Boycott Game/Gamestation

Take a read: http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1119494-Game-UK-Why...

Game, who also own Gamestation, have allegedly been threatening to remove games by publishers who refuse to withdraw their games from Steam during the release. Game seems to want almost total monopoly of new game sales.

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Aug-11 00:23:33)

I have two games that I bought from Game that connect through Steam and although I play them offline (I don't like to play against unknown people) I cannot play them at times when Steam have problems (eg cannot connect to Steam Network) or, as happened recently, when my broadband went down. Why should I have these problems when I have bought the games and cannot play them? It is like buying a car that you can only drive when the DVLC are open!! I completely support Game's stance and wish them luck with their campaign.

I say 'SUPPORT GAME AND BOYCOTT STEAM'!!!

First up:

1) i've read those news sites he "cites" - they dont point to any retailer

2)Personally ive come to the conclusion its TESCO, not game, why tesco? just look at how many steamworks titles they carry compared to other supermarkets.

3)i want proper proof of the retailers involved before i boycott anything.

Edit:
Reading the article deeper and all of its links, again theres no proof that it is GAME, red faction was available for preorder by other retailers, not just game.

Whilst it is true that "games not being available in your region" is down to some bs exclusivity deal the question is how to tell whos behind it? GAME are often not the cheapest place to buy however cheaper than steam.

What makes me think its tesco/supermarkets? certain ones you can go in store look along their pc sections and surprise you wont find many steam works titles at all, my local tescos stocked a ton of EA stuff (no steam), stuff like fable 3/batman/etc (gfwl), but no steamworks ones. Portal 2 on 360/ps3 sure, pc? no. Whether this is down to regional stocking i dont know but out of 20 or so stores ive seen no steamworks games. Their online store does however stock them however their online store is also run by the hut group (chain of franchises ran out of jersey)

As much as i hate stupid censorship (considering this is pretty much a form of it) its hard to say whats going on, second someone says definitively its retailer X with proof i'll consider some further action.

I go where the prices are cheapest anyway, steam often wants £30 per title, buy else where is often cheaper with retailer places usually going for £25, buying from a US buyer or in a 4pack often rips the price down too.

My example for this is quite simply dead island (kinda disproves game theory too):
http://store.steampowered.com/app/91310/
Available on steam in the Uk £30, also available from game/gameplay/etc for 25
On the US store with a 4pack its £23 per copy.

Edited by deleted (Thu 25-Aug-11 03:35:00)

I say boycott both as much as possible.
Neither are clean in my eyes, both have abused consumer rights by turning games into licences/subscriptions and clinging to abandonware to ring a few more £££'s from.

In reply to a post by SuperStephen:

I have two games that I bought from Game that connect through Steam and although I play them offline (I don't like to play against unknown people) I cannot play them at times when Steam have problems (eg cannot connect to Steam Network) or, as happened recently, when my broadband went down.

Steam can run in offline mode, and other non steam games have much worse drm.

I have not used Game for 3 years and its not for the reasons listed but i understand the concerns.

If Game were to do what they suggested in this link then it would be there loss and other great online places like Shopto.net would have a even bigger slice of the pie.

If i use the high street then i favour Gamestation even though its owned by Game you would never guess when you go into that shop.

Find them a lot more friendly and laid back and the price structure and exchange and rewards are completely different to Game.

In reply to a post by 12eason:

In reply to a post by SuperStephen:

I have two games that I bought from Game that connect through Steam and although I play them offline (I don't like to play against unknown people) I cannot play them at times when Steam have problems (eg cannot connect to Steam Network) or, as happened recently, when my broadband went down.

Steam can run in offline mode, and other non steam games have much worse drm.

Steam can run in offline mode provided you tell it you want to run in offline mode while you have an internet connection.

For example when my internet was ceased this month I couldn't play squat on steam because it couldn't connect to a server, you can't use the old "Offline Mode" in that circumstance.

As to the article, meh. Some guy on a forum making allegations isn't something I'd usually regard as fact.

There is still a question mark about whether it is actually Game behind it, but it has been known for a while that this is happening in the UK, see here:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/308337/bullying...
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retail-threatens-stea...
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php...

Also, there is a command line switch you can add to steam game shortcuts that force the game into offline mode.

Its completely undoubtable that something is going on within the UK, question is which retail chain(s)?
Supermarkets are known for being aggressive, but at the same time GAME will be wanting to make their mark/stand, HMV has been running dry for a while, could it be them who are trying to force stuff their way? who knows

I already boycott game, but only because they're [censored]. Why would a PC gamer ever venture in there?

Unfortunately I have to have Steam installed as a couple of the games I have won't run without it but I hate it as I can't sell on any of the games I've completed.

I am sorry but when I was offline Steam would not allow me to play these games 'offline'. It only allows me to play them offline if I am connected to the internet. Because it could not connect to the Steam network it would not allow the loader to go any further!!

Regarding Game wanting a monopoly on the PC market - I doubt it very much, how many games are released for the PC nowadays. They are mainly for the various consoles and this is what ALL the retailers are selling. Go into ANY retail shop, supermarket or reseller and you will find the PC games shoved somewhere in the corner whereas the Console games are prominently displayed! That is where the money is nowadays unfortunately and the PC market is getting left behind just like the Spectrum, Atari, and Commodore etc. were in their day.

Were you trying to install the game in offline mode? That would cause a problem as they need to be activated but I am not aware of steam forcing users to be online to play. Some games do require you to be online (C&C4 and Starcraft II that I know of) but it is not a steam setting.

No I had already installed the games. They were Football Manager 2009 and Civ V. Both are usually fine whilst I have an internet connection (apart from occassional times when they cannot connect to Steam because it is busy??) but cannot be played when no internet connection is available.

Just what i and many have been saying on these forums and many others for years,the PC may be the most powerful platform of choice but as you pointed out many developers and more than likely PC gamers have switched over to consoles..

Except the hardened few like Guesty,Falcon and Gzero on these forums that i know of.................

OT, but developers (or publishers rather) favour consoles because they are popular and they are popular purely because they are perceived to be cheaper by the public. Consoles hold back gaming considerably. Nothing worse than playing a new game with tame graphics and simplified controls because the devs were forced to make it compatible with 2 year old console hardware.

In reply to a post by 12eason:

Nothing worse than playing a new game with tame graphics and simplified controls because the devs were forced to make it compatible with 2 year old console hardware.

Yes there is. Try 6 year old console hardware.

I agree with that point but the facts are thats how its going unfortunatly,we do need next generation consoles though.

I'm a hardened pc gamer and here is the low down!

Graphics don't make a game.

I can easily fire up cs 1.6 and not have a problem with the graphics. I can fire up bf1942 and find the controls clunky, but no problem with the graphics. Same story with Operation Flashpoint and even Warcraft 3 still fits the bill. Heck the graphics are still amazing in Red Alert 2!

It's not the graphics, it's the amount of power available, ie number of enemies on screen, number of interactions possible (what you can actually do, shutting down in Mechwarrior, good times), complicated landing (yes I want to bring my flaps to 15 degrees by myself thank you like in falcon)!

I call for a new boycott!

Simple games, boycott them!
xD

Sorry mate my view is if a game don't look good then i have little interest in playing it,don't get me wrong i agree with what you are saying regarding some game like counter strike and a few others.

But at the end of the day when you first fire up a new game and you have a well executed intro sequence followed by some amazing looking visuals and outstanding graphics it does help believe you me.

....it's the amount of power available, ie number of enemies on screen....

I agree there. One of the reasons I bought the PS3 was Resistance Fall of Man. I know it wasn't everybodies cup of tea, but there were 3 or four epic battles that had more players/explosions going on than any previous console game. Only problem was it didnt keep up the momentum and left some of the other levels feeling flat.

Great graphics are a pre-requisite for me too, but I love it when developers get the immersion into the battle right. And I don't mind that stealing some of the graphical processing power if they pull it off correctly.

I'm hoping Resistance 3 has some of the same.
.

The developers will follow the largest market share. It�s been an absolute massacre out there recently; firstly the purchasing of the small developing teams then recession and teams cast away in to abyss the remaining sticking to long tested franchises. While the ones in the abyss reinvent and choose platforms that are beginning to dwarf Console and traditional Pc markets, Apple products and alike, there are huge benefits. Even onlive much scoffed is getting more positive reviews I�m sure has the developers hoping for the best and come September it�s here. The cloud is getting bigger, any boycott will be natural progression.

I�m not saying this is the end for Console/PC, however the landscape is much different and larger, in the end they will all follow the largest market share by any means necessary.

Edited by NilSatisOptimum (Sat 27-Aug-11 13:57:04)

Hmmmm. Cloud gaming is the future, but I think it is still along way off. Until everybody has a good enough connection to enjoy the best streamed visuals at the right pace, it won't be a success. If you limit the amount of players you play with on that basis, than that is not really progress. Perhaps if angry birds or tetris is your thing, you might see it differently.

Next gen should be full HD and trying to leap towards the latest PC standards. Until cloud gaming can promise that to a mass audience the take up will be slow. Not that that is a bad thing. Getting it right with early adopters may shape the way it is delivered in the long term.

But for now I will stick to pondering whether I get the PS 4 or the Xbox 720910 or whatever they decide to call it!
.

If you want the best of both worlds because of the exclusive games then you have to buy both the next Playstation and the Xbox, especially if the Microsoft console gets the better game which has happened so often when there is a Multi platform releases.

I love gaming and on many occasions i have thought about getting a serious gaming rig,then i think of the downside to this like sitting in a office upstairs really close to a monitor.then after a few hours getting back ache and restlessness and i much prefer the cozy settee i lay stretched out on with my turtle beach PX5 on a massive LED television and PC gaming then becomes a distant memory..

I had no problems switching from PC gaming to consoles and although i admit that PC gaming on a graphical level is better that is the only reason and there are many more favourable things that for me favour the console.
.

Exactly. And PC's require a little more effort than flicking on a console.

The only thing I really get jealous of is their dedicated servers. My 9ms ping gets me smashed to bits on almost everything I play. I note MW3 get dedi's on the PC.

If I had the time I'd start a petition!
.

I'm not that technical when it comes to Adsl Related issues just enough to get me by,what confuses me regarding your super connection is why you suffer so bad when playing online games with a ping of 7ms.

Obviously there is something that i don't understand and i know on many occasions that you have tried to explain this on recent forum posts..

Basically i thought if you have that sort of connection then your online experience would be great.....................

As for MW3 i do hope they do what Battlefield is doing with the console versions at least ,and that is having a in game server browser to pick the map you want to play.

One thing i hate about MW2 is when you pick a game type and go into the lobby,before it loads you get a indication of what map you are going to play only for it to disappear to something else as soon as you connect...............Hate this as i have to keep coming out and trying half a dozen times until i get to a map i want to play.

You two do realise battlefield games, even on consoles, use dedi's right? Theyre just EA's dedis usually leased off multiplay - hence why BF3 gets a server browser. as did BF2:MC (BC games skipped it in the same of simplicity/obeying the "casual console route" (that being in the sense of what you were discussing of people playing stuff on a console and just flicking it on), its easier to just press a button and hop into a match.

All i can say though is at least BF3 gets an INGAME browser on console, EA and Origin [censored] it up with having to use a webbrowser of all things to get a game, blech, im sure BF3 will be a solid game, truly great to play... but what Origin is doing it is a horrible thing... If i had the person who thought Origin was a good idea to force on people i'd headbutt him i swear.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-Aug-11 08:54:40)

On dedeicated servers where you pick the ping time closest to your own then yes it is great.

On peer to peer and client hosting it's not as simple. If lag compensation code is applied it changes everything. The industry belief is that it isfairer all around to reduce the advantage of the faster connection. But it is done so badly it doesn't work like that 99 times out of 100. Even when PC modders incorporate it into servers so they can play people with dissimilar connections it causes heated debate. But as long as it works for the majority then it is seen as the greater good.

Many players play in parties which is where the problem begins with the unequal connections. But the matchmaking is so poor on Cod that even mercenary TDM is poor (though much better than party play). Of course if you have huge bandwith and a average ping you will then pull host advantage instead.

Many players out there say the code is fine because they can score 33-4 etc etc. They will never admit they are getting the advantage. Get them on a LAN and watch what happens!
.

bf3 is the only recent game with a server browser that you could even call usable, it was a bit wonky when joining with friends but hopefully they fix that, i dont really like how EA is making there new titles origin exclusive but the the server browser/battle log was the one thing that impressed me about the alpha, i dont know if they have said what map the beta will be yet but imo it should be a big map, the map they used in the alpha didnt really feel like a proper battlefield game just another bad company

You know there's no reason you can't use a PC hooked up to your television right? It's very easy these days. HDMI cable, some wireless Xbox controllers, sit back and enjoy the superior experience: faster loading times, better graphics, higher FPS, better multiplayer, no disc swapping, (often much) cheaper games, etc.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-Aug-11 18:11:57)

It was nice in the alpha as a possible "alternative" to being ingame, but the fact thats the main game UI, then im sorry its a terrible piece of [censored].

I'm going to have to probably download chrome or make some ultra lite version of my firefox profile or something if the game wants a webbrowser running in the background. Sure, my PC can handle having it open, but webbrowsers these days are prone for netspikes and randomly hogging memory, i cba with that, it should be something never integrated into the game. Someone at DICE just got lazy.

I still have to have akeyboard balanced on my lap and i dont think the girlfriend is going to want some ugly pc by the side of the television,besides its like spaghetti junction behind with all the cables .wires .plugs.consoles.homeplugs.kinect.move.playstation 3,xbox 360.amplifier.............................No im sticking with consoles for many reasons

No need for a keyboard, and you can find some very nice, small, quiet cases. Would probably look better than an Xbox360 slim. I hear you on the spaghetti cables though. I can imagine you'd have a hard time fitting it in with everything else but it's a good option to consider for others. Just wanted to point out that the sofa argument isn't a particularly valid one.

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/26/game_denies_it...

Whilst it might be pure lies again, i doubt it is.

I really do think it is the supermarkets, people over look their presence as retail stores. If it isn't either game or supermarkets then that only leaves the likes of HMV, if you wanted to look at the more farfetched potentials theres argos, pcworld/currys, comet, theyre pretty much the "main" vendors but i dont think anyone here would consider buying/preordering their brand new big title releases from them would they?

In reply to a post by FireFalcon:

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/26/game_denies_it...

Whilst it might be pure lies again, i doubt it is.

I really do think it is the supermarkets, people over look their presence as retail stores. If it isn't either game or supermarkets then that only leaves the likes of HMV, if you wanted to look at the more farfetched potentials theres argos, pcworld/currys, comet, theyre pretty much the "main" vendors but i dont think anyone here would consider buying/preordering their brand new big title releases from them would they?

Tosscoes or Assda probably.
.

Ok you got me

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In reply to a post by FireFalcon:

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/26/game_denies_it...

Whilst it might be pure lies again, i doubt it is.

I really do think it is the supermarkets, people over look their presence as retail stores. If it isn't either game or supermarkets then that only leaves the likes of HMV, if you wanted to look at the more farfetched potentials theres argos, pcworld/currys, comet, theyre pretty much the "main" vendors but i dont think anyone here would consider buying/preordering their brand new big title releases from them would they?

Tosscoes or Assda probably.
.

People might not like stores like Tesco, but..........

If you pre-order a game from them online, it turns up 2-3 days before the stated release date. Add to that if you go via someone like TopCashBack you get £6 back per game.

I'll give an example.

I pre-ordered LA Noire from Tesco Entertainment, using a pre-order code that brought the price down to £32 delivered. I went through TopCashBack, giving me £6.06 back, bringing the price down to £25.94 delivered. Factor in the clubcard points which were on double promotion at the time, meaning I had 50p of points added to my clubcard. Final price £25.44
And it turned up 3 days before the release date, so I was playing it before my friends. Was 45% through the story by the time it hit the shops.

And what were Game/Gamestation doing the same title for? £39+
Amazon even had the cheek to charge £42.99.

So bash Tesco by all means. But if the retailers such as Game & Gamestation dont want to price match then they can stop moaning.

Actually i beg to differ, as ive said else where tesco and co use the hut group to sort out their online side. You use them and you either go to the extremes of getting it early or not getting it for many weeks post launch. Dunno bout you but i wouldnt want to be getting a game ive been waiting for weeks after launch? People have found out the hard way, my mate certainly did with assassins creed brohood he wasnt impressed at all, took roughly 3 weeks and all the way through he not nothing but robot emails saying its about to be dispatched.

You can use cashback sites on GAME and shopto as well FYI, i'd trust either of them over tesco+co.

In reply to a post by Invictel:

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In reply to a post by FireFalcon:

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/26/game_denies_it...

Whilst it might be pure lies again, i doubt it is.

I really do think it is the supermarkets, people over look their presence as retail stores. If it isn't either game or supermarkets then that only leaves the likes of HMV, if you wanted to look at the more farfetched potentials theres argos, pcworld/currys, comet, theyre pretty much the "main" vendors but i dont think anyone here would consider buying/preordering their brand new big title releases from them would they?

Tosscoes or Assda probably.
.

People might not like stores like Tesco, but..........

If you pre-order a game from them online, it turns up 2-3 days before the stated release date. Add to that if you go via someone like TopCashBack you get £6 back per game.

I'll give an example.

I pre-ordered LA Noire from Tesco Entertainment, using a pre-order code that brought the price down to £32 delivered. I went through TopCashBack, giving me £6.06 back, bringing the price down to £25.94 delivered. Factor in the clubcard points which were on double promotion at the time, meaning I had 50p of points added to my clubcard. Final price £25.44
And it turned up 3 days before the release date, so I was playing it before my friends. Was 45% through the story by the time it hit the shops.

And what were Game/Gamestation doing the same title for? £39+
Amazon even had the cheek to charge £42.99.

So bash Tesco by all means. But if the retailers such as Game & Gamestation dont want to price match then they can stop moaning.

Your are one of the lucky ones then, because none of the supermarkets or hmv have ever arrived on time for me.

I ordered MW2 from hmv six weeks before it's release. My mate ordered it 6 days before release and received it three days before release. I received it 7 days after release!!! A proper p take if you ask me.

This time I have heeded time2die's advice and preordered BF3 and Resistance 3 on Shopto.net. If they don't deliver on time they pay me 3 quid. So I wood assume that makes them more likely to do so.
.

I don't really have anything against Tesco, but the reason why they can offer the games so cheap is because they subsidise it with other things. You personally may not buy anything else when you buy a game but if I go to Tesco and get a game for £30 I usually then end up spending £10 on food / energy drinks as well. But with Game they are just selling games, consoles and accessories so not really much leeway. You may say cut their margins then and make less profit, but then they won't have money to reinvest into new stores, staff etc.

In reply to a post by Jaxx281:

I don't really have anything against Tesco, but the reason why they can offer the games so cheap is because they subsidise it with other things. You personally may not buy anything else when you buy a game but if I go to Tesco and get a game for £30 I usually then end up spending £10 on food / energy drinks as well. But with Game they are just selling games, consoles and accessories so not really much leeway. You may say cut their margins then and make less profit, but then they won't have money to reinvest into new stores, staff etc.

Ahh but now the discussion can get interesting.

Go and research how much profit the Game group make per game sold, then tell me their margins would suffer.

Theres making a profit, then there is greed.