Final-Fan said:
bbsin said:
Final-Fan said:
bbsin said:
^ I was going to post another definition source for "abstain" just for argument purposes, get into the meaning of the word "refuse" and argue the statements you've made on "disfavor"...
But I realize something... If I did that, this conversation/argument would go on forever based on tiny micro details on technical definitions based on many different sources.
There's no way we're going to get to the bottom of this because we're using different philosophies, sources and definitions to prove that our claims are correct. So, to speed things up:
"So a person who refuses to buy SC2 because Blizzard chose to take out LAN play is boycotting;
but a person who refuses to buy SC2 because SC2 doesn't have LAN play is not boycotting. (Unless they send letters to Blizzard saying they'll buy it if LAN goes back in or sign a petition or something.) "
Since I think both these descriptions fit people that have been in this thread. I'll just say "Fair enough".
...but you do realize that the reason SC2 doesn't have LAN is because Blizzard chose to take it out, so basically the cause of their refusing is very unclear and can lean either way or even be the same thing...
it's not polished enough to be a definitive model to legitimately end this conversation, but w/e.
|
Not so. There's a simple way to find out which reason a person has: ask the following question.
Suppose someone (other than Blizzard) comes out with a freeware program that will allow you to play SC2 on LAN. Suppose Blizzard tries, and fails, to stop this from working. Suppose further that Blizzard will never succeed in stopping it from working, although they will keep trying. Finally, suppose that you have no problem with using a legally obtained program in a way other than what the maker intends such as the freeware program does to SC2. In that case, would you buy SC2?
The person who is boycotting SC2 due to Blizzard's obstinancy will say "no, I would not". The person who is not buying SC2 due to lack of LAN play (such as SamuraiNinjaGuy) will say "yes, I would".
|
There's too many hypothetical questions being thrown around. I'd say that the vast majority of consumers that care about LAN support (whether they're boycotters or not) is relying solely Blizzard and at their mercy. If LAN = value, then it wouldn't make sense for anyone to decide based on a series of hypothetical questions that branch off one another.
Blizzard takes away LAN from SC2 = There is no LAN in SC2
You can ask anyone refusing to buy SC2 "why are you not buying the game?" They could say "because there's no more LAN support" or "because Blizzard decided to remove LAN support from the game" and both would be the same because at the end of the day, the cause of not buying SC2 will always be directed back to the fact that Blizzard decided to remove LAN in the first place...even if they don't mention Blizzard at all.
You can also ask everyone (that's refusing to buy), would you buy the game if Blizzard reads your reaction/complaints on this subject and decides to add LAN as a result? If everyone says "yes" (which is VERY likely), then just about everyone that has refused to buy the game would have succesfully boycotted the game.
|
... No.
The hypothetical question very clearly (IMO) separates people who aren't buying due to outrage at Blizzard's decision (boycotters) from people who aren't buying due to the result of Blizzard's decision (non-buyers).
[edit: that's why they're not "both the same". One reason is outrage at the fact that Blizzard would dare remove LAN; the other reason is devaluing the product due to the fact that the LAN is gone. The cause of the first reason causes the cause of the second reason, but they are separate causes and separate reasons.]
Saying "but this OTHER hypothetical question doesn't separate the two groups!" is completely irrelevant. So is "but what is the likelihood of that situation occurring?" or "but what if they don't know about / can't get the program?" because the point isn't whether that would actually happen, the point is figuring out what a person's reason is for not buying SC2.
|
Why do you think people are outraged because Blizzard would dare remove LAN??? Because they feel that Blizzard has devalued a product that they would have very much liked to play otherwise. In other words, it's very possible that they feel forced to buy a game that they we're looking fowards BEFORE blizzard said "no". What better way to say "If you're (blizzard) going to remove something essential to me (LAN), attempt to pass it off as "not so important" and force it down my throat, then I don't want to be your customer" than refusing to buy SC2 as a result.
It seems like you're making it impossible to think someone can refuse to buy the game because they are not pleased with Blizzard's decision AS WELL as the feeling that the game has been devalued. Perhaps that's not what you're trying to imply, but it really does seem like you're attempting to create a very fine line between your "models".
