![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
No they wouldn't, don't be a puppet. If everyone did this, developers would be forced to release games that had been tested thoroughly and didn't need a day one patch followed by many subsequent patches to fix broken features and game design oversights.
Agreed. People can pirate for multiple reasons (usually just wanting things for free, but sometimes it's unavailable in their region, they're treating it like a demo, etc.), but pirating as a form of PROTEST is just retarded. Don't buy OR pirate the fucking game if you want to boycott it.
Not everyone is as keen on supporting companies that continually act unethically as you are. EA has a really long history of acting like shitheads towards consumers and developers. People like you are the reasons boycotts never work.
Obviously there is no reason why for those of you with a shit-ton of games already in your queue. For those of us who play a mere handful of games each year, we'll gladly pay full price for those few we do.
Why do you think it's irrational? Yes, EA has published good games, but it's also stolen code from developers (Madden v. Bethesda), bought good studios then destroyed them through mismanagement (Bullfrog / Westwood), abused its employees (EA Spouse testimony) rushed games that simply weren't ready (Battlefield / Simcity), flat out lied to the public (Simcity), and also hosted a "contest" as a ruse to steal ideas from indie developers. And this ignoring more subjective things like cheapening the gameplay through micro-transactions (Dead Space 3), ham-fisted DLC (many games), capping the framerate of a RACING game (NFS Rivals). EA is an awful company that doesn't adhere to much of anything in terms of ethics. Yes, it does manage to publish some good games, but claiming the hatred is "irrational" just sounds like ignorance to me, or else you honestly do not care whatsoever about how a company conducts itself so long as the product is good.
Not exactly. There would always be successes on different levels. The games that would keep making money on release would be ones that were actually fit for release instead of a public beta. It might force larger companies to scale down some projects or spend more than they were prepared to, but they've been cutting corners for a long time now. In the scenario where NOBODY was buying new release games however, what would happen is they would shift their priorities towards games that have much more staying power and could sell over a much longer time due to a good core, but with lower production values. Honestly, I wouldn't see that as such a bad thing. I'd rather have more games like FTL than Alien Colonial Marines. Over time, budgets would increase again as they would figure out that making a good game would be more profitable than spitting out cash in after cash in. By blindly pre-ordering or buying new, you're essentially rewarding bad behavior on the part of companies (unless they're one that really does have a good reputation) and the poor practice will either continue or get worse.
My excuse is that I picked up a lot of games through Steam sales and Humble Bundles. I also forsake games for a few years while I was getting my business degree (and yes, I saw the effects of World of Warcraft had on many a college student). Then, I had computer issues which prevented me from playing most games, and job insecurity caused me to postpone a computer replacement for three years until I finally built a new one this past September. So, yeah, I'm playing catch-up. So, go ahead and smirk as I finally play through Far Cry (released 2004), F.E.A.R. (released 2005), S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl (released 2007), The Witcher (released 2007), and Fallout 3 (released 2008). I just completed Duke Nukem Whatever last week, and did enjoy the game (although I was offended by some of the stuff put in there).
It represents the One and ONLY game I have ever crowd funded.