Ars Technica is now saying that their response to being called out on this is even more precious; they're recalling all PC copies of Deus Ex from stores, and will only sell new ones when the publisher (SquEnix?) releases a version without the OnLive coupon.
-- Steve's wondering if he should keep shopping at his local Electronics Boutique if these sorts of antics are going on.
You probably should because the service is less convenient and less useful and gives you a worse product in general - but this is an added bonus.
Their argument is that OnLive is a competitor and that Square has included a coupon for a competitor in the game, which is technically true.
At the same time, by *removing* the coupon they are now modifying the shipped product, and selling a box that does not contain what it says it contains. Kind of like popping open copies of the game and replacing the DVD with one where there's an unskippable Gamestop ad before the game runs every time, and also removing a few of the quests.
Cute point someone else brought up - if this is a shrinkwrap license product, then Gamestop have agreed to the EULA, and then sold it to you, so you're not bound by the license terms...
Apart from the fact that this first showed up on Ars Technica, notorious for its blatantly untrue journalism, I take issue with GameStop being called "the worst" without any sort of qualifier whatsoever. At what point did GameStop commit genocide?
#1: This appears to be original to GameSpy, in fact. #2: Gamestop has confirmed that yes, they are doing this, and yes, the story is true. #3: It seems clear from context that "the worst place to get games" is what's intended, using the common colloquial meaning of "the worst".
If someone says, "Oh, man, this is THE WORST!" do you normally go into how it can't be "the worst" because Hitler? Because that could get really annoying.
I'd take it as a hyperbolic expression of disgust, and an invitation to find other examples *of the same kind* which might be "the worst" if I disagreed.
Quixotic crusades to eradicate common modern idiomatic terms rarely end well for either party. Essentially, you either have to just learn to live with 'em, join 'em 'cause you can't beat 'em, or live in a state of almost perpetual frustration.
Generally, I go for #2, but #3 happens to me often enough to make me a rather irritable person.
Well, bringing up genocide tends to indicate that you've skipped the step about demanding more clarity and gone on to drawing conclusions in the absence of it. But since you ask; no. If you're wrong, it's for failing to read for context.
It's not that I've not understood the context, which is why I've only made a passing comment about it rather than firing up a full campaign against destructoid. I just really don't care for any sort of hyperbole; it's dishonest.
So you dislike exaggeration for the sake of effect, but you're fine with bringing up extreme behaviour that you know didn't happen to make this point? ;)
My entire point is that the extreme behavior didn't happen, so it wouldn't be fitting to act as though extreme behavior has happened. Isn't that what exaggeration is?
Discussing ridiculous extremes as if a reasonable person might consider them plausible is definitely exaggeration for the sake of effect, which is also called hyperbole.
Overreacting--that is, acting as if a graver, more extreme, more affecting event had occurred than what actually did--is its own problem. But in order to believe that happened in this instance, you need to claim that the article was referring to GameSpot as the worst ever, engaging in absolutely horrific behaviour, not referring to GameSpot as the worst electronic games retailer.
If you do read for context, and understand that what was used was a common colloquial figure of speech, this is not reasonable. And claiming that the article reads as if the writer was accusing GameSpot of genocide is hyperbole.
I hate when I see a theweaselking post with 30+ comments on it and click on it hoping for some sort of deep, insightful discussion, and then I get what I asked for. :V
Actually, I hadn't even heard of them at all until this incident, whereupon I became inundated with reports of Ars Technica's inaccuracy and outright maliciousness.
Suddenly the fact that there is not a Gamestop within a hundred miles of where I live doesn't seem so bad. The absence of a Dairy Queen, however, is frankly criminal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 03:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 03:37 pm (UTC)-- Steve's wondering if he should keep shopping at his local Electronics Boutique if these sorts of antics are going on.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 03:45 pm (UTC)Their argument is that OnLive is a competitor and that Square has included a coupon for a competitor in the game, which is technically true.
At the same time, by *removing* the coupon they are now modifying the shipped product, and selling a box that does not contain what it says it contains. Kind of like popping open copies of the game and replacing the DVD with one where there's an unskippable Gamestop ad before the game runs every time, and also removing a few of the quests.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 09:11 pm (UTC)Unlikely to be valid, but a nice idea.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 01:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 04:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 04:19 pm (UTC)#2: Gamestop has confirmed that yes, they are doing this, and yes, the story is true.
#3: It seems clear from context that "the worst place to get games" is what's intended, using the common colloquial meaning of "the worst".
So what are you on about?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 04:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 04:45 pm (UTC)I'd take it as a hyperbolic expression of disgust, and an invitation to find other examples *of the same kind* which might be "the worst" if I disagreed.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 07:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 07:50 pm (UTC)Generally, I go for #2, but #3 happens to me often enough to make me a rather irritable person.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 03:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 05:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 07:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 07:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 10:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 01:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 06:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 11:58 am (UTC)Overreacting--that is, acting as if a graver, more extreme, more affecting event had occurred than what actually did--is its own problem. But in order to believe that happened in this instance, you need to claim that the article was referring to GameSpot as the worst ever, engaging in absolutely horrific behaviour, not referring to GameSpot as the worst electronic games retailer.
If you do read for context, and understand that what was used was a common colloquial figure of speech, this is not reasonable. And claiming that the article reads as if the writer was accusing GameSpot of genocide is hyperbole.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-27 02:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 04:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 08:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 05:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 06:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-29 10:56 pm (UTC)Find some actual examples first.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-28 08:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 09:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-25 10:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-26 12:13 am (UTC)