While it shouldn’t have to be said that death threats aren’t a remotely acceptable or effective method of persuasive argument, it’s still a completely subjective matter whether or not those making the death threats may have a point. Obviously not a point that entitles them to make death threats, but a point that entitles customers to be outraged by changes being made without their consent to a product that they already paid for.
“It’s their game, they should be able to do what they want” many say, especially when defending changes that they agree with. “It’s my game, I paid for it, it shouldn’t be changed after I’ve given them my money” others counter, often when criticizing changes that they didn’t agree with.
But just when does change become unacceptable? When is it my game, and when is it their game? And just how far can a company go with the defense of “we feel it’s what’s best for the community,” and expect everyone to blindly accept that reasoning?
Again, these are completely subjective questions, and everyone will feel differently. Personally, I still enjoyed my time with Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2, and I don’t regret buying any of them in the least. But especially with Battlefield, I do feel that a line was crossed that I’m not comfortable with.
As gamers, we should be both excited that we live in a time where games can be updated so easily, and careful not to support developers when we personally feel that they abuse this power. Game developers would be doing both themselves and their customers a favor to remember that, like Luke Skywalker said, with great power comes great responsibility.
Wait, was that from Star Wars or not? Well, whatever. If I made a mistake, I can always just change it later.
