Sunday, June 21, 2009

Hitler Boycotts Left 4 Dead 2



An internet-formed boycott has produced this video, showing footage of Hitler, which confirms conspiracy theories that he is indeed still alive in some bunker, plotting to begin World War III so that he can annihilate America and its European allies. It was reported that after the verbal tirade in this video, Hitler apologized and ordered Hawaiian pizza for everyone and announced world peace.

Seriously though, the video comically describes why a group of people are upset about Left 4 Dead 2's 2009 November debut. But in my personal opinion, what precisely is there not to like about Left 4 Dead 2 being released this year? Rarely do gamers get to enjoy much-anticipated, high-quality sequels without having to wait very long. Case in point: Half-Life 2 came out six years after the original game. WarCraft 3, a PC game developed by Blizzard Entertainment, was released 7 years after its predecessor and sold one-million units in its first month (most PC developers are fortunate if they can surpass 50,000 copies in the first month of sale). I need not mention typical household-name games like Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, Zelda, and Final Fantasy. When a full tank of gasoline in my rusty SUV costs upward to $40, a one month subscription to World of Warcraft costs $16 a month, and some people's gaming libraries far exceed 100 titles, is it really too much to shell out $50? Perhaps these boycotters feel they are being taken advantage of, as they were "promised" free content and the SDK that would provide end-users the ability to create custom maps, and still have to deal with the broken match-making system of the PC.

But video games are still a business, and businesses are in the business of making money, and I cannot think of a single business that exists to lose money (though even then they may do that.) They have organizations that are more beneficial to mankind, and they are called non-profit organizations. I think video games don't quite fall into that category.

I have a friend who just graduated business school, with one of his research papers being about business ethics. He contends that, in order for business transactions to be ethical, everyone - the consumer, the producer of the product, and anyone else involved in the transaction, has to win in some way. The producer of the product should make every effort to release a refined product, and the consumer in turn agrees to pay what he feels is reasonable for the product, so long as he or she is satisfied with the product. The businessman receives a profit, and in an intangible sense, so does the consumer. With Left 4 Dead 2 being released in November, one could expect a superior product created by Valve based on the superior quality of their previous games, charged at a reasonable price - $50 for the PC version - which is $10 cheaper than the XBox 360 version (the boycotters appear to be PC aficionados).

$50 is a moderate amount of money, especially in lieu of free custom content made by a community of fans. And to keep fans loyal to them, it is necessary to indulge them and listen to their input or criticism. And I can understand that they are upset that there was so little time between games, which might suggest to a lot of people that the number one motivation is to make money, at the expense of customers. I can actually identify with many of the reasons as to their being upset. But a boycott? A group of people resorting to non-violent resistance - the same tactics that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus used - because they are upset that Valve is releasing a game one year after its previous version? Come. On. Is Valve enslaving African-Americans? Are they utilizing sweatshops? Are they giving away firearms with the game?

I simply feel that boycotting a video game seems analogous to boycotting McDonald's because you're upset they got rid of the baby-back rib sandwich special from the menu: your time and energy are best used toward something more constructive and beneficial. Nevertheless, the video above was entertaining enough that I let out a few hearty chuckles. And, my opinion not withstanding, I can appreciate their passion for the game.

2 comments:

  1. Oh, I like this post! Or more precisely I like the content matter. You hit the nail on the head with the comparison of video games simply being a commodity that is sold by businesses and bought by consumers.

    I do agree that a company has every right to do what they please with a product; even running it into the ground (thank you 3d realms for DNF). It is by definition their property, and the consumer merely pays to use an extension of that digital information (in the case of software). But I also see the trading of money for virtual goods a relationship that needs to be respected.

    Shipping products too quickly to push the consumer to pay another fee in fear of being outdated and not fulfilling promises of future expected improvements is not a good business relationship. These kinds of considerations were thought of beforehand by the company and show a lack of respect for the consumer regardless of the value of the product.

    Valve simply is not giving something to the consumer with this sequel. They are charging them for what was promised beforehand and never delivered. I think a boycott is fine way to respond to a business agreement you don't believe is fair. If I was a owner of the original product, I would not be buying the sequel and would boycott with my lack of payment.

    I can truly say this because of my personal boycott against some companies for their lackluster innovation and pressure to force products on consumers by sheer monetary push. I can directly relate and hope anytime a consumer does not approve of a product, they withdraw their money, support and show the company they will not be nameless sheep upgrading at every turn.

    In the end, it is only because of this boycott that so much attention has been put on the subject. Now it is Vavle's turn to respond, and hopefully it comes not from the bottom line, but the love of their users and knowing that a happy consumer will come back many times over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Valve actually responded by defending their release of the sequel, saying there was far too much content to be released in an expansion or as free DLC.

    The problem here is that this boycott lacks maturity. It's an effort to draw attention to a video game company, but boycotts are largely made for political or social reasons. Something like this is practically offensive to people who have fought, died or resisted someone or something oppressive that gravely affects peoples lives.

    Valve is hardly an oppressive company gravely affecting people's lives - the product they release is a discretionary product and is an entertainment product, meaning it's the personal choice of the consumer on whether they want to buy it or not, based on their evaluation of it, and they certainly don't depend on it.

    I can understand making purchases or not purchasing items based on one's own personal values - for example, not buying a product because the producer supports abortion, or not buying a product because a company is so aggressive it causes other companies to go bankrupt, with people losing jobs (i.e. Microsoft!) but boycotting Valve? It's a bit over-the-top.

    ReplyDelete