The Players Responsibility?

[soldiergeralt]

on the grounds that they should be in the movies section, not the games section.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Agent Bleu, thanks for your post. Very well written.

I see some problem with using "we" here. There is no "we" as a united group of people, so it is simple to understand it as "everyone', or "every gamer". We are not talking about some strict moral code here, so, obviously, it is not the case that every gamer should do such things. But it does not follow that no gamer should do them, which, as it seems, Bloth has in mind. Our preferences vary widely, some of us are more trusting than others, and some simply do not give a damn, which is, concerning any entertainment, is a perfectly acceptable option.

 

[Blothulfur]

Preamble: I realize you and I have disagreed vehemently in the past and, alas, this is not going to be that much hoped for high five moment. There’s no consensus on the horizon, I’m afraid, but I hope you’ll acknowledge my candour just as much as I do yours. Thanks Bloth for stirring up such an interesting discussion.

There’s a moralistic, recriminatory undertone to your use of the verb Should that I take issue with. To the extent they are not breaking the Law or infringing upon basic ethical tenets, people should do whatever the fuck they want. Period. That is especially true when it comes to how they choose to spend their hard earned cash. Top down attempts to regulate lives beyond that strict sphere have left a catastrophic trail behind. I understand you’re calling for the opposite, for gamers out of their will to stop seeking after the games they have traditionally sought after. Yet you provide no logical foundation, no rationale for such drastic move. Forgive me, but from where I stand all I read is thinly veiled condescendence that systematically disregards or diminishes the very real reasons why gamers en masse have behaved the way they have. Namely, that these blockbuster franchises fulfill their gaming needs on their own terms.

It also seems to me your questions are all rhetorical. They are variations on the theme Should we support Satan?! directed from the pulpit at a Southern Baptist congregation. Every single one of them is framed in a very specific, very deliberate way so that the answer is implied and seemingly self-evident. But, of course, it is not.

I’ll take on three of them.



Day 1 DLC, microtransations, DRM, glitch-ridden premature games, etc., all could be argued to be examples of shady practices. Here’s the silver lining though: a game is a business proposition that the gamer accepts voluntarily. Each individual makes an a priori rational assessment, a cost benefit analysis to determine whether or not the title is worth the kind of money being asked. Some gamers are indeed prepared to pay extra to unlock content. I suppose this irks many. Nonetheless, there is nothing morally reproachable about the practice per se provided, and it’s a big caveat, provided everything is crystal clear upfront. For example and to the point, it’s downright dishonest to release a title which cannot be finished unless you pay additional money later on and omit that fact from the buyer. It’s also highly questionable to promote microtansactions that award decisive advantages in multiplayer games.

What exactly does it mean to not support shady practices? If a gamer believes he’s about to fall victim of what he deems shady practises, he 'll likely not go ahead with the purchase. He will however realize the game is unplayable at launch all too late. So the question only makes sense in the context of the potential purchase of a future title from the same developer. What’s the appropriate course of action for the conscious consumer then? It depends. Depends on the track record of the developer. Depends on the magnitude of the offense. Depends on whether or not the publisher issued a tangible apology in the form of a refund, discount coupon or sizeable free content. Yes, it does depend.



Are you prepared to claim the cost structure of AAA titles such as TW3 has not changed over the years, that it has remained intact for the past two decades, so much that it is reasonable to demand both more physical content and more in-game content than what’s allegedly the norm now and for the exact same money? Did you take a look at TW3 budget? Did you notice the ratio between development costs and marketing costs? Can you name a company employing 300 full-time devs to ship a single title around the mid 90’s?

Let’s contrast two landmark titles: Might and Magic VII (1999), whose retail version I bought at the time, and Skyrim (2011), purchased full price on release and on Amazon. For all its copious and often crass shortcomings, the latter is several orders of magnitude bigger, both hours and map size wise. Gameplay, flawed as it is, is at the very least comparable. Furthermore, I got a faux cloth map with my regular copy of TES V, whereas nothing of the sort was to be found inside Mighty and Magic VII’s box.

There is simply no way you’d be able to ship a successful AAA game – the one and only kind that allows for successors - with production values from the 90’s. Nowadays these include, but are not limited to, professional voice acting and cutting edge 3D graphics, both of which are quite costly and impact the final price tag in an unprecedented manner.

CDProjekt will not be including big manuals or big storybooks in the standard TW3 edition and that is very telling. Personally, I have no interest in physical manuals as I find their electronic and in-game counterparts more convenient. And while I welcome artbooks and storybooks, my standards require a hardcover, decent paper, quality printing and sturdy binding. I understand these are a luxury and that luxuries come at a price.



Yes, definitely. Those of us – and I am not one of them - keen on cinematic games should definitely support them. Otherwise companies that develop in the genre will eventually go out of business and our appetite for it will remain unsated. Note the disparity: buying the cinematic game you feel like buying has no impact whatsoever on the survival of all the other genres, whereas abstaining from buying the cinematic game you're inclined to buy amounts to casting a vote to reduce genre plurality.

Companies who develop such games have a legitimate artistic reason. These hybrid tittles fall somewhere in the middle of the interactivity spectrum. Not really a movie, not a traditional game either. Developers get to exercise much greater control over the end experience; they get to tailor it in its minute details, to a degree that is not possible in conventional games. And some creators do crave that kind of artistic sovereignty. Who here really believes developers of Heavy Rain or The Order 1886 have not poured their heart and soul onto these titles, that they do not reflect an indomitable creative vision and are just mere stunts? And some gamers do appreciate the tightly choreographed but still interactive experience these games provide. They enjoy the pristinely framed shots, the fine-tuned pacing and the uniqueness of each encounter, each scene, each adversary. That's what is called a meeting of supply and demand.

On what grounds exactly would you strike cinematic games out of the list of legitimate genres?

1. I don't know you from Adam sunshine.
2. There's no condescension or recrimination in my post, i'm just asking what people think we dhould do as good consumers.
3. Sod off wi Satan shit and accusations of all that, there not welcome or needed, act civil kid.
4. If you want less DLC and shady practises don't support it, if you want more support it, seems simple and doesn't require any nous to work out if something's shady. Once again making no moral judgements.
5. I don't care what the budgets of game companies or their investments are, that's their problem, all I know is that twenty plus years ago I could get a game like Ultima VII with loads of stuff in the standard edition, a gameworld bigger and more interesting than Skyrim, with far more reactivity in plot and environment, NPC routines, a great narrative and a well made plot, far superior in both features and content than the puddle deep hiking simulator.
6. Not my cup of tea, i'd rather that cinematics serve to enhance the narrative and reward the player rather than dictate what little gameplay there is and rob the player of control, it might look all very nice but it takes away interactivity and control which is the core strength of this genre. If I want to watch a movie i'll go and watch one.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

1. I don't know you from Adam sunshine.
2. There's no condescension or recrimination in my post, i'm just asking what people think we dhould do as good consumers.
3. Sod off wi Satan shit and accusations of all that, there not welcome or needed, act civil kid.
4. If you want less DLC and shady practises don't support it, if you want more support it, seems simple and doesn't require any nous to work out if something's shady. Once again making no moral judgements.
5. I don't care what the budgets of game companies or their investments are, that's their problem, all I know is that twenty plus years ago I could get a game like Ultima VII with loads of stuff in the standard edition, a gameworld bigger and more interesting than Skyrim, with far more reactivity in plot and environment, NPC routines, a great narrative and a well made plot, far superior in both features and content than the puddle deep hiking simulator.
6. Not my cup of tea, i'd rather that cinematics serve to enhance the narrative and reward the player rather than dictate what little gameplay there is and rob the player of control, it might look all very nice but it takes away interactivity and control which is the core strength of this genre. If I want to watch a movie i'll go and watch one.

Conscious consumers should look out for their interests.

When individual A buys game X he has his own in mind, not Bloth's. I definitely trust individual A to be capable of understanding and standing by his own needs and interests better than anyone else, you included. You don't like cinematic games? Why Bloth, no one is holding you at point blank range and threating to unload if you refuse to order. How exactly do you go from cinematic games not being your cup of tea to the idea that the people who do enjoy them should abstain from buying ?

You loathe Skyrim? Skip TES VI, Fallout 4 or anything by Betehsda then. Thing is Bloith, as much as it irks you, there are legions and legions and legions of gamers who have their needs fulfilled by games like Skyrim. Maybe they do enjoy a hiking simulator, maybe that's exactly what they're looking for after a hard day's work. What would you rather have these folks do, hey? Not have their hiking sim needs met and instead flee in the opposite direction by way of spending their money on what Bloth deems fit?


Clearly, there's a market for these games. Clearly, there's a market for blockbusters, DLC and microtransactions. These all sell millions on an entirely voluntary and optional basis. The easiness and consistency with which they attain these extraordinary sales figures instalment after instalment after instalment burns to ground any case that gamers do not know what they're getting into. Oh yes, they very much do. You have got to come to terms with that fact.

Keep them coming.

 

[Blothulfur]

Who the hell has ever said that everybody should do as i've said, i'm just asking questions. Have I done something wrong to you kid, because you seem major butthurt and anxious to say that i'm trying to tell people what to do, which i'm not in any way shape or form. Drop the outrage eh.

 

[Dona.794]

We could do without condescension and bickering in this thread, you can have this discussion without attempting to put each other down.

 

[wichat]

Who the hell has ever said that everybody should do as i've said, i'm just asking questions. Have I done something wrong to you kid, because you seem major butthurt and anxious to say that i'm trying to tell people what to do, which i'm not in any way shape or form. Drop the outrage eh.

You've just come up agaisnt the germ which led to believe certain commentators who are journalists.

Bloody life's lessons!

 

[Agent_Bleu]

Who the hell has ever said that everybody should do as i've said, i'm just asking questions. Have I done something wrong to you kid, because you seem major butthurt and anxious to say that i'm trying to tell people what to do, which i'm not in any way shape or form. Drop the outrage eh.

So what seems to be the problem then?

If you're not saying that greater awareness, consciousness and responsibility will lead to gamers changing their current behaviour, then everything is fine as it is. If responsible gamers would act no different and to no different effect than the current situation, if suddenly everyone became a responsible gamer by your standards and would still buy the exact same games, DLC and microtransactions they do today, then that means everything is fine as it is.

In that case, we are in full agreement.

 

[Blothulfur]

Not saying that CDPR is headed down this road (yet) but it usually starts with the little things like simplifying this mechanic here or introducing that hand holding feature there, and assuming that everybody has just waited for this to be brought into the game.

I'm very glad actually, that The Witcher 3 is the last installment of the franchise for now. I don't even want to imagine with what 'improvements' a fourth Witcher would be riddled and defiled with, if it were the next project to go into development over at CDPR HQ.
Even without knowing anything major about Cyberpunk 2077 I can't help but already feel a bit concerned about how it's going to turn out, especially in face of some very troubling trends in mutiplatform game design and development in recent years.

I can see why you've got that caution Schinderhannes, and I applaud it as a critical customer, however i'd raise two arguments here:

1. The improvements made to Witcher 2 after release, CDPR really did listen to feedback as you know and improved the game using the feedback they found useful.

2. CDPR will backtrack publicly and apologise to the fans, something that's almost unheard of for a big company.

I've seen and am worried about similar trends, but these two points kind of comfort me, though that's not right word.

 

[dragonbird]

Is this a discussion about TW3 or a general discussion about gaming? Because if it's the former, it'll to be moved.

 

[Blothulfur]

Oh sorry Dragonbird, didn't think when posting.

 

[volsung]

Holy shit, some topics escalate so quickly...

This is not about a gamer code of conduct or morality or about who exercises their rights as a consumer.

If there's a market for people to get ass raped with metallic pineapples then just let it be. It's their right as consumers and they may willingly choose to support this business. We are not questioning their choices.

What really is a problem is transforming what used to be a different market to serve and fulfill the needs and wants of an increasing population of metallic pineapple fetishists. This affects us all because it moves the industry towards a different production model, one with massive budgets and expenses the least of which go into the actual game. Or developer salaries. The problem is, precisely, when an economic or production model takes over game or art creation efforts.

Thankfully there are technologies that allow for alternative markets to develop and distribute actual games, bypassing this shitty industry. If we really care about games though we should be more careful with our choices, each purchase is a vote for a tuple of <game, company, development, distribution>. Remember the implications when you buy a game, some are pineapples in disguise.

 

[wichat]

Consumer taste is the main important date for companies.

Mattel has had an breakdown in sales (is that the right words). Said because of competence. After several studies they reach the conclusion that consumer minds and tastes was changing. The big mayority of girls chose the new Barby for playing. Asking why, they answered she looks like her mother, her sister, her teacher..... a real image reflexing their real world.

Videogames, slightly are following this tendence, to be more closer to reals issues, not what industry say costumer wants but what costumers want find in the market.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

Holy shit, some topics escalate so quickly...

This is not about a gamer code of conduct or morality or about who exercises their rights as a consumer.

If there's a market for people to get ass raped with metallic pineapples then just let it be. It's their right as consumers and they may willingly choose to support this business. We are not questioning their choices.

What really is a problem is transforming what used to be a different market to serve and fulfill the needs and wants of an increasing population of metallic pineapple fetishists. This affects us all because it moves the industry towards a different production model, one with massive budgets and expenses the least of which go into the actual game. Or developer salaries. The problem is, precisely, when an economic or production model takes over game or art creation efforts.

Thankfully there are technologies that allow for alternative markets to develop and distribute actual games, bypassing this shitty industry. If we really care about games though we should be more careful with our choices, each purchase is a vote for a tuple of <game, company, development, distribution>. Remember the implications when you buy a game, some are pineapples in disguise.

Very well.

Each purchase is analogous to a vote, so why not follow through even when the poll results aren't to one’s liking? The «increasing population of metallic pineapple fetishists» has won, is now in the majority and, in keeping with democratic principles, is the first and foremost to be catered for.

But I assume you’re addressing another demographic, one that’s open to buying both metallic pointy fruit and complex RPGs indistinctly. After all, there’s no reason for hardcore masochists to change their behavior when the status quo is so accommodating, is there? So what should the other demographic do? When a complex RPG is just too draining, too big a mental investment at 6 pm, how do you suggest these people have their need for a light quick fix met? And If they do crave exactly a metallic pineapple up their arse, alongside a complex RPG in the weekend, why should they opt out of the former?

You suggest that by ordering metallic pineapples one is signaling demand and companies will naturally reorient production in order to supply. They will forsake their original customer base, drop complex RPGs and instead start milling out them metallic pineapples on a yearly basis. Furthermore, because they are all fiercely competing for the same masochists, they will be forced to draw resources away from development and pump them into marketing, thus further depreciating the quality of the fruit. Supposedly, in the long run, this demographic would have helped foster a dystopia of nothing but slightly different metallic pineapples.

But this is just not true.

We now live in a RPG golden age. Thanks to Kickstarer, they are popping up left and right, accompanied by a profusion of other indie, niche and even obscure marginal titles. This has happened not at the expense of blockbusters, but in perfect parallelism. Even before crowdfunding, companies like Obsidian and CDProjekt already flourished in their resolute refusal to put out pineapple replicas.

So, again, I have to ask. What seems to be the problem?

 

[SkycladGuardian]

My take on the subject is that the gaming industry has gone through a "hollywoodisation" process. Only twenty years ago the whole (pc) gaming industry catered to a niche market. People who played games invested much time in them, accepted deep, sometime complicated gameplay and steep learning curves including reading brick-like manuals.
Today gaming is mainstream and it follows similar rules like Hollywood. Every year you've got your load of romantic comedies, fantasy, action and girl flicks, which always follow the same plot pattern and use the same stock characters. However, also every year, there are a few gems among them. Movies that use a different approach to their genre, that are experimental or even retro.
In gaming you've got your yearly CoD, EA sports games, shooter xyz etc. People buy it, because they want to be easily entertained, because today most people are not williing to or cannot invest 20 hours a week into a game. And that's perfectly fine, as there are still gems being published every year. The games with deep and complex gameplay are now a niche market within the gaming industry. And as long as developers and publishers like Paradox, CDPR or 4A Games are around I'm sure that this niche will survive.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Very well.

So, again, I have to ask. What seems to be the problem?

Democracy + capitalism? Nah, it is a lesser evil than any available alternative nowadays.

As long as there is a sizable audience for hard-core and complex games, they will be produced, AAA or not. When the world changes too much, and nobody wants them anymore, the few of us will become dinasaurs of gaming community, and eventually go extinct. But I don't see it happening now.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Personally I wouldn't blame the younger demographic, because i'd blame no majority for the actions of others, but i'd ask whether they feel less inclined to exercise their rights as consumers? It seems to me that it's no longer fashionable to court the consumer and champion their rights, indeed it seems "cool" to mock them. I wonder if this apathy(?) to protecting their own rights and ensuring better service is a response to a larger pool of disposable income, or whether it is the demonisation and prejudice that is aimed at game players by the media?

I went back and reread the thread, I'm just quoting this full post as an example that corresponds with the original post which was clearly a list of questions asking us should this or that be the case, what do you think? I don't detect an overbearing undercurrent of condescension or force at all in what I read, if I were to interpret it so it would be my mistake probably constituting an instance of Freudian Transference.

Democracy + capitalism? Nah, it is a lesser evil than any available alternative nowadays.

Are concepts such as Democracy & Capitalism static institutions ? Has every / Is every / Should every incarnation of these follow an identical model ? Patently not. Earlier in the thread I quoted from Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, the bible of economic capitalism, famously carried by Thatcher in her handbag constantly. We haven't even had capitalism as described by its Father, and this issue displays that to its core, in that his consumer focussed version has essential internal forces that are simply not present in the form of producer based capitalism that prevails.

If Smith were here he'd be saying that strong, critical, informed consumer demand for better products drives producers to better performance, value, and behaviour as they compete with eachother for attention. Competing producers racing to the lowest common denominator is the opposite of the constant innovation he envisioned. He could therefore assert we haven't even had the original capitalist system yet, nevermind the multitude of variations on the theme. His vision offers many wide benefits to both consumer & producer, but its highly risky for financiers who would rather invest in competing companies, have them barely compete but all show small profit, thats if they don't just fix the market, rather than chance it all on riskier ventures.

I wouldn't be so sure we've had the best version of Democracy yet either, or even a broad selection even considering from Athens to the present and across the whole world. Personally I think it - thats the general form employed today because even all current "democratic" countries aren't particularly comparable - can certainly be improved, no question. The notion that these things aren't fluid even within a lifetime is also flawed. I was born in an Apartheid police state within a generally recognised - and not entirely inappropriately so - "cradle of democracy". An almost unbelievable state of affairs. It's gone now, and I have rights & freedoms I didn't have for the first half of my life. I haven't been assaulted by the Police since, its great. Theres even hope that it could improve still further. You should look into what the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement was asking for, in particular in regards voting rights, think what I have now, and come back insisting things don't / can't / won't change.

TL / DR : I'm a trained programmer. Programmers are Software Engineers and work in Software Engineering. "Engineering" conveys a necessity for precision. Every other engineering discipline that is though, programming seems to want the name, its sophistication, its innovative heritage, but not the responsibility. Yes its an artform, but it's primarily a science, it can and should be accurately descriptive and "mission critical". Most of the people who do the job want it to be that way, but once the industry gets dragged down by the SMOO, its lofty ideals are easily silenced by voices of "market forces practicality", you know... the "change is bad", "down with this sort of thing" crowd.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

(...) I don't detect an overbearing undercurrent of condescension or force at all in what I read, if I were to interpret it so it would be my mistake probably constituting an instance of Freudian Transference.

I suppose I could have possibly thought to myself «Well, that's rich.», but actually no, that did not even cross my mind, for you point out you're talking about yourself, and no one else, and so I would not dream of contradicting you on how you choose to interpret and label your own hypothetical psychology. That's entirely up to you and I can at most presume you're being very accurate. The point remains though: the OP contained half a dozen or so should we questions. Now, to me such reiterated a use of the auxiliary verb should conveys a strong, almost imperative sense that borders on moral obligation, especially when coupled with the expression «Players' responsibility» and the use of the indiscriminate, all-encompassing, first person plural pronoun we. The case further compounds when I scrutinize the biased way in which the questions have been worded out.

If however that was not the intention, then (edit) the OP should've been more careful.

Are concepts such as Democracy & Capitalism static institutions ? Has every / Is every / Should every incarnation of these follow an identical model ? Patently not. Earlier in the thread I quoted from Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations, the bible of economic capitalism, famously carried by Thatcher in her handbag constantly. We haven't even had capitalism as described by its Father, and this issue displays that to its core, in that his consumer focussed version has essential internal forces that are simply not present in the form of producer based capitalism that prevails.

If Smith were here he'd be saying that strong, critical, informed consumer demand for better products drives producers to better performance, value, and behaviour as they compete with eachother for attention. Competing producers racing to the lowest common denominator is the opposite of the constant innovation he envisioned. He could therefore assert we haven't even had the original capitalist system yet, nevermind the multitude of variations on the theme. His vision offers many wide benefits to both consumer & producer, but its highly risky for financiers who would rather invest in competing companies, have them barely compete but all show small profit, thats if they don't just fix the market, rather than chance it all on riskier ventures.

I wouldn't be so sure we've had the best version of Democracy yet either, or even a broad selection even considering from Athens to the present and across the whole world. Personally I think it - thats the general form employed today because even all current "democratic" countries aren't particularly comparable - can certainly be improved, no question. The notion that these things aren't fluid even within a lifetime is also flawed. I was born in an Apartheid police state within a generally recognised - and not entirely inappropriately so - "cradle of democracy". An almost unbelievable state of affairs. It's gone now, and I have rights & freedoms I didn't have for the first half of my life. I haven't been assaulted by the Police since, its great. Theres even hope that it could improve still further. You should look into what the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement was asking for, in particular in regards voting rights, think what I have now, and come back insisting things don't / can't / won't change.

TL / DR : I'm a trained programmer. Programmers are Software Engineers and work in Software Engineering. "Engineering" conveys a necessity for precision. Every other engineering discipline that is though, programming seems to want the name, its sophistication, its innovative heritage, but not the responsibility. Yes its an artform, but it's primarily a science, it can and should be accurately descriptive and "mission critical". Most of the people who do the job want it to be that way, but once the industry gets dragged down by the SMOO, its lofty ideals are easily silenced by voices of "market forces practicality", you know... the "change is bad", "down with this sort of thing" crowd.

I think you might have missed his point, but I'll let him deal with that. My opinion is the current panorama is aptly described as a free market. This is no centrally planned economy where the State dictates which goods are to be produced, sold, bought, by whom, and in what quantity, and at what price. Purchases are entirely voluntary, no compulsion whatsoever, no infringement upon legal rights of consumers as far as regulatory bodies can tell. You have blockbusters selling like croissants out of the oven instalment after instalment after instalment. It's hard to miss the pattern and the inline message. Tell me how on Earth might I be justified in thinking the masses are totally oblivious to their own best interests time after time after time? And if I were to believe that, that millions are somehow roaming to the nearest Gamestop like volitionless automatons obeying the script scripted by gaming media and dictated by big fish corporations, how would that not be an almost ipsis verbis example of condescendence?

This will be my final word on this matter, unless of course something exceptional surfaces. To me it seems the fate of the thread is probably sealed and it probably isn't too different from that on Gaming Journalism.


Nevertheless, I want to thank you for your input.

 

[Blothulfur]

If you mods want to close the thread i'm fine with it, i'm not going to respond to all the insults and accussations Jupiter on Mars has been throwing at me and it was my fault for trying to hold a mature conversation anyway. Whatever you decide's fine by me.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

The point remains though: the OP contained half a dozen or so should we questions. Now, to me such reiterated a use of the auxiliary verb should conveys a strong, almost imperative sense that borders on moral obligation, especially when coupled with the expression «Players' responsibility» and the use of the indiscriminate, all-encompassing, first person plural pronoun we. The case further compounds when I scrutinize the biased way in which the questions have been worded out.

This is a clear example of what is called rhetoric, a purely psychological and emotional pressure to make a reader to agree with the certain point of view. They are stated as questions, which push to answer them. The use of "we" makes it the case that there are only two answers - yes, or no. But, obviously, no one would answer "yes", so the only available option seems to be "no". Compare with "Should we allow to pollute our environment?", for example. In reality there is no "we" to begin with, so there are other possible answers besides "yes" or "no", and this matter in general is rather complicated. What influences and reinforces what - market shapes our demands, or vice versa, or may be they are in some sort of reflective equilibrium, is probably a topic for dissertations, and I am definitely not qualified to judge. Whose tastes and preferences are more "legitimate" or "esthetic", and gradation of people's gaming preferences from best to worst - well, I wouldn't go into this discussion even to save my life. If some unethical business practices are involved - sure, this should be dealt with. If it is just about companies doing something I do not like, as long as it is legal, I am OK with it. When I am in the minority, and big companies do not cater to me anymore - well, it sure sucks to be me, but it is pretty much the end of this matter for me.