By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Blind loyalty is unhealthy!

padib said:
JRPGfan said:

whatboutism
(what about this other thing, about bashing others, for blind loyality. And blind loyality is fine, because if company X can get away with it, it proves it was okay).

And nothing to do with this thread, if you watched the video.
Even if it states its about "blind loyalty is unhealthy" if you watched the video, you would hear its about doing something about it.
The voteing with your wallet, and going other places or skipping things, if you dont agree with price, or quality.

Why make the blunder of assuming I didn't watch the video?

In the same video, he talks abiut keeping companies accountable, with your wallet. But what if a company has done nothing wrong? Then your wallet is blunt.

@Pemalite So is it rife with people blaming companies for no reason because of a bias.

Baseless blame is definitely a form of bias.

I make no secret I am a PC gamer first and foremost... But I own all the current-gen consoles (Series X, Playstation 5 and Switch), so critique them all accordingly.
I am probably as unbiased as possible as far as console gaming goes.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
ZyroXZ2 said:

Side note: delayed posting here did show me how VGChartz impacts my videos.  I'm not specifically going to lay that out because it would make it seem like posting here is bad for me, but I actually like having some of these discussions with y'all

Great video!

You asked a question with it, so I'll give you my two cents:

You didn't ask the question this way, but this is the way I see it: "Why do Consumers Simp for Corporations?"

I would like to offer my thesis:

How old are you? If you were to compare yourself to ten years past, would you see the same person you are now? Do you think you will be the same person ten years from now? The answer is most likely, no. And that is because we are all in different stages of metal development. Marketing a product must then be targeted specifically to different age brackets. Hence, we have the young consumer, the mature consumer, and the nostalgia consumer who all play a pivotal role in a credit based economy that is lubricated by debt. It's important to understand that humans are tribal by nature, and corporations research our behavior to better relate their products with what consumers perceive as happiness, entertainment, and pleasure. Though all these things combine don't equate brand loyalty, our life choices do. When consumer choose a brand, they are not buying a product because that is not how it is being marketed towards them. They are being loyal to their life choices; however stupid they should be. No one likes being told they are wrong, or be-made-fun-of because of their life decisions. Add to this the newly "empowered" stock market gamblers who have received small gains in a rigged system that is only alive because the government has become the co-signer long enough for the wealthy to remove their money and leave the suckers to deal with the loses. To all these regular-Joe-investors who get pleasure of seeing a number rise and translate that to a wise financial decision--a life decision, I say it is harder not to simp for a corporation today then its ever been.

I have more, but I'll leave it at my thesis and save you from the rest of my essay.

I hope the wall of text was not too much for you.

Last edited by DraconianAC - on 31 July 2021

what? nah, i love nintendo. if i see something i want i buy it.



I am a Nintendo fanatic.

Pemalite said:

I always argued that brand loyalty has always been stupid... Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony isn't going to send you cake and flowers for spending hundreds/thousands of dollars on their products, you are just a sales number to appease their shareholders... Thus blind brand loyalty has always been illogical... And yet, this forum is rife with it.

I don't get it either. I mean people stick to things that are familiar and are likely to already be invested into that ecosystem. And some people cannot afford all the latest games and tech, like teens and young adults. Though, sadly I'm going to guess a large portion of people who have a strong affinity to a gaming company are grown arse adults with jobs and just too stubborn to see outside of the (plastic) box.

The things that irk me are the people who bash other games/companies, who've no interest in them or ever tried their products. And suck up everything their chosen company does. Like yeah, its nonsensical. Companies only care for your dollars/pounds/euro/yen or whatever. 



Exactly.

Even though I primarily play on PC and usually play a MS game. I do not hesitate to bash their stupid decisions. Loyalty to one company is just not a very good idea.

Although we should also praise when companies do things well. I can be quite pessimistic and bash every single company a bit too much.



Around the Network
BraLoD said:

Indeed.

Companies carry about money and you should care about yourself.

Applaud what is good for you and be against what is not.

There is no perfect company and making sure they know they can't pull all they want is fundamental.

One person writing a random post in the internet is nothing but a couple million are, people got a hollywood movie to get delayed to be changed because they didn't like what the company were doing with the main character, afterall.

I think the one time I saw this really pay off was getting them to remodel Sonic in the movie.  Best move I've ever seen, AND the movie wasn't even that bad, either!

padib said:

@ZeroXZ2

I think most folks are okay with this principle. The problem happens when people bash a company for doing something that is not wrong.

For example, when Nintendo announced the OLED model, they priced it properly because people will most likely buy it at that price. If they couldn't, Nintendo wouldn't price it so. The reason they can is because it offers value, and people are okay to freely consent to pay for that value.

The point is that some folks take a habit of bashing certain companies even if they did nothing wrong because somehow they have a bias against them. That's not too healthy either. I'm not saying we should accept everything blindly, but sometimes it makes sense to defend a company's decision if we feel like they really don't deserve the flack.

What do you think?

I think someone right after you answered this, but perhaps too briefly.  Value is always "a matter of opinion", and this is why consideration of the greater whole is needed and some understanding of mass production.  Example: lots of rich people will bay $1000 for an RTX 3080.  This creates artificially higher priced demand that scalpers feed off of.  Where there's money to be made, there's opportunity.  Capitalism is really just opportunism with money.  So you then have scalpers using their money to buy out the product to sell it at a higher price, thus increasing the value of the product and creating an artificial socioeconomic gap for a product that was once affordable for some at $700, but is no longer affordable at $1000.  What people are "willing to pay" is about voting with your wallet.  Only us, the consumers, control the final price point, and we need to be smart about it.  It's the company's job to show you and explain their pricing so that you can see whether that final price point is genuinely justified. This is where I come to the topic of the Switch OLED.

If no one (I know that's impossible, but I'm making a point, here lol) was willing to buy the Switch OLED at $350, then it's clear it's a poor value because most people don't perceive 2015 hardware packed into an already $300 system manufactured since 2017 as good value at $350 just because a better stand, OLED screen, and ethernet port are added.  And in a lot of ways, they're the ones that are right: the Switch has sold nearly 90 million, it is undoubtedly far cheaper to produce now than it was in 2017.  People who understand basics of mass production know they could easily drop the Switch to $250 and still make a profit.  But Nintendo is greedy and Nintendo does have a large loyalist fanbase of handheld gamers coming into the Switch fold.  Nintendo only cares about making money, and the more the better.  But some people understand what I said above and also know Nintendo will be mass producing the Switch OLED, there's just no way that the additions they're making can justify the price point.  Yes, it costs more to produce than the regular Switch (duhhh), but not on 2015 hardware to the point that it's worth an extra $50 at the millions they intend to sell.  I am in agreeance that the Switch OLED should have come out just like the Xbox One S and PS4 Slim: as an update to the existing hardware with some improvements at the same price.  That's good consumer practice because it errs on the idea that people will be smart enough to know the above and not pay a dime extra for hardware that's already been produced for 4+ years being repackaged with minor aesthetic QoL improvements (including reduced power draw on those two consoles, or improved battery life on newer Switch models).

I am on the side that, sure, if someone wants the Switch OLED because the improvements specifically appeal to them, fine.  I don't control what they do with their money.  But should their be a loud enough voice to have showed Nintendo that a $350 price point was a bit greedy and they dropped it to $300, then we ALL benefit and Nintendo might have even made MORE money because people might have been more likely to upgrade their current one or buy it as a second one.  This is why us, the consumers, have to know how to vote with our wallets, or companies will set whatever price point people are willing to pay, and it causes increased valuation where it hurts everyone else in the long run.

padib said:
JRPGfan said:

whatboutism
(what about this other thing, about bashing others, for blind loyality. And blind loyality is fine, because if company X can get away with it, it proves it was okay).

And nothing to do with this thread, if you watched the video.
Even if it states its about "blind loyalty is unhealthy" if you watched the video, you would hear its about doing something about it.
The voteing with your wallet, and going other places or skipping things, if you dont agree with price, or quality.

Why make the blunder of assuming I didn't watch the video?

In the same video, he talks abiut keeping companies accountable, with your wallet. But what if a company has done nothing wrong? Then your wallet is blunt.

@Pemalite So is it rife with people blaming companies for no reason because of a bias.

Companies technically can't do anything wrong, ever.  They only end up wrong when consumers aren't buying and go elsewhere with their money.  It's US that tells them they're wrong.  In a company's eyes, they're never wrong because their goal is to make money, and making money is in and of itself, not "wrong".  A voice of reason is not a bad thing, though bias CAN lead to mocking things at levels that are clearly fanatical.  You'll notice even as I mock companies, I don't get to a point where it devolves into bashing needlessly: it's more about curbing them towards remembering that we pay their bills.  They don't need to kowtow, they just need to remember that I can spend my money elsewhere.  And when there's enough of that, companies start to compete, and that's a good thing.

DraconianAC said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

Side note: delayed posting here did show me how VGChartz impacts my videos.  I'm not specifically going to lay that out because it would make it seem like posting here is bad for me, but I actually like having some of these discussions with y'all

Great video!

You asked a question with it, so I'll give you my two cents:

You didn't ask the question this way, but this is the way I see it: "Why do Consumers Simp for Corporations?"

I would like to offer my thesis:

How old are you? If you were to compare yourself to ten years past, would you see the same person you are now? Do you think you will be the same person ten years from now? The answer is most likely, no. And that is because we are all in different stages of metal development. Marketing a product must then be targeted specifically to different age brackets. Hence, we have the young consumer, the mature consumer, and the nostalgia consumer who all play a pivotal role in a credit based economy that is lubricated by debt. It's important to understand that humans are tribal by nature, and corporations research our behavior to better relate their products with what consumers perceive as happiness, entertainment, and pleasure. Though all these things combine don't equate brand loyalty, our life choices do. When consumer choose a brand, they are not buying a product because that is not how it is being marketed towards them. They are being loyal to their life choices; however stupid they should be. No one likes being told they are wrong, or be-made-fun-of because of their life decisions. Add to this the newly "empowered" stock market gamblers who have received small gains in a rigged system that is only alive because the government has become the co-signer long enough for the wealthy to remove their money and leave the suckers to deal with the loses. To all these regular-Joe-investors who get pleasure of seeing a number rise and translate that to a wise financial decision--a life decision, I say it is harder not to simp for a corporation today then its ever been.

I have more, but I'll leave it at my thesis and save you from the rest of my essay.

I hope the wall of text was not too much for you.

You are touching upon an accurate but hard to gauge topic: maturity.  Do people generally get more mature with age?  Sure, that's generally accepted.  But I've met young teens and even early 20s people with more maturity than these 30 and 40 plus "gamers".  Part of the core fundamentals of my channel IS to find and gather the more mature people, as it's really not about age.  There are some early 20s people on my channel that find brand loyalty dumb af, too.  Sure, they don't have the capital and still only have one system, but they respect what else is out there and understand that their favorite thing doesn't make it the best thing and all other things are bad.

And then comes the whole thing about the fanboyism and arguing that happens.  This is why I mention inviting civil discourse: people SHOULD be able to look at a Nintendo fanboy and say, "hey, that Switch OLED isn't worth $350, and here's why", and it should remain a civil discussion.  If anything, the hope would be that the Nintendo fanboy simply becomes a person who loves Nintendo games, and realizes that sometimes you have to curb your enthusiasm and not let it drive you emotionally to make poor buying decisions.  And this is because, as mentioned, if enough people are making poor buying decisions, it affects us all.  The more people justify the move to $70 for games, the more other companies see it as "okay", and you start seeing a global price jump that affects all of us.  Many games have not justified that price point because if you dig into financials, the most rapidly increasing factor of game development is actually MARKETING.  They're spending MORE money to advertise it and shove it down our throats, and then charging us more to PAY for it!  What a sick cycle, and it doesn't take age to understand that, just some level of maturity which can be found at all ages.  There is a tendency for older people to have "learned" and "wised up", but I have faith some young people are perfectly capable of understanding everything I've ever said about this!



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Always be critical of a company, no matter how much you like their products.

For instance, I love pretty much all the games from Paradox Interactive, but I absolutely loathe their excessive monetisation scheme of cranking out endless streams of DLC that you pretty much need to make a game really complete and fix errors. As a result I will never buy any game from them at full price, and even tend to wait for them to show up a humble bundle.

I love Nintendo,Neo Geo, and Blizzard games. But always criticized bad products or games deviate from their arcade roots. I don't like Other M and SS, for example. I skipped Gamecube and Wiiu, I skipped the major of Blizzard games now because of the addicted mechanics of their recent games. 

I try always have more than one console. Now I have ps4, switch, and PC. 



CaptainExplosion said:

More things Nintendo has done, some from long ago, that piss me off.

-Made Super Mario 3D All-Stars a limited release.

-Have yet to have a playable dark-skinned character in Smash Bros.

-Continued to drown us in almost nothing but Mario content instead of making use of their less mainstream IPs.

-Failed to buy Rare thus letting Rare rot under Microsoft.

-Turned down Giles Goddard's pitch for a new F-Zero on Switch that sounds like it would've been awesome.

-Discontinuing Miiverse.

-Turning down NECA's pitch for a line of Punch-Out action figures.

-Turning down Imagi's pitch for a Zelda animated movie.

-Failing to have a brand new Donkey Kong game made in almost 8 years.

-Scrapping the Netflix Zelda and Star Fox shows over a fucking leak. A FUCKING LEAK!!!!!

Bold: That's nonsense. Three Mario games this year, 10 non-Mario games this year, already released or announced.



CaptainExplosion said:
Kakadu18 said:

Bold: That's nonsense. Three Mario games this year, 10 non-Mario games this year, already released or announced.

But they've been putting much more effort into, and emphasis on, Mario games lately, at the expense of their less mainstream IPs. That's why it took us ages to get a new F-Zero, why Metroid was ignored for so long, and why Donkey Kong got nothing these past 3 years except a port of Tropical Freeze and DLC in Mario+Rabbids.

Metroid was not ignored (what do you call Samus Returns?), it was missmanaged with Federation Force and Other M. Dread took so long because of the complex EMMI AI not being possible back then.

There are way more franchises than what you mentioned, that didn't get new entries for quite some time. Why I'm not complaining that much about that is because this year we got New Pokèmon Snap, Miitopia, which might lead to Tomodachi Life, Famicom Detective Club and we're getting the first new Wario Ware in over 10 years, Metroid Dread, Advance Wars and Mario Golf. That's seven IPs brought back in one year + Game Builder Garage as a new IP.

Bold: I wouldn't call Mario Golf: Super Rush a game that got alot of effort put into it. Same goes for Super Mario 3D All-Stars. The recent Mario Party games also have less boards than they used to have, doesn't scream "effort".



CaptainExplosion said:
Kakadu18 said:

Metroid was not ignored (what do you call Samus Returns?), it was missmanaged with Federation Force and Other M. Dread took so long because of the complex EMMI AI not being possible back then.

There are way more franchises than what you mentioned, that didn't get new entries for quite some time. Why I'm not complaining that much about that is because this year we got New Pokèmon Snap, Miitopia, which might lead to Tomodachi Life, Famicom Detective Club and we're getting the first new Wario Ware in over 10 years, Metroid Dread, Advance Wars and Mario Golf. That's seven IPs brought back in one year + Game Builder Garage as a new IP.

Bold: I wouldn't call Mario Golf: Super Rush a game that got alot of effort put into it. Same goes for Super Mario 3D All-Stars. The recent Mario Party games also have less boards than they used to have, doesn't scream "effort".

In 4 years, actually, but yes, I get what you're saying.

Wasn't WW Gold just a collection of older mini/micro games?