Yes, there's a boycott of Battlefield: Bad Company
by Justin McElroy 
{ Apr 8th 2008 at 8:00PM }
Do we like EA's idea of charging for individual weapons in an FPS, creating a gap (and it does despite what EA says) between the haves and have-nots? Of course not. But if you think the game is worth your money regardless, you should buy it and play it. If you don't want the extra guns, don't buy them. If that makes it less fun for you, don't buy their next game. It's as simple as that.
Sarcastic Gamer asked, "How, in good conscience, can EA take more money out of fan's pockets, who have already spent 60 bucks on the game?" Here's the answer: They don't have a conscience, they're a multibillion-dollar corporation that cares nothing for you. And it's not their job to care, it's their job to make money. It's your job to decide how to spend yours.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
MosquitoControl @ Apr 8th 2008 8:04PM
Not buying it sends a bit of a message.
Not playing it sends more of one.
Look at what has happened to Hellgate. Sure, people could have bought the simple version and boycotted the lame multiplayer pricing scheme by opting out of it. But other companies would have looked to find the ways that Hellgate failed and still tried it.
But Hellgate has been a massive failure. Massive. It will be a very long time before a publisher considers going this route.
theturtle363 @ Apr 8th 2008 8:33PM
How stupid. They don't care if you play it. You don't even have to like it if you do play it. They just want you to buy it. The only way that if you play it or not matters is if it influences you to buy their sequel
MosquitoControl @ Apr 8th 2008 9:11PM
Uh... dumbass... this is a free game.
And I meant two different "it"s. The first meant the DLC, the second meant the game, period.
If no one downloads this game it will be a huge flop.
And yes, they do care if you play it.
bounchfx @ Apr 8th 2008 9:16PM
"Uh... dumbass... this is a free game."
pretty sure you're thinking of Battlefield: Heroes
...
Kodros @ Apr 8th 2008 9:23PM
Thats gotta hurt...
DangerMouse @ Apr 8th 2008 9:27PM
...like a hammer to the groin.
Vidikron (FU) @ Apr 8th 2008 10:20PM
@MosquitoControl
Actually, the very same developer, Flagship Studios, is doing a something somewhat similar with their next game, Mythos. It's going to be free, but they will charge for expansions and I think they are going to limit Elite and Hardcore game play modes to people that buy the game. I think Hellgate failed because it wasn't Diablo and people wanted it to be. Not for the reason you gave.
joystiqhypocrites @ Apr 8th 2008 11:15PM
Isn't the entire gaming community, particularly sites that carry news and reviews, an influence on the market force? Does Joystiq think they have no part of this influence of the market force?
Look at the times this site has published a sarcastic or caustic remark about a title. They just expressed one of negativity about the game in their comments above. Sorry, but pointing fingers at sarcastic gamer reeks of hypocrisy.
Joystiq shouldn't be throwing stones in a glass house. They are talking degrees of negative influence and that is just splitting hairs to justify the (lack of) moral high ground in their own comments.
Obie @ Apr 9th 2008 8:34AM
I agree how much of a message would it send if the whole gaming community said F-U! And didn't buy the game...now that would make even the most stuffy fat-cat corporate suite take note.
NATO_Duke @ Apr 9th 2008 9:41AM
joystiqhypocrites - you created an account for that? To call Joystiq hypoctites in your name and in the post. I smell an EA rep with hurt feelings. Kinda pathetic.
Their story seems right on to me. People need to show that these price schemes are unacceptable by not buying the product. There are plenty of war games out there, so it shouldn't leave them in the cold to skip this one. EA is nickle and diming folks, and just refusing to buy the add-on content doesn't send the message that the whole game is the problem.
Market forces are the only thing the game companies care about - not petitions on websites or other b.s.
NATO_Duke @ Apr 9th 2008 9:43AM
oops. I meant Sarcastic Gamer rep, not EA rep.
joystiqhypocrites @ Apr 9th 2008 11:24AM
NATOduke,
Yes I created the account. No I do not work for EA, ha ha. Good one. I wouldn't work for EA and tell you that no one should buy this game. They shouldn't. I was defending Sarcastic Gamer you dummy.
Sarcastic Gamer whom joystiq was attacking. And since you agree no one should buy the title you obviously agree with Sarcastic gamer and by default...me. Thanks for the support buddy. You are a-o-k.
Glen @ Apr 8th 2008 8:05PM
I think people should boycott buying the extra weapons, not boycotting the entire game.
LaughingTarget @ Apr 8th 2008 8:12PM
You're buying a product that has locked features on the disk, ones that require cash instead of dumb tasks to obtain. You bought it, you should get to use it in its entirety.
Sam406 @ Apr 8th 2008 8:25PM
I realise now the irony of the company's slogan "Its in the game" when applied to DLC.
Glen @ Apr 8th 2008 8:26PM
Yes but just because I disagree with the concept of buying weapons doesn't mean I disagree with the game. I think buying the game and not buying the extra content sends a clearer message that says: "Hey, I support your game, but I don't support your nickel-and-diming."
But that's just me. I've been looking forward to BF: BC for a while now, and from what I've seen the game looks like a blast. I'm just saying this so when I say I bought the game, it doesn't look like I supported their weapon-buying system.
Lone Starr @ Apr 8th 2008 8:44PM
"You're buying a product that has locked features on the disk, ones that require cash instead of dumb tasks to obtain. You bought it, you should get to use it in its entirety."
That makes no sense. They sell you the game under the expectation that you will buy the extra content. In other words, you buy only the already unlocked content. By buying the game, you are contractually agreeing to THEIR terms -- you consent to having some content locked on disc. It's no different than a EULA in principle, and I guarantee you agree to this when you accept the terms of the EULA.
"But Lone Starr, that's not fair." Then don't buy the game! If you like some of their terms but not all of them, don't whine if you WILLINGLY agree to (buy) only *some* of the terms.
LaughingTarget @ Apr 8th 2008 8:51PM
I don't plan on buying it. Even if the full feature set was open, I've played enough Battlefield to last a lifetime. Adding destructable walls isn't going to win my business.
klitorisaurus @ Apr 8th 2008 10:43PM
I don't see the big deal.. this is no different than playing battlefield 2 and getting blasted with the sweet sniper rifle that people got from BF2: Special Forces yet were able to use in the normal maps. Nobody seemed to make a stink then. Why now?
Plus this bring up a valid point... In life, people with money have a distinct advantage over people who don't. If you can't afford the weapons you'll just have to learn to be a better player than the people who bought their way up the food chain. It's just the way it goes, get over it.
deaftly @ Apr 9th 2008 12:40PM
I'm boycotting the beta because I can't fucking shoot in the game. Now thats what i call a major bug. I think im the only one with this problem also :(
joshua @ Apr 8th 2008 8:06PM
From what I can tell, this guy is trying to "boycott" in an attempt to, you know, raise awareness about this. Thereby perhaps convincing other people to not buy the game and let, you know, "market forces" do their job. Or is it only "market forces" when companies screw their customers?
Nick @ Apr 8th 2008 8:12PM
"They don't have a conscience, they're a multibillion-dollar corporation that cares nothing for you. And it's not their job to care, it's their job to make money. It's your job to decide how to spend yours."
Yeah! Extending that idea, why should companies employ costly, environmentally friendly practices? It's their job to make money, not to help to environment!
/sarcasm
Please go back to Ron Paul Forums.
Poisoned Al @ Apr 8th 2008 8:35PM
Um, laws and public option? Seriously, that has to be one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen.
Watch the documentary "The Corporation." While I don't agree with a lot of points in the film, one idea did strike home. If large corporations were a person, that person would be a psychopath. Not malicious, just totally incapable of considering anyone else but itself. It will only do things for others that will somehow benefit it, and will stamp on anyone that gets in its way. If you don't impede it, and you can't help it, you don't exist.
LaughingTarget @ Apr 8th 2008 9:05PM
Funny really, Ron Paul is a much better environmentalist than Al Gore. By leveraging basic property rights laws, we can easily clean this nation. Basically, you can pollute your land all you want, so long it doesn't negatively impact the property of another. That smoke you firing off from the factory drift over to my air space? Sorry, can't do I'd anymore until the factory owner figures out a method to keep the smoke from crossing the line between his and my property.
This has been used for years against individuals that enjoy keeping trash in their front yards. The rusted car in Joe Bob's lawn kills the neighbor's property values, so courts regularly upheld eviction if they refuse to clean it up. This premise easily transfers to corporate entities.
Companies don't owe anyone anything they don't agree to. Companies can charge what they want and do what they want so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. You don't have a right to work at a specific company nor a right to their products. However, it is not in their best interest to do so, especially if society at large is willng to take a stand for itself. Government intervention just keeps companies that would otherwise go out of business around. Forcing a company to be ethical via laws is inefficient. It is cheaper, both in tax expense and product cost if a corporation voluntarily behaves ethically.
Poisoned Al @ Apr 8th 2008 9:21PM
I've stopped bothering to argue with LT a long time ago, so here's the whole film online. If you agree with it or not, it's a damn good watch.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87
Disgruntled Goat @ Apr 8th 2008 8:13PM
"If you don't want the extra guns, don't buy them. If that makes it less fun for you, don't buy their next game."
.... Uh, isn't that the point of a boycott? Or does it just bother you that they're using their "clout" to convince others to act in kind? Either way, hello hypocrisy.
This game was never even on my radar, but I don't see the problem with avoiding it due to DLC nickel and dime tactics. If I'm not mistaken, writers on this site moaned ad nauseam about the laughably incomplete Lumines on XBL. How is this any different?
How a whiny editorial passes for news is anyone's guess. Guess that's the Faux News spirit of journalism. Rah rah big business! Can't knock the hustle!
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 8:13PM
http://lmfaolawnmower.ytmnd.com/
Is good to see another Sarcasticgamer.com Video.
Mal F4cti0n @ Apr 8th 2008 8:14PM
I would have signed the agreement to boycott, but they wanted me to sign in with a username and password, which would have me enter in an email address, which they would probably sell to make money to their advertisers.
I just won't buy the game.
I think companies should give cheap as free DLC for their games in order for users to be excited to buy the game. Mmmmm, if I buy this company's game I will get to look forward to free extra content at a later time. That would be verse, I don't want to buy this company's game because they won't have extra content, or they will charge me for it.
More game sales still equals more money......duh!
DangerMouse @ Apr 8th 2008 8:21PM
Boycott the boycott!!!!
Free Lono @ Apr 8th 2008 8:22PM
we don't "sell" email addresses to advertisers... heck, we don't even have advertisers...
You can also sign in anonymously. Sounds like you didn't even try. :(
Mal F4cti0n @ Apr 8th 2008 8:28PM
I can't leave a comment (http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-comments-post.php), I assume without an email address, and digg wants one too.
No worries though, Lono, without signing or pushing the post, I still won't be buying the game so I am with you on the boycott, boy'o!
SarcasticSparki @ Apr 9th 2008 8:26AM
Unlike Joystiq (which you apparently have no problem giving an email). SG doesn't even check the email address. They don't send a email that has a link you have to click to activate your content. You're a troll.. and a lazy one at that.
Boycott is on! Down with selling content that could be on the disk for free.
Mal F4cti0n @ Apr 9th 2008 8:46AM
I'm a lazy Troll? How is anything I said trolling, jackass? You're an idiot.
Yeah, I am signed up with Joystiq....and as result all of their affiliated blogs (engadget, 360fanboy, PS3fanboy, etc.). That is more than enough for me, I have better things to do with my life than check a gazillion websites and leave comments on them all.
Anyway...so I agreed with you guys about the boycott and you are gonna slam me and be a bitch about it?
Whatever! You know what? I am going to buy the game...in fact, I am going to buy three copies, one for me and each of you. I can afford it, I have a good job. I may even send EA a letter asking them to gouge consumers more, just to offset your efforts.
fred @ Apr 9th 2008 9:46AM
I'm pretty sure he's reffering to just the fact that you have to put an email in, not anything about a link sent.
I tried it and if you don't fill in email you can't post.
theboy @ Apr 9th 2008 3:48PM
Mal you've made my day. Seriously wtf was that, sarcastic? I guess there's no better way to support supporters than to insult them.
I'm pretty annoyed at how big this trivial feature of the game has been blown up by whiney people. The game looks pretty awesome, and if you don't like the DLC then don't buy it. I know I'm going to get the game and not get the DLC, and as someone earlier said I believe that sends a bigger message than not buying the game at all. Anyways if this "boycott" does anything, I hope EA just takes out the guns completely rather than include them in the game for free. Thus the 1% who whines loud enough to make a fuss about it has effectively screwed the other people who wouldn't mind paying for it. Oh that would be hilarious irony.
driven2sin @ Jun 22nd 2008 12:40PM
wake up fools - so many of your after-release DLC was planned to beginning with and could of been on the retail release as well..
if you are going to boycott this then boycott ALL pay for DLC since you are just being fooled.
if something comes out 3 months after release why wasn't that in the release? lazy programmers? greedy producers that released it too early? or did they just plan it that way to make it seem they are working their hardest for you?
schmucks - this game is good - ignore the stupid extra weapons
Korova @ Apr 8th 2008 8:16PM
You tell them, Brother Justin!
That had some SOUUL there! Yaaahh
Sir Fidlious Wong (Zeon Defense Force) @ Apr 8th 2008 8:52PM
It is rather silly that they complained about Lumines Live and even gave the DMC infamous petition page space but this boycott is somehow beneath them.... curious.
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 8:17PM
In a serious note boycotts rarely work and sometimes they backfire like in the case of Kane and lynch. In order words just don't buy it if you don't agree.
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 8:39PM
I typed order instead of other, Weird.
Well anyone remembers that Simpson’s Tree house of Horror episode of the attack for the giant publicity ads.
The only way to defeat them is to just don’t look, just don’t look.
Free Lono @ Apr 8th 2008 8:19PM
Hey justin, Lono from sarcasticgamer here...Thanks for posting our video man, we really appreciate it.
With regard to your comments in the article, you wrote that you don't "get it" with regard to our boycott. You say we should just not "buy it." Well, that's exactly what a BOYCOTT is, just in case you didn't know what boycott meant.
Ya see, we're trying to get the word out to OTHER people to ask them to NOT BUY it either. That's how these things work.
Just an FYI. Thanks!
Delgado @ Apr 8th 2008 8:22PM
...hostility senses tingling... must keep tab open to view progress of thread...
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 8:28PM
Well that’s cool, paying for stuff that’s inside the game sucks but this isn’t the first time that happens. Try to be more generic about this issue without directly mentioning Battlefield since it could backfire. Most of the time when you tell people that something is bad for them and they shouldn’t buy or use it they end ignoring you or just doing the exact opposite just for curiosity.
Justin McElroy @ Apr 8th 2008 8:31PM
Hey Lono, thanks for taking the time to respond. A "boycott" is the act of not buying something as a form of protest. What I'm advocating is consumers making a decision about a product and then deciding for themselves whether or not it's worth their money. I agonized about writing this post, because I wanted to make sure there's a distinction, but there is.
Free Lono @ Apr 8th 2008 8:45PM
Justin,we are asking people to boycott the game i.e. not buy the game at all, based on the our objection to EA's principle of selling half of a game for full price and then trying to sell you the rest of the game for an additional cost.
We know it's been done before. We know all about horse armor and weapons in Chromehounds. We believe that this is the first time that this has been done in such a high profile way. We believe that it's just the first step in a new way of attempting to sell games that are incomplete, for full price and then selling "DLC" to make the game whole.
What's next? Charging for footballs in Madden? How bout selling you Madden, but with out last year's Pro Bowl players and then charging them as "DLC?"
I'm saying this isn't right and we at Sarcastic Gamer are tired of it. This is our stand, believe in it or not. I'm tired of reading video game commercials. I want to do something about it.
Sarcasticgamer.com/boycott
Justin McElroy @ Apr 8th 2008 8:56PM
Well, for what it's worth, I may not agree with your methods, but I totally support your position.
And your video's funny, too.
refinedsugar @ Apr 8th 2008 9:06PM
I feel as if there was a point to this once ... and now it's gotten lost. How many fronts does this EA/BF war cry have to travel and be heard before SG will claim victory or have felt publicly validated?
If people don't wanna support something they can best show their non-support by withdrawing their wallet. The awareness for this type of business practice is out there and either people will choice to buy or not buy the game. That's clear and cut. There is no benefit for the average gamer - SG goer or not - to get caught up in a publicity agenda.
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 9:08PM
Phfff who cares about methods Justin when we all care about the results, If its necessary we'll send suicide bombers (Anyone want to apply? No experience is needed and it counts for your college application) to EA offices across the WORLD!!! And kidnap the wives of every EA executive, we’ll held them hostage until they fulfill our demands and to prove we are serious we’ll kill a hostage every hour!!!
Muhahahahahaha (And if there is time maybe we maybe send a few hate letters as well).
Or just send letter to Ea about how much this sucks until they understand they are hurting their user base.
Personally I like the first method but the second is not bad.
Mr.ESC @ Apr 8th 2008 9:11PM
Just because I'm starting to get suspicious about that Pizza van with the satelite dish outside my house let me clear that the previous post was a joke.
Anticrawl @ Apr 8th 2008 9:56PM
Hrm, everyone is trying to cash in on this. Of course that is what the internet is for, I'll buy or not buy the game myself without visiting random sites to discuss it. Keep the ad money being tossed around to a minimum by staying on one site.