 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few comments on this line of thinking...
1. OS is a privately owned website that can institute whatever rules it deems necessary. If users don't like it, they don't have to use it. No one is forcing anyone to post here. But, when you do, it has to be by the rules.
2. Even if you don't feel competent to levy "constructive criticism" your wording can go along way to determining whether the post is acceptable or not. Almost 100% of the time when people name-call the devs (or anyone else), that will result in a deleted post at minimum. People know to expect that and the rules are very clear. People that can't get their point across without name-calling either need to remember to breathe before posting or they are not mature enough to be part of this community (theoretically).
3. Furthermore, do you really need to be a software engineer to think constructively--at least in general terms--about what the issues are and how to fix them? I don't think that's the case. You could say that your online experience is very frustrating and that Sony would be wise to change servers or upgrade and I think most people would consider that quite milquetoast and constructive in nature--even if not incredibly detailed. It's when you say it with expletives and accusatory language/name-calling that makes it unpleasant.
4. Your whole Chevy analogy doesn't fit. If you have a problem with a Chevy, you take it up with the dealership/GM. If you have a problem with Sony's game, you take it up with Sony. Venting on a middle man's website (OS) is not completely necessary in getting your issues resolved (or at least communicating your displeasure). Chevy will deal with a lot more heated feedback than OS, because Chevy is selling you a product and wants you to buy another. OS doesn't get any benefit at all from being patient toward irate feedback. Your analogies don't work because you're conflating consumer-business relationships (buying a product directly from a business) with consumer-third party situations (posting about the transaction on a separate message board).
5. As for the idea of putting your money where your mouth is....I totally, unequivocally 100% agree. People can skip next year's edition if they don't like this one and that's a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, this whole "pre-ordering" glitzy versions is part of the problem. If they don't even need to display their "wares" and prove it to the customer, their model allows them to publish essentially a prototype on launch day and fix it over the ensuing weeks and months as they always do.
As for the blame, well, blame the consumers who knowingly pony up $100+ before the game even comes out with every expectation that they'll be disappointed. Also, blame the suits at Sony Corporate for putting their game developers on unrealistic timelines with a skeleton crew and minimal resources. I'm sure the guys at SDS dislike buggy game releases at least as much as we do. I'm sure they are upset that the rollout was not smooth and they have to figure it out while under fire from very unhappy customers. Personally, this is one of the reasons I am happy to work on editing for a while, lol, before ever playing a game.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Regarding #1, who the heck denied ANY of that? Anybody who posts on here regularly already knows the TOS, but that doesn't mean you can't "constructively criticize" moderator oversensitivity if you think it's there.
OS does a good job overall of moderating comments, but it's certainly conservative and errs on the side of OVERprotecting dev teams (which is the deal you make with the devil if you want them on your site). I am quite pleased with this write-up -- it's very un-OS-like to take a semi-hard stance like it does. Kudos.