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

Forums - PC Discussion - Starcraft 2 makes major announcements (and I am off the hype train)

bbsin on 03 July 2009
Final-Fan said:
bbsin said:
Final-Fan said:

I meant to say that your argument was intellectually deficient, not yourself.  Sorry. 

I'm not saying NO ONE is boycotting the game, because I'm sure some are. 

But it's just wrong to assert that anyone who says anything about how upset they are about the changing of a product into something they are unwilling to buy (when they were previously willing) is "boycotting" that game. 

No.

First, this sounds like you're either putting words in my mouth or you're very confused. I've NEVER said that ANYONE that says anything about being upset about the absence of LAN support is considered a boycotter. My argument lies on the fact that there are *some* (and I've been pretty clear about this) people that are indeed boycotting this game, in this very thread.

That is what IMO the implication was of your general argument, even when it seems to contradict your specific position. 

Second, your statement doesn't make sense as what you've described (in the right situation) can and is considered a boycott. If someone that had actually wanted a product decides that a dealer is doing something that he/she thinks is "wrong",not reasonable or fair, then goes on to publicly show their protest and disfavor because of that issue, and finally decides to not buy or obtain illegally as a result (especially to send a message to the dealer, whether the message is intentional or not) is considered a boycotter.

The ONLY better example, would be if someone just plainly says that they are boycotting a product/company/country/etc.

(in the right situation)  That's the key right there.  It's not always the case that what I've described is boycotting by your own admission, isn't that true? 

Well, simply put, it depends on the situation. In the right situation (such as some of the example in this thread), it IS considered a boycott. The reason why some of your examples are NOT examples of boycott, is because you've never put any emphasis on their (the boycotter) reaction and the way they chose to show their protest. If anything, you don't even think it exist.

And it's wrong to say that anyone who pirates such a game is "boycotting" purchasing that game. 

I've never implied or said that pirating a game = boycott. Again, it depends on what the dealer or product is doing, the reaction of the person and what they do as a means to show their disfavor. You can't target only a fraction of my argument and tell me that it's "wrong".

I meant to say, who was going to buy it, finds out about no LAN, and resultantly bitches on forums and pirates.  Sorry for my miscommunication. 

Now I'll volunteer that I suspect at least some of those posters were going to pirate anyway, and are just latching on to this as an excuse to claim (either to us or themselves) "well I was GONNA buy it until this outrage!"  But that is not relevant. 

As for SamuraiNinjaGuy, I'm always glad to see an articulate new member too, but do you realize his definition of boycott is DIFFERENT from yours?  You said "you're not getting my point if you think I'm implying that as long as someone refrains from buying a product, it'd be considered a boycott. That's simply not the case. It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results."
Repeat:  it's not the case that it's a boycott simply because someone refrains from buying a product, according to you. 
SamuraiNinjaGuy explicitly told us a story about how, for him, MP SC2 will be literally unplayable if he can't use LAN.  So for that reason, BECAUSE THE PRODUCT HAS LOST VALUE (and not as a form of protest or "sending a statement" other than by the simple fact of his non-purchase), he will not buy the game.  Because he is also a scrupulous person, he will also refrain from pirating the game. 

IMO when he calls that boycotting (assuming I have gotten his position right) he is using the term in a way that contradicts the way I think you are using the term.  If I am wrong, please explain how.

SamuraiNinjaGuy is not buying SC2 because Blizzard had taken away an option to play via LAN, which happens to be the only way he can play MP. In his case, He says he's boycotting Blizzard (which in reality, he's really boycotting SC2..) because he obviously disfavors their decision to take away the only possible way he'd have a good experience online. He doesn't hate Blizzard (since he says so), but he's protesting against their decision to take away LAN by not buying the game all together, a game that he would have gotten if it weren't for that decision.

Since you're using my example, I'll piece it together.

Situation: Blizzard takes away LAN, SamuraiNinjaGuy is an avid MP Starcraft fan.

Reasoning: SamuraiNinjaGuy is obviously not happy with Blizzard's decision to take away LAN as it's always been how he played SC in the past.

Result: He's won't buy the game, unless they happen to add LAN again.

Is it true that the value of the game has gone down for him? probably. But does that mean he's not boycotting the game? no.

But is he actually "protesting"? 

Did he make a statement or gesture in objection to the removal of LAN? Yes

But better yet, is he refusing to buy SC2 as a result of his disapproval (the removal of LAN)???

And SamuraiNinjaGuy, if I've misconstrued your position, please point it out and I'll gladly eat crow. 

 

Look, find me a dictionary definition consistent with your claim (unless you think I have again misrepresented you) that you can boycott a product (not a company) all by yourself, without ever being part of any organized effort of protest/demand/threat/etc., and when the fact of non-purchase is due to low valuation of the product's worth instead of another form of disapproval. 

My favorite dictionary, Webster's Third New International, in fact says that to boycott is "to combine against (a person, employer, group, or nation) in a policy of nonintercourse for political or economic reasons ... as an expression of disapproval or means of coercion" or to engage in "concerted refusal to have anything to do with ... in order to force acceptance of certain conditions ..."

[edit:  and no, your earlier examples are not sufficient. 
[Dictionary.com
[1.  "as a means of intimidation or coercion" this clearly doesn't qualify
[2.  "abstain" this is a much more subtle disqualification.  "Abstaining" implies not doing something that you would normally be inclined to do.  Abstaining from drinking, or drugs, or whatever.  One abstains not because the thing is undesirable (like Cheetos taste bad or are messy) but for some other reason like ... Cheetos are made with child labor or whatever the reason was. 
[

Would they not to inclined to buy/play SC2? To abstain can be to refrain from something by one's own choice or to voluntarily do without. 

[yourdictionary.com
[1. "join together", "so as to punish" double fail
[2. "to refuse" probably your strongest case.  Still, "refuse" seems to me to be a more purposeful sentiment than just not wanting to buy -- not as clearly as "abstain" but still there.  Plus, either "refuse" does mean something aside from not thinking the product worth buying, or that definition means that anything you ever decided against buying is a boycott.  I think you agreed that that's not the case. 

"refuse" is a word with many different meanings. You can used it in many situations. In this case, I'll agree that it represents a more purposeful sentiment that just a simple "meh, I don't want it." However, Some people that are refusing to buy SC2 are in fact "refusing" as they've clearly shown their unwillingness as a result of no LAN. Simply put, they've refused to by SC2 without LAN support.

[

[Yahoo dictionary
["abstain" "as an expression of protest or disfavor" Abstain again, see above.  Also, "disfavor" again ought to be something else than just not wanting to purchase. 

I've already covered "abstain". But I'll also agree that "disfavor" is something else other than simply not wanting to buy.. but that's irrelevent because I've been using the word "disfavor" as an expression or act of disapproval and dislike, which fits perfectly with the reactions of SC2 boycotters. Some people are abstaining from purchasing/playing SC2 because they disfavor Blizzard's decision.

[
[So only one of the five definitions you quoted could even arguably support your interpretation, and IMO not even that.]

American Heritage Dictionary.

boy·cott

To abstain (To refrain from something by one's own choice) from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion

 

Cambridge Dicitonary

boycott
verb [T] 
to refuse to buy (a product) or take part in (an activity) as a way of expressing strong disapproval 

 



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 03 July 2009
bbsin said:
Final-Fan said:

Look, find me a dictionary definition consistent with your claim (unless you think I have again misrepresented you) that you can boycott a product (not a company) all by yourself, without ever being part of any organized effort of protest/demand/threat/etc., and when the fact of non-purchase is due to low valuation of the product's worth instead of another form of disapproval. 

My favorite dictionary, Webster's Third New International, in fact says that to boycott is "to combine against (a person, employer, group, or nation) in a policy of nonintercourse for political or economic reasons ... as an expression of disapproval or means of coercion" or to engage in "concerted refusal to have anything to do with ... in order to force acceptance of certain conditions ..."

[edit:  and no, your earlier examples are not sufficient. 
[Dictionary.com
[1.  "as a means of intimidation or coercion" this clearly doesn't qualify
[2.  "abstain" this is a much more subtle disqualification.  "Abstaining" implies not doing something that you would normally be inclined to do.  Abstaining from drinking, or drugs, or whatever.  One abstains not because the thing is undesirable (like Cheetos taste bad or are messy) but for some other reason like ... Cheetos are made with child labor or whatever the reason was. 
[

Would they not to inclined to buy/play SC2? To abstain can be to refrain from something by one's own choice or to voluntarily do without. 

[yourdictionary.com
[1. "join together", "so as to punish" double fail
[2. "to refuse" probably your strongest case.  Still, "refuse" seems to me to be a more purposeful sentiment than just not wanting to buy -- not as clearly as "abstain" but still there.  Plus, either "refuse" does mean something aside from not thinking the product worth buying, or that definition means that anything you ever decided against buying is a boycott.  I think you agreed that that's not the case. 

"refuse" is a word with many different meanings. You can used it in many situations. In this case, I'll agree that it represents a more purposeful sentiment that just a simple "meh, I don't want it." However, Some people that are refusing to buy SC2 are in fact "refusing" as they've clearly shown their unwillingness as a result of no LAN. Simply put, they've refused to by SC2 without LAN support.

[

[Yahoo dictionary
["abstain" "as an expression of protest or disfavor" Abstain again, see above.  Also, "disfavor" again ought to be something else than just not wanting to purchase. 

I've already covered "abstain". But I'll also agree that "disfavor" is something else other than simply not wanting to buy.. but that's irrelevent because I've been using the word "disfavor" as an expression or act of disapproval and dislike, which fits perfectly with the reactions of SC2 boycotters. Some people are abstaining from purchasing/playing SC2 because they disfavor Blizzard's decision.

[
[So only one of the five definitions you quoted could even arguably support your interpretation, and IMO not even that.]

American Heritage Dictionary.

boy·cott

To abstain (To refrain from something by one's own choice) from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion

Cambridge Dicitonary

boycott
verb [T] 
to refuse to buy (a product) or take part in (an activity) as a way of expressing strong disapproval 

abstain: to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice
Like I said, "abstaining" implies a reason you're not partaking of something beyond the undesirability of the product; it implies that you DO desire the product and would buy it if not for circumstances other than the product itself and its price and availability that cause you to sacrifice getting it.  e.g. not buying stuff made with child labor, not going to a restaraunt that employs illegal immigrants, etc. 

refuse: 
Again, if you interpret it that way, then I am BOYCOTTING vending machines that sell pop cans for more than 65 cents.  Would you say that that is the case?  I wouldn't. 

disfavor: 
If you agree that the disfavor has to go beyond just not being willing to buy the product, then I think we may agree.  But...

"Some people are abstaining from purchasing/playing SC2 because they disfavor Blizzard's decision."
I'm sure some are.  But many more are not abstaining so much as no longer are willing to spend that much money on it.  "Disfavor" in that sentence, of course, applies not to SC2 itself but to Blizzard's decision regarding it.

But I will admit that Cambridge's definition clearly does allow for a boycott to be of a single product as an expression of disapproval (of the company or its actions, not the product)

Hey, it occurs to me that that was something I might not have been articulating clearly enough before now.  Boycotting is disapproval of something apart from the product, whether it be the policies of the manufacturer, or processes of manufacture, or something totally unrelated to the product itself but which will hopefully be affected by the boycott.  If the disapproval is simply of the product's cost/value to the customer in question, or how far away the store is that sells it, then it's not a boycott but simply not buying it. 

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.) 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bbsin on 03 July 2009

^ 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.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

Final-Fan on 03 July 2009
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". 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bbsin on 03 July 2009
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.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 03 July 2009
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. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bbsin on 03 July 2009
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".



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

Final-Fan on 03 July 2009
bbsin said:
Final-Fan said:
bbsin said:
Final-Fan said:
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".  

No, it's not what I'm implying at all.  Obviously many of the people who are not buying SC2 because of no LAN are going to be outraged at Blizzard's decision to have no LAN; but IF those people would buy SC2 if they had a way to play LAN ANYWAY, then they aren't actually boycotting, are they?  They're just not buying.  If it's BOTH reasons (i.e. they aren't buying because of no LAN and they wouldn't buy it even if they could get LAN back in as long as Blizzard is trying to keep LAN out) then they're boycotting. 

You may think it's a fine line, but it's a very clear one. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Jereel Hunter on 04 July 2009
Chrizum said:

Just buy multiple copies? So for people who buy RTS games for LAN Starcraft is twice as (or more) expensive as any other RTS game.

I'm not spending €120+ for playing some LAN with my girlfriend.


Huh? To the best of my knowledge, games that play over a LAN still require a copy for each PC? Or are you considering pirated copies to be a given?



MonstaMack on 04 July 2009

Seriously, I mean you guys aren't gonna buy a game because it doesn't have LAN? Give me a break. Eventually Blizzard was gonna charge for content through battle.net it was only a matter of time. Also yeah, u need two copies of a game to play LAN. Way to show everyone your a pirate *salutes* LOL



It's just that simple.