So, you posted the "Boycott Modern Warfare 2 Steam Group" picture

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueOdin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,072


This is a picture that you probably saw at least once whenever there was discussion about boycotting some game for whatever reason. And the reason for that is probably pretty obvious if you take a look at the picture and read several words on it. For easier understanding I highlighted the parts that makes this particular image an evergreen:

As you can see the title of this Steam group contains "boycott Modern Warfare 2". However, from 36 accounts there are a total of 19 people playing Modern Warfare 2 eventhough they are in a group that calls to boycotting said game. So this is more than 50% of the people breaking that boycott. Oh snap! Playing hot new game > principles, q.e.d! Gotcha!

But wait. What if we take a closer look at the picture? Might there be more to this picture than the obvious?

Let's take a look at this part of the picture:

As you can see, the entire group is bigger than the 36 people shown in the picture. We might not even see the full first site of group members. And there are 16 more pages to go through. And what you might need to know that when checking Steam groups the people in-game are prioritized so the people not playing any game or are offline are on other pages (though you can see on this picture that it doesn't always work properly)

Does that mean that only these 19 people of 833 were playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 at the time? Probably not. There are defnitly more people that played it despite being in the group. It could very well be possible that people in the group not in this picture all played Modern Warfare 2 at the time. However, this picture doesn't show it.

The reason I made this thread is because I saw this picture posted on Twitter and in a thread here to prove a point that boycotts proclaimed by people in gaming communities are null and void when in fact this picture proves nothing. It shows a tiny part of a bigger picture and only the part it wants you to see. And it is still kind of baffling to me that people fall for this almost 10 years later.

So please, don't use this picture anymore to prove anything regarding boycotts in the gaming industry.

P.S.: Doing this thread got me interested in the state of Call of Duty, arguably one of gaming's biggest franchises, on PC. If you check the 100 most played games on Steam and do a "CTRL+F" for "Call of Duty" you find no game of the franchise in the list: https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

I then went to Steam Charts to check all the entries for the whole franchise: https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=call+of+duty At the time of this writing the complete franchise has 11.512 players on Steam. That is less than indie games like Rimworld, Factorio or Stardew Valley.

Of course that number doesn't include numbers of the versions of CoD 1-4 not on Steam. It also doesn't include the numbers of BlOps IIII which is Battle.net exclusive and had the biggest launch of the franchise on PC. That can probably be credited to it having a Battle Royal mode which is still a craze I guess. Though we don't know if they could keep all the players.

It can however be said that the franchise isn't as big on PC as it is on consoles. And I can'T say if it has something to do with Modern Warfare 2 ditching dedicated servers or not.
 

Silky

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,213
Georgia
I wonder if this community will take a stand on the "it's just a meme don't take it so seriously" idea whenever a discussion like this springs up, considering the context as to why this image needs a thread explaining how shitty it is in the first place.
 

Platy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,269
Brazil
I can absolutely say to you that the franchise is not big for lots of other reasons (like the battle royale genre) but not dedicate servers for a simple reasons : Most people don't even know the difference between dedicated servers or not.

For a boycott to work it needs to be big and for that, it needs to be something every player knows what you are talking about.
 

alr1ght

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,025
It will just fall on deaf ears. People post that picture because they don't want an honest conversation.
 

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,103
I don’t really agree with your analysis of that picture because it is a representative enough sample to show a significant portion of the group is playing that. Having said that, all the picture does is show the makeup of one particular group is hypocritical and is in no way indicative of the entire population.
 

Sincerest

Member
Jan 22, 2018
403
What do you expect? It's like those "Thoughts and Prayers" people, doing it for self fulfillment.

But ultimately, doing nothing.
 

Bhonar

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
6,066
OP -- you're analyzing and thinking about it way too deeply

I don't care what anyone else says, anytime I see that picture I think it's hilarious

(if ERA were to ever ban that image file, I would be very disappointed)
 

trashtabby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
699
Sure but boycotts from angry internet people generally don't have much of an effect anyway so who cares?

Besides, when so many of the people in that group who are playing any game at all are playing MW2, I imagine quite a bunch of them still bought it.
 

ThreepQuest64

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,523
Germany
This picture isn't meant to prove your point or is used in scientific research and/or argumentation. It's just used, as many reaction gifs for example, as a disbelief when many people claim to boycott the next big shit. Of course you could discuss the dismissive reaction and disbelief of people's principles, but that has nothing to do with the picture. You could simply say, instead of showing that picture, that you believe many people who originally claim to boycott will eventually play it. Then again, as the internet being internet, you can say all this with only showing one picture, like posting that Nicolas Cage gif instead of writing "feels good".
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,608
It’s not that serious.

Also, “maybe the other pages shown in this meme dont have most users playing CoD” isn’t a great rebuttal
 

Lant_War

The Fallen
Jul 14, 2018
7,877
The problem is that most players don't care. Last year some people were like "don't go watch Venom! If it's a success Sony could try to make Spiderman movies on their own again!", but the truth is I don't care about movies, so I watched it anyway. Most people who casually play games probably think the same. Even if all of Era boycotted a game it'd have no impact in the game's sales.
 

Scuffed

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,867
I see this image so much lol and from plenty that actually think it proves a point. Great thread op.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,750
Posting that is an easy way to misinform a bunch of people. Too bad you can drop it in any thread about consumer pushback and split even if you know it's bogus.
 

Maintenance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,208
You forgot what is the best part to me: it worked. The following game (Black Ops 1) had dedicated servers.
 

Aaron D.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,614
If found those who legit try to discredit OP's point are those with a track record of arguing in bad faith anyway.

Guess OP proved his point either way.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,008
Finland
Good idea to point this out. I think the picture is worth a chuckle, but it's not a proof of anything and taking it seriously would be real silly.
 

SapientWolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,863
It will just fall on deaf ears. People post that picture because they don't want an honest conversation.
Devs already have proof that some of the people complaining the most on forums about things like microtransactions are the ones buying the most microtransactions. I don't need the exact count of the boycott renegers to see the trend.

And we don't have that count so people are free to speculate in either direction.
 
Mar 26, 2019
167
The other thing is with this is that Treyarch came out when Black Ops was revealed and said there would be dedicated servers and server lists.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
476
Seeing this image getting posted un-ironically by an Admin today was something else
 

Almighty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,223
Sometimes it's funny.

Most of the time it is used as a way to tell people their boycott/protest/whatever you want to call it means jack shit and they should just shut up. It is probably true in the vast majority of cases, as the majority of video game players probably don't give a shit, but I find that stance to be a little defeatist for my taste.
 
Last edited:

Pillock

User Requested Ban
Banned
Dec 29, 2017
1,341
We all know the impact of that mass boycott on the MW franchise. No impact.
 

MochaKoffee

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,026
It was always an obviously misleading picture, people just never really cared.

I do quite miss the days when CoD was big on PC, though. 24/7 bolts only on tdm_harbor were the good ol' days.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,253
‘It’s just a joke, don’t take it seeiously’

Ignoring the hundreds of times it is posted in a serious argument about the nature of video game boycotts as an example of how they don’t work?

Nice to see Era is no better then the rest of gaming community when it comes to this stuff.
We all know the impact of that mass boycott on the MW franchise. No impact.
Uh you want to run by the numbers that COD has on PC before you say something as outlandish as that?
 

ShadowAUS

Member
Feb 20, 2019
891
Australia
Seeing this image getting posted un-ironically by an Admin today was something else
First thing I thought when I saw this thread was that it was a response to that. I haven't seen someone actually post this seriously in ages so it was a bit of a head scratcher as I thought most people knew it means basically nothing without context and is only used disingenuously.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,586
I don't think boycotts are particularly effective. As the picture shows most people don't follow it.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,253
First thing I thought when I saw this thread was that it was a response to that. I haven't seen someone actually post this seriously in ages so it was a bit of a head scratcher as I thought most people knew it means basically nothing without context and is only used disingenuously.
That picture is posted or at least referenced every time a boycott for a game for w/e reason is brought up

I don't think boycotts are particularly effective. As the picture shows most people don't follow it.
Did you even read the OP before posting exactly what the picture is constantly misrepresented about?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,937
Plus, isn't another thing about that meme image is that, IIRC, that this was a public group? Meaning anyone can join? Meaning people could join it just to troll and specifically play the game on purpose just so they can create meme images like that and troll people and make the whole thing look like a bust when it's just people like them specifically trolling and doesn't reflect the larger group (and well, mission accomplished there, based around how that image still keeps popping up every time people talk about boycotts or review bombs and their effectivness or lack there of to this day)?

Like, I might be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure something like that was another reason that whole meme pic was so stupid and almost never gets brought up.

In any case, for people just saying "it's just a joke," it rarely is and pops up with such frequency any time those type of topics come up just to dismiss people. It's really do different from how stuff like the "douche vs turd" South Park pic popped up during the election, and no, people weren't just "joking" about that either, and seriously thought that way, and it was insufferable. And to me, that pic is insufferable for pretty similar reasons of people just wanting to dismiss topics while showing they don't know what they're talking at all, and it's super obnoxious, especially when you see even admins like SweetNicole doing it in a now-locked thread, posting what amounts to a troll-pic in a serious topic. When you see even admins doing that, no duh it's going to grind on my gears a bit because that, intentionally or otherwise, is sanctioning that behavior for other members and I don't find that very cool or healthy for those kind of topics at all.
 

Musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,069
That picture is posted or at least referenced every time a boycott for a game for w/e reason is brought up
Because gamers are weak willed and are going to buy the game anyways. I guarantee you a good majority of the people over here making noise about EGS are going to buy any number of the games they are going to "wait for"
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,937
I don't think boycotts are particularly effective. As the picture shows most people don't follow it.
So you didn't read this thread, or anything, because the entire purpose of this thread is that that stupid meme picture is misleading and doesn't in fact prove anything at all, and that's why it's so terrible: that it gets reposted all over the place anyway as if it does.

And that's why I can't take any "it's just a joke" stuff seriously, because people do indeed believe it does prove something, and that's why the air needs to be cleared about stuff like this and why these conversations are important: to fight exactly this kind of misinformation.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,253
Because gamers are weak willed and are going to buy the game anyways. I guarantee you a good majority of the people over here making noise about EGS are going to buy any number of the games they are going to "wait for"
And using a picture that doesn’t even show that fact is suppose to support this supposition?
 

molnizzle

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,319
Because gamers are weak willed and are going to buy the game anyways. I guarantee you a good majority of the people over here making noise about EGS are going to buy any number of the games they are going to "wait for"
Then make threads whining that a picture that pokes fun of their lack of willpower is invalid and not AKSHUALLY representative of their collective lack of willpower.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.