - she says

...I run our customer service group and I frequent the 2K Games forums as well as read feedback from consumers across many blogs/forums for all our titles - it's that information that helps us make these decisions.

Let me ask you this: There is a vocal fraction of the users on this site that object to Steam; how does that number compare to the number of Civ Players on Steam?

 

[Chalks]

evret made the accusation that 2K Elizabeth was not being completely honest about the data collected. For whatever reason, she hasn't produced any data showing the fans were asking for the things she says they were. This is his beef with her.

You are just trying to make it sound like evret doesn't like Steam so that it's just another anti-Steam thread. It's true he doesn't like Steam, and it might even be his motivation for starting the thread, but it's not what is being discussed in the thread.

He is attacking 2k reps for saying something that he doesn't agree with. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that just because he doesn't agree with the statements that therefore she's not telling the truth.

She's said that there aren't any "nifty graphs" to show us, so what else do you want? She says that the community in general will not be put off by Steam and he has no evidence to show otherwise.

You can't just say "You said something I don't like therefore you should be kicked out".

He noted that she chose to defend the platform by claiming it's what the fans wanted. He doesn't believe her and wants to know if that's true or not (whether the fans really did want steam).

No he doesn't. That question has already been asked and answered, the answer was "yes, it is true".

Now what he wants is to kick the person out who gave him an answer he doesn't like and get someone new in - then presumably keep on kicking out 2k representatives until he finds one that gives him the answer he wants.

He believes there is an inherent conflict of interest in having a customer service rep be also a marketing rep. Whether anyone agrees with that or not is up to them, but that's the position evret has taken.

The game is unreleased, there is therefore no customer service to provide. Right now if they were going to replace 2kE with someone who was not conflicted, they would replace her with a Marketing rep.

Also the idea that anyone from 2k is going to turn around and say "Yeah, all the players hate the idea and the game is totally going to fail because of this decision but we did it anyway" is laughable.

And even if you were correct that this is an anti-Steam thread, your sudden bringing up the online activation issue in particular still confused me. As in "where did that come from?"

My point was perfectly apt because if he took my advice and got over it then this thread would never have been made.

The online activation part is mentioned because that is basically people's beef with Steam and if Steam was removed, it would be replaced by another 3rd party online activation tool that would almost certainly be worse. The argument against Steam falls over at the point of an inevitable online activation scheme leaving the opponents to try to argue that Civ 5 should be the only modern mainstream game without this feature.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You have a point Thyrwyn.

However, one point I would make is that the vocal fraction you refer to isn't against Steam itself (most of them anyway) but rather the game being exclusive to it so they don't have another option.

Even some of the Civ players on Steam might object to the game being Steam exclusive (perhaps they even didn't enjoy civ on Steam, though I doubt it). To help illustrate why this might be true, consider that in general the greater competition there is between distributors, the lower the price is likely to be. So having the game exclusive to Steam might make it able to stay more expensive for longer. Therefore, the answer to the question who pose will not necessarily be all that's needed.

 

[Chalks]

However, one point I would make is that the vocal fraction you refer to isn't against Steam itself (most of them anyway) but rather the game being exclusive to it so they don't have another option.

I'm not actually very sure I agree with you on this.

I think that if they gave you the choice of Steam activation, Ubisoft's always online DRM and EA's limited install DRM, people wouldn't turn around and say "ah, that's better, now we have a choice".

 

[PieceOfMind]

Thank you Chalks, I've finally managed to get you on the topic. Remember I am not the one making the accusation so there's not point asking me "what more do you want?".

You'll find that on the issue of customer service I agree with you. I said earlier that at this point in time we should only really expect marketing and don't have a need for any customer service and that that was a reasonable thing for 2K Elizabeth to be doing. Of course, if you'd read my posts you'd know I was saying that.

Anyway, I'm not here to have this argument with you. I just wanted to steer you toward the argument and away from the polarising "for or against Steam" label that you tend to put on everyone.

 

[Chalks]

Meh, I don't want this transparent attempt at attacking a 2k rep in order to silence their disagreement to go un-noted.

Any fansite with direct input from the developers or publishers of their respective game is extremely lucky to have it and all members of the community should cherish the opportunity to interact on this level, regardless of what feedback they provide. They are not obliged to give any at all.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm not actually very sure I agree with you on this.

I think that if they gave you the choice of Steam activation, Ubisoft's always online DRM and EA's limited install DRM, people wouldn't turn around and say "ah, that's better, now we have a choice".

You are of course making simplifications about the question so that your position is more favourable. For example, you implicitly exclude the possibility of any other DRM method (like Civ4's) and choose the two that you happen to know that people hate more.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue this point. It's off topic.

 

[Chalks]

You are of course making simplifications about the question so that your position is more favourable. For example, you implicitly exclude the possibility of any other DRM method (like Civ4's) and choose the two that you happen to know that people hate more.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue this point. It's off topic.

No no no, then it stops being about the ability to choose. If your issue is with the vendor of the functionality alone, then you can only select others that offer the same functionality. If you say you don't want to use only steam because it reduces choice - giving you an option of Civ 4 style cd-check DRM methods provided by Steam should be just as big a problem for you.

If someone says "I want to be able to choose not to have this feature" then it's not about the ability to choose, it's about removing the feature - which is exactly where we were when we started.

And feel free not to get into this with me - but I personally don't mind an off topic discussion when the initial topic is as bad as this one is.

*edit* I have clarified my initial post. I'll also try to stop playing reply hopscotch with you now and actually get these messages threading together in a way that other people can read

 

[PieceOfMind]

Meh, I don't want this transparent attempt at attacking a 2k rep in order to silence their disagreement to go un-noted.

Any fansite with direct input from the developers or publishers of their respective game is extremely lucky to have it and all members of the community should cherish the opportunity to interact on this level, regardless of what feedback they provide. They are not obliged to give any at all.

Completely agree. I said earlier that it would be a minority of members on cfc who'd be cynical enough to emphasise that she is from marketing. I myself rarely trust the word of someone from marketing in other businesses, but I haven't seen any reason to direct any venom at 2K Elizabeth. I said earlier that it is crossing the line to be calling for her to be sacked by people signing a petition. Frankly it's a futile exercise anyway, again for a reason I noted earlier - that practically no civfanatics member would want to ostracise an existing member from the community.

I neither agree with the point of the petition nor the position that evrett is taking.

 

[Dale]

2K Customer Service: "Good morning customer service this is Elizabeth speaking."
Pleb: "Hi, Civ 5 won't run."
2K Customer Service: "If I may first point you to the front of your computer and press the power button to ensure it is on."
Pleb: "Oh gee THANKS! It works!"
2K Customer Service: "Oh that's good! Now before you go have you heard about 2K's latest shooter Bioshock 2?"
Pleb: *sigh*

That's a conflict between CS and Marketing!

2K Elizabeth is not doing that. She's providing information as the fan community manager.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Chalks,

Well yeah, if it's about the ability to choose then I think most people would be in favour of there being 3 different DRM methods. But for reasons that you yourself are familiar with it is not practical anyway so it's a pretty irrelevant hypothetical question to be asking. You said if it's solely about the ability to "choose" then you have to pick other DRM methods that have the same functionality. I would agree with that. However, my understanding is that EA's and Ubisoft's methods of providing DRM do not quite provide the same functionality in the sense that the limitations put on the user are stronger. As you know, in the case of Ubisoft, requiring constant internet connection.
So, if Steam was a DRM method that required constant online connection, then yeah, the ability to choose between the three DRM methods would be appreciated by those calling for the freedom to choose. In the case of Steam vs. EA. vs Ubisoft DRM, because you'll find very few people wanting to go with either of the other two, you're biasing the question.

Since I am familiar with the GPGnet system from Supreme Commander, I would say to you that that is a similar method of DRM to what Steam uses. It doesn't require online activation but to play multiplayer it requires you create an account with the CD-key attached to your account, and you launch MP games using the gpgnet client. The gpgnet client provides other functionality similar to Steam, like the ability to download game replays, a chat window, the ability to have a friends list and clan chat windows etc. It also handles the distribution of mods.

 

[Chalks]

Since I am familiar with the GPGnet system from Supreme Commander, I would say to you that that is a similar method of DRM to what Steam uses. It doesn't require online activation but to play multiplayer it requires you create an account with the CD-key attached to your account, and you launch MP games using the gpgnet client. The gpgnet client provides other functionality similar to Steam, like the ability to download game replays, a chat window, the ability to have a friends list and clan chat windows etc. It also handles the distribution of mods.

This DRM only makes sense on a mostly multiplayer game, however. Creating an account with a CD key and requiring that account in order to play the game is the essence of online activation. The only difference here is that single player does not require activation, which would mean that in the case of Civ 5 it would be very ineffective. The logical implementation of this DRM would be to require online activation for single player too - which is the system Steam offers.

The problem with having "choice" in the matter is that pretty much every single other DRM system that allows for online activation is worse than Steam - this is kinda my point.

I think perhaps the Microsoft live games network offers similar DRM to Steam? I'm not terribly familiar with it to be honest.

But regardless, I still don't think anyone would be satisfied if they were offered the same functionality under multiple brands. They might claim their issue is with choice, but it's actually with the feature itself.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Supreme Commander had a pretty decent single player campaign. There would be a lot of people who'd like the game solely for the single player experience. I know I would.

And now you're making assumptions about what civ5 will be like. That is, you're assuming civ5 will be a primarily SP experience. We don't even know that yet. At this point it actually looks like they're trying to make the mp or community aspect significant enough that getting online and activating a CD-key would be a big incentive for most players. I think you have even argued this yourself. You probably even passed that off as fact.

 

[The_J]

This is sure the first thread here, where every poster agrees .
But can we get back to bashing pro steam vs. contra steam instead of bashing the OP (okay, i know, he deserves it).

Well, you could say 'closed' too, and I'd advise you to do so... this is getting ridiculous

Agree, agree.

 

[Chalks]

And now you're making assumptions about what civ5 will be like. That is, you're assuming civ5 will be a primarily SP experience. We don't even know that yet. At this point it actually looks like they're trying to make the mp or community aspect significant enough that getting online and activating a CD-key would be a big incentive for most players. I think you have even argued this yourself. You probably even passed that off as fact.

Certainly, you're right. Although I'd say that assuming in the other direction was no more tenable.

 

[evrett37]

Meh, I don't want this transparent attempt at attacking a 2k rep in order to silence their disagreement to go un-noted.

Any fansite with direct input from the developers or publishers of their respective game is extremely lucky to have it and all members of the community should cherish the opportunity to interact on this level, regardless of what feedback they provide. They are not obliged to give any at all.

First - this petition isnt a "transparent attempt". I hope it is bluntly honest. However there is a difference between "Attacking" and being "Critical". The rest of your post reads somewhere along the lines of "I for one welcome our insect overlords". Only in a market where customers passively sit around with their thumbs up their butt do companies dominate over the subservient customer and not obliged and required to be honest with them. The gaming company, its product and its customer service reps are here for us not the other way around. I hope you dont have any complaints after the game come out because you will be the proverbial person complaining about taxes who never votes. And the rep you will be asking for help will have a long history of knowing he/she/it can get away with anything because the community is full of blingly trusting zombie-lemmings.

2k Elizebeth is OUR rep. She is here for us. What do we want from her position? How do we define her role in our community? If its with honesty, dialog and less advertising then we as a community need to band together and pass on that instruction to the company. Do so by signing below.

 

[The_J]

Ey man, we really complain here enough.
But you're complaining about the wrong thing.

 

[Modiga-Disabled]

/not signed.

This is so very stupid I can't see how my desk will survive the day undented.

 

[Chalks]

First - this petition isnt a "transparent attempt". I hope it is bluntly honest. However there is a difference between "Attacking" and being "Critical". The rest of your post reads somewhere along the lines of "I for one welcome our insect overlords". Only in a market where customers passively sit around with their thumbs up their butt do companies dominate over the subservient customer and not obliged and required to be honest with them. The gaming company, its product and its customer service reps are here for us not the other way around. I hope you dont have any complaints after the game come out because you will be the proverbial person complaining about taxes who never votes. And the rep you will be asking for help will have a long history of knowing he/she/it can get away with anything because the community is full of blingly trusting zombie-lemmings.

What are you even talking about? You asked her a question, she answered it and you didn't like the answer. That's what happened here. The only reason you are attacking her (and yes, you are attacking) is because the answer she gave disagreed with your world view.

The gaming company is here to provide a service to its customers, and 2k Elizabeth says that you are in the minority and that the majority of people ARE happy with how things are being done.

You cannot then demand her removal predicated on the very thing she just told you being incorrect.

2k Elizebeth is OUR rep. She is here for us. What do we want from her position? How do we define her role in our community? If its with honesty, dialog and less advertising then we as a community need to band together and pass on that instruction to the company. Do so by signing below.

No, she's not OUR rep. She's a community rep who spends time replying to people on this forum instead of just on the official ones. She is not obligated to do this, and if there were more self entitled people like yourself on here she probably wouldn't.

The fact that every single person who has replied to this thread has disagreed with you should be enough to convince you that you are wrong - but apparently that's not how things work.

I await the petition to have all of us removed from this site too.

 

[lemmy101]

Not content with telling Take Two what middleware they should be allowed to use, we've now got onto who they should employ? This makes me sad. Nice to see support for her here.

I've got to stop reading the Civ 5 forum, too many threads to make me angry.