While there be a few zealots I think the majority would be complaining about the choice for you to use steamworks, Make it a console game or Require a blood sample. Because they wanted the game.. but don't want to accept the additional requirements you set.

There is a few issues here. 1 If game X sold well then chances are the same decisions are going to be made into selling Game Y. Therefore its good for the consumer to assume that the practice hasn't changed.

2.Isn't this free market economics? Consumers Choose the best product based on not only the products qualities but their experience with said companies products. Personal experience is usually the best indicator for a consumer.

Lets look at this this way.. you go into a restaurant, and the food is terrible and the service sucks. Are you going to revisit said restaurant? By your logic you shouldn't hold the service and food quality of day X against them because its day Y.

I might give them another chance if I had some indication that there was a change in the way things were done, but even then my expectations are low since personal experience is much more believable than a companies assurances that they fixed the issues.

Lastly, if a company has repeatedly shown to deliver bad service and or products to a consumer I don't see an issue with not buying from said company anymore.(your Ubisoft example since they still require constant internet checks to play a game or the Gamestop situation fit this on the service side) How many times would you visit the same restaurant and receive bad service and/or food before you would stop going to it all together? Would you continue to patronize them hoping they get it right this time? Or would you spend your money at another restaurant where you know the service and/or products are more to your taste?

P.S. (/begin rant)I can't believe you brought Ubisoft into this. They put constant internet checks (you must have internet to start and even continue playing your game) on their PC games then when their PC games didn't sell they blamed it on there not being a market for PC games. Really? it has nothing to do with your draconian DRM.. its just people don't play PC games, and all those that do are pirates? Your PC games sales figures dropped 90% after the advent of your new shiny DRM and rather than admit that your DRM is the issue and fix it to something PC gamers would accept you start abandoning the PC games market.(after lying and saying that one of your new releases won't require the constant internet check when it actually did) Then wonder why those PC gamers aren't buying your games on consoles instead. FFS Ubisoft buy a clue.(/end rant)

To be more accurate it'd be like not holding the service/food quality of the steak against how it is for the fish...

Customer Service is not something that tends to change based on the product purchased. Product quality can vary though, and the point remains.. one is not likely to visit a restaurant to try the fish if they had a steak that was horrible last time they visited. Doubly so if the server was rude inattentive or just plain bad.

Even if they do.. if they find the fish to be as bad as the steak.. what then? continue to work their way down the menu hoping something comes out edible? At some point they have had enough of a companies bad service/product and take their business elsewhere. IF they don't then were back to the zealotry that was spoken of in the original post. Supporting a company not based on its quality of service or product, but just to support it.

I'm just amazed at the suggestion that using past experiences with a company as a core part of the decision whether or not to purchase a product is somehow considered by frog to be bad.

I'll leave that for Brad to explain...

...but adding my 2 cents.... there's obviously going to be a difference between 'past experiences' where they pertain to service vs. to quality/functionality of a physical product.

Ignoring the restaurant, if it were the purchase of a MS Mouse, say....that fell apart when you even took it out of the box....had bits missing...didn't wake up/whatever..... would that automatically decide [for you] that ALL MS Keyboards were going to be a disaster too?

THAT is bad decision-making....

No but I would be less likely to buy a MS keyboard based on my experience of the companies  quality of products. How is that bad decision making? It would seem to me that trusting a company to make a keyboard with quality when you know that the mouse they made is shoddy quality is bad decision making. (and if/when that keyboard had issues as well you would have noone but yourself to blame since you knew from previous experience the company didn't maintain a consistent quality or had low quality standards)

Funny use that example because there is a reason I refuse to buy logitech products.. because they consistently have proven to be shoddy in my personal experience. Why would I (or anyone?) continue to support a company who sells inferior products? How many times would YOU have to buy a shoddy product from a company before you would stop buying their products? Do you just ignore the fact that a company sold you a shoddy product and continue to purchase more?

Is it your belief that companies have no control over the quality of their products? I don't get it. If they are willing to sell a poor quality mouse.. what would make you think their quality standards on the keyboard is better?

If you cannot offer consistent quality then why place your name on a product to begin with? Consistency is extremely important to consumer trust. If given the chioce of 2 keyboards, one made by MS whom made your shoddy quality mouse, and another made by jojackskeyboards whom makes the mouse you purchased to replace your MS mouse and has worked well which are you likely to buy?

One made a quality mouse.. the other did not. Are you telling me you wouldn't use your past experience with the quality of products produced by each to decide which to buy?

Ignoring empirical evidence is never sound decision making.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Actually I use a DiNovo Edge keyboard....it's quality is peerless.  [it's by Logitech].  My G25 Steering wheel and pedals is likewise, but my Joystick and throttle is Saitek ....the mouse is the MS bit...

Ya I don't do logitech. I went through lets see.. I went through 1 keyboard/controller combo and 1 controller for the PS2 and 3 or 4 different PC controllers, all which were of horrible quality and died on me rather quickly. I figure logitech took enough of my money for substandard products. The only way I would use one of their products again is if it was free or bought for me by someone else, it would be crazy for me to spend my money on another logitech product after my experience with them.

Whether or not all their products are that way doesn't concern me.. since in my mind its a gamble when dealing with logitech given my past experience. I see it as neither bad decision making nor unfair given I spent a few hundred dollars on logitech products which didn't live up to basic expectations of functioning longer than a few months.

Yep, that's the attitude arrived at through local experience that robs you of the opportunity to use/be aware of a particularly well-made product.

In that instance it's a bad decision though entirely understandable....

Wait so i should base my decision on your personal experience? Your experience is some how more valid than mine? Its a bad decision how? Because it doesn't line up with your personal views? How could buying another logitech product be a good decision given that every logitech product I have ever owned was shoddy.

I don't get your logic that its somehow a bad decision to not buy logitech products given that I have no assurance of quality, and past experience with them has been so negative. Simply because of your personal experience? Interesting your willing to base your Opinion of their products on your personal experience but think its a bad decision for me to do the same.

Good heavens, man...don't get all uptight.

The reality is that your experience is NOT universal and thus totally and forever reliable.

My experience proves that and, I am certain does others'.

There are ALSO very likely squillions of people with the same poor history with Logitech as your own, but that only means your decision to permanently avoid Logitech is both myopic and insular.

Had you the same experiences [with them] as I you'd be madly willing to purchase from them more....and who knows?... maybe you will THEN strike a poor product..... but the fact remains your experience of their product is only representational of your experience...not of everyone's...which makes their avoidance less than totally justifiable.

3 philosophers are on a train to Scotland.....they cross the border and see one black sheep in a field.

The first philosopher states..."Look...all the sheep in Scotland are black".

The second says "No, from observation we can deduce that at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black".

The third philosopher looks up calmly and says "No, all we can really deduce from this is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black...on at least one of its sides".

One person's interpretation of a reality does not make it true.

So explain to me how the market is supposed to work if consumers continue to patronize companies who sell them inferior products. I understand that my experience isn't universal. But you seem to think that I should continue buying from a company that has continually provided me with shoddy products. Thats what I don't get.

My point is and remains.. that its neither a bad decision nor is it unreasonable to avoid a companies products if you have found them to be sub par. How is me avoiding their products less than totally justifiable? How much money am I supposed to spend on faulty products before it becomes fully justifiable? Do i have to go through their entire product line up before I can justify not purchasing their products? sure thats what they would like.. but why shouldn't anyone be justified to avoid a companies products after 2 or 3 purchases.. 4? 5? how many before you consider it justifiable for a person to avoid a companies products???? Is it never justified.. should people ignore the fact that previous purchases were wasted money and continue to forever patronize companies whom sell them inferior products??

I should continue spending my hard earned money supporting a company that doesn't consistently control the quality of products? Seriously I just don't get what your suggesting.

(I'm not being up tight I'm just trying to figure out your stance on this.. because to me it seems like you think no matter how many crappy products a company sells a person, you expect that person to continue to buy that companies products)

No....more a case of try to retain an open mind....perhaps look at specific opinions and feedback from others [what actually makes the Net useful] and from THAT determine [along with personal history] whether extending 'trust' once more is likely worth it.

As I said...your stance is understandable, but it still just may see you missing something that actually was/is/could be 'good' by ANYONE's standards...

There are people who have good luck with any given company's product(s) and those who have bad luck. The real point, is that Quality Control does not test every single single product. They test rough;y a 10 percent random sample, 20 percent for Military Specification, unless the contractor specifies 100 percent.

I have had 2 Epson printers, a laser and an inkjet. The laser was a really bad experience, and the inkjet lasted exactly 1 year. Conversely, I have had excellent luck with HP printers and my only Canon inkjet so far.

It is called the luck of the draw.