Rage 'sewer access' only available to new game purchasers
Bethesda appears to be joining the throngs of publishers rushing to set aside specific content to gamers that decide to purchase new copies of games, beginning with Rage.
Bethesda appears to be joining the throngs of publishers rushing to set aside specific content to gamers that decide to purchase new copies of games, beginning with Rage.
While publishers like THQ and Warner have restricted access to online certain modes as part of an "Online Pass" initiative, the plan for id Software's latest is to make an underground area of Rage inaccessible to gamers that decide to buy used.
Speaking with Eurogamer, id Software creative director Tim Willits said that a sewer network that runs under the wasteland world of Rage will only be available for new game buyers; however, he's adamant that the area is not essential for the quest.
"Most people never even see it. I can tell you, some people will buy Rage, download that, and still never set foot in those things. They just won't. I think that's fair. It's cool," he said. Noting that the sewer tunnel system is "outside of the main path" of the game, Willits reiterates that not having access will not detract from the game, adding, "I know some consumers, when you can't avoid it, then you get a little touchy subject."
The obvious assumption is that the game will feature a one-use code to unlock the content.
In the interview, Willits does not mention whether or not sewer access will be made available at as premium DLC unlock for those that do not purchase a new copy of the game. Shacknews has contacted the game's publisher to learn if that is in the plans.
Rage launches on October 4 for the PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3.
-
Shacknews
replyXav de Matos posted a new article, Rage 'sewer access' only available to new game purchasers.
Bethesda appears to be joining the throngs of publishers rushing to set aside specific content to gamers that decide to purchase new copies of games, beginning with Rage.-
free hugs right here
-
[deleted]
-
Is there anyone else out there who thinks Game Publishers are getting too comfortable making decisions that prevent us (consumer) from fully enjoying their product? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but does it seem like gamers have become complacent? They say to us "if you want it, you gotta buy it new, and if you want to enjoy it, you can't enjoy it without an internet connection." Whats going on?
-
I don't have a problem with this type of content restriction. If you want to buy your video games at a pawn shop, i.e. GameStop, and keep the developers from being able to make money on the sale of their games then I'm fine with them asking for a few dollars to unlock the rest of the content, or simply denying it from those who buy used.
-
-
I see you are adept at comparing apples to oranges. A used car, even one in good shape, will have wear on it. Be it visual wear, or just the strain of tens of thousands of miles being put on the engine. A used game, by virtue of being a digital product, will be the same for the 100th person as it will for the 1st. It's not like you have to worry about Marcus Fenix's gun having rusted if you buy a used copy of Gears.
-
-
Like one time use digital copy codes that come with blu-rays?
-
That's great but it's missing the point. The copy that's on the blu-ray never degrades and can be sold as often as you want. Same with books -- the book itself degrades slowly, but the contents don't.
Does anyone know why there is no movie or book equivalent to Gamestop, flipping a ton of nearly-new products?-
movie theaters, television, cable, cost of new dvd is lower than new game?
-
The first 3 seem like reasons that people wouldn't buy the dvd in the first place.
Do you think the lower price means it's not worth it for the store to bother selling used dvds, or it's not worth it to the individual to trade in their dvds?-
There market for used DVDs is small. There are places that have tried but the consumers are not really there. There is no market because it is not worth it for the consumer. Why buy a used DVD when for a few dollars more you could buy a new DVD? Or better yet if a consumer wishes to save money why not just watch netflix or TV/cable rather than buy something new or used.
-
What makes that argument true for dvds ($15 used vs $20 new) but not for games ($55 used vs $60 new)?
-
It's not really an argument. The market supports what it supports. People are interested in $55 used games, we know this because they actually buy them. The market is not interested in $15 used dvds, if they were, then it would be a bigger part of the dvd business. You want to discuss this like we can argue it out and then change how the market works, but we can't
-
We can't argue it out, but we might be able to figure out some real reasons that one is popular and the other isn't. If we can do that, then we can think about solutions to reduce the "harm" of used game sales other than just chopping off part of the game.
Saying that people don't buy used dvds because of X doesn't help anybody if X doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Maybe my tone is off. I'm not trying to demand that you explain exactly why things are like they are. I'm trying to collect true pieces of information about movies vs games vs books.
I've got my ideas:
- it's more palatable to spend $20 on a one-time experience than $60
- movies and books are more "collectible" than games
- people buy games at Gamestop, but buy movies at Wal-mart and other places that don't deal with used products (?)
- books are cheaper to make than games, so used sales cause less harm
- movies have a wider audience than games, so used sales cause less harm (?)
Those seem flaky to me, but there must be some real reasons that those industries are doing fine even though used sales are seen as acceptable instead of immoral.-
I don't know about books but I am absolutely positive the market for used dvds is much smaller than new dvds. When you make a movie there are so many more places to make revenue. DVD is just one part of the movie money making engine. Hollywood is able to monetize in many ways like tickets, merchandise, play movie on television, netflix, dvds, special edition dvd, special edition re-release dvd, box set dvd.
Do you buy used dvds?
I don't buy any dvds anymore, but when I did I found I bought mostly new dvds because the used section usually had a pretty bad selection which may have meant that people want to keep and collect good dvds and only sell their crap. Also price was a factor and this is where psychology comes into play. $5 is $5 but saving $5 on a $60 purchase seems more important than saving $5 on a $15 purchase. For $15 I might buy a new DVD as an impulse buy even though if I shopped around I could find it used for less. It doesn't seem worth shopping around to save $5 when I can buy what I want for $15 new right now.....-
-
You guys are completely forgetting the other half of used media - the people selling it. You sell a used copy of a 60$ game, you can get a lot more money out of it than you could a 20$ DVD. So it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to try and sell their DVDs with so little return. Hence the much smaller market.
And Lucy is correct - the many sources of revenue for TV/Movies make the content creators far less dependent on DVD/Bluray sales than a game developer would on game sales.
The way I see it, as this becomes more widespread, used prices will drop. I honestly have little respect for those that buy used at places like Gamestop. In my opinion used game sales should be restricted to buy sell trade markets like Redflagdeals, and not for some asshole to make a quick buck. Sell it cheap, buyers get a significant discount. Of course, this is a pipe dream, I'm well aware of that, but I have no respect for those trying to profit from used sales.
Buying used games from places like Gamestop are worse than pirating really. I mean what is the difference between the two? One gets some fuckhead rich, and the other is illegal. Either way, developer makes nothing.-
I totally agree with this 100%.
I am not against people selling their games. They should be able to they bought them. I just think developers should get a cut not places like Gamestop who are making tons of money off doing nothing but the transaction.
Lets say I buy FIFA for $60. When I am done with it I sell it to someone for $30 and they want the extra content so they pay another $10. In the end everyone comes out better. The used game buyer pays only $40 for the entire game (probably $10 less then at gamestop), I get $30 (instead of $10-15 from gamestop) and even the developer gets a small cut. -
-
used games is not a good way to make new customers.
-
Lucy, I feel like we've been down this road before ;)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bookstores usually sell either new books or used books, so it's not quite the same. Why don't we see stores with brand new hardcovers on one shelf and almost-new copies on the next shelf for $5 cheaper?
My overall point is that movies and books still sell plenty of new copies, even though you can buy/sell used copies and they don't deteriorate like a used car. What makes Gamestop such an oddity or a special evil?-
Half Price Books in Dallas sells new and used books.
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
What is the national chain with thousands of retail outlets that has a business model almost solely based around selling used DVDs? The name must have slipped my mind.
-
I'm sure it has nothing to do with rentals. No, that couldn't be their primary source of revenue. Also, didn't a whole bunch of Blockbuster stores close?
lol badexample.jpg
-
-
Dude used stuff market exist for everything that's for sale. In 2007 I bought Arma for 40 bucks which run poorly on my PC. Sold it for 25 bucks on Ebay and you know what I did with the money: Bought Portal on Amazon.
That's what 90% of used game sellers do...they sell their old games to buy more so games Industry keeps getting money.
And even if digital games don't degrade they lost their value over time cause people just lost interest. I don't see many people wanting to buy Populous or Magic Carpet.
Then again I don't know why I'm arguing, I mean its the internet....also I seriously doubt that anybody on Bethesda cares for anything we say here.....
-
-
-
Do you feel chevrolet should get a cut of every used GM sold? Should publishers of music get a cut when I sell my CD collection?
The publisher/developers have already been paid for the product. Buyers have a right of first sale. trying to circumvent the law by using infantile tactics such as this will only devalue a company's reputation in the eyes of the gaming community. How about trying to build brand loyalty instead of attempting to grab every penny that they (wrongly) feel entitled to?-
You guys don't even understand the argument, it is pretty funny.
-
The difference is that the car manufacturers are able to get into the used car sales also. It is not economically feasible for say Take2 or Capcom to start selling used discs, and might very well be a violation of their licensing agreements with MS, Sony and Nintendo (I'm not sure who presses the discs, if it is the publisher, then there is no way for MS, etc to know if it is a used copy, or one they just weren't paid the license fee for). So long as the developer is getting a cut of the online pass fee, I see nothing wrong with single use codes so that the game maker can get a cut of it. Also, used DVDs being sold by Blockbuster were a big enough problem for the major studios that they started supplying rental chains with "Rental" copies (clearly marked on the box) that were content stripped versions of their retail releases. these copies lacked things like the making over features, outtakes, etc.
-
-
I do too, it's just getting worse and worse. I understand these companies are out to make money of course but for the most part they are all getting arrogant in thinking "who cares what we do to our fans they are all lemmings and will do as told" It's getting to the point now of why complain or dispute it anymore, they don't listen, they don't care. Eventually it will get to the point where they will be the cause of their own demise and blame piracy because of it. Shameful if you ask me because there is so much developer talent out there that will just go to shame because of these stupid investments in DRM or methods of destroying used sales when said invested money can be spent on the actual game itself for further improvement.
-
How can you destroying the sales of used copies? Don't you get it? "fans" that get upset after they buy a used copy are not customers of the game developers or publisher. They are customers of Gamestop only. Buying or not buying a used copy is the same result.
-
-
You might as well steal it. Or not buy it at all. It has the same result for the developer unless you plan on buying DLC.
-
It's not "the same" except from a strictly dollar-based perspective. More people playing your game means more positive buzz, more fans of your studio, which turns into more sales down the road, right?
But if someone at Bethesda did some projections and it looks like they'll make more money overall this way, well, good for them I guess.-
News flash, business cares about dollars.
-
Shit, really? I'm going to have to rethink a lot of things.
-
You have made that perfectly clear.
-
But for real, you don't think there's a difference between these:
- dev gets $0 because I didn't buy the game
- dev gets $0 because I bought the game used, then told my friends how much I liked it-
-
-
no one said they are pirates. They contribute the same dollars to the devs as pirates. It is a lost sale. They are worse than pirates in the eyes of the developers actually. I would rather someone pirate my game than pay gamestop for my game and not my company. At least the pirate isn't keeping someone else in business. When someone spends $5 less on a used game they show they are willingness to purchase games. Pirates may not have purchased a game if they could not get it free, but someone who spends money on used games has a budget that could include new games, unless they only bought one used copy of a game ever and never were able to save enough for a new game.
-
This is interesting and the opposite of what I expected.
How do you feel about buying used games from friends or on ebay? Is your complaint mainly with Gamestop?-
There is nothing illegal about reselling games or anything else purchased. Private sellers are not making a killing on selling used games on ebay or to friends. But game developers can easily identify that consumers are spending a lot of dollars on used games and they want a piece of that money pie, why not, they made the game. But to add insult to injury these game developers feel like they spent the money to make the game and advertise the game and work very hard to get consumers who are potential customers INTO Gamestop in the hopes they buy a new copy of their game but you know what happens? They do all the work and all the advertising that brings the possible customer in the door and Gamestop says hold on there buddy, why don't you save $5 and buy the used copy, it works just the same as a new one. And they are right, it does work the same as a new copy. So Gamestop takes this potential customer of a game developer and tries to persuade them to instead buy a used copy which Gamestop makes quite a bit more money on than a new copy and the game developer makes no money.
Now your friends or some dude on ebay isn't going up to some guy with a new copy in hand at the cash register and telling him to put it down and buy the used copy instead.
I believe Gamestop is making somewhere around half of its profits on used game sales now, I think it is over 50%. I am too lazy to look up the stats though as I am sick of looking it up over and over again every time this comes up. So it's about not being taken advantage of by Gamestop and identifying a market and trying to figure out how to get money from that market. One way to get money out of the used market is to attempt to take a cut of used sales by locking out part of the game so used buyers have to pay the developer something if they want a full new copy experience at a used discount price. In a way it is like fake depreciation on the price of a used car.
It pretty much comes down to people have figured out that used game are just as good as new games so then sales drop off dramatically once it is easy to find used copies which is like after a week or less. You would almost have to be dense to buy a new copy because there is no reason to. The cost of making games is going up and developers are looking to cut costs anywhere they can. They lay off people after a project ships to save money. They are moving development to other countries where there are tax credits for game companies to save money. It is a business so they want to make as much money as they can but they are also facing the reality of increasing costs just to keep doing business. Used game sales are so huge and cannibalizing new sales so much they pretty much have to look at taking a piece of that don't you think?-
That is a good point , but what about the problem of games costing too much to begin with? Especially for PC? Why are PC games coming out that cost $60 dollars when there is no reason what so ever? I understand console games price because of Sony/Microsoft (even still some games can't be justifiably $60)? Explain to me why PC games have to be $60 aside from pure greed? I will even take it a step further and ask why these said PC games are $60 on digital distribution completely cutting the cost of manufacturing all together? I have been a gamer all my life, 20+ years, and to me gaming is the only hobby I have that I love. I am not in a position to purchase every game that comes out on release day so I have to pick and choose what games i pay full price for and which ones I buy used or have dramatically come down in price. I take it personally when someone considers me worse then a pirate because I go out of my way to BUY games instead of taking the much easier road of stealing them all together.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Yeah I got several varieties: there's original "COD" and some new stuff, "SWTOR" that comes in "Imperial" and "Republic" flavors. Hundreds and hundreds of great ingredients like "game designer" and "engine programmer" combined with "middleware" and heaps of "marketing spend." Tastes like "pizza-again-six-months-into-crunch". Pre-order the regular edition for 300 million dollars, but click here for the collector's edition at a special price!
-
-
-
Probably greed. Don't get me wrong, if game companies could fool you into giving them money for nothing they would. Pretty much anyone would. I mean if they could legally steal from you they would, I think almost any business would. Marketing is designed to trick people into buying products, even when the products are bad.
You are not understanding what it means when someone says "worse than a pirate" You are not worse than a pirate as a person. You are not morally worse than a pirate. But spending your money on used games hurts developers more than pirates. You are worse than a pirate because you hurt people who make games worse than pirates. But you as a person are not worse than a pirate, you have done nothing wrong, even though your actions are destructive to the people who make games.
It's like Netflix is worse than pirates to the movie industry. Netflix isn't a thief, but it is harming the movie industry more than thieves who steal dvds. Netflix doesn't pay the movie industry enough to make up for the lost dvd sales of people who stopped renting from block buster and purchasing new dvds. Hell look at Blockbuster. I am sure they were worried about people stealing from them or downloading movies for free impacting their business but what really killed them was legal streaming from netflix, hulu, downloads from itunes, youtube, etc. Those legal businesses are more harmful and worse than pirates to Blockbuster.-
If you are comparing different types of media then why not include music? Do you really think that if someone downloads or records a song from the radio (old school I know) it truly hurts that musician because they didn't pay for it? If anything it turns them into a fan, wanting to buy their music, go to concerts, buy their merchandise, SHARE with friends who may also like the music and hence support the musician.
-
Can't compare music as equivalent. A musician can make all the money he needs performing, and using published music and downloads as advertising. if I buy a DVD, it's not like 6 months from now I am going to go spend money to see The Matrix perform on stage. Also music has a hugely tied in market of licensed items that games don't. Not to say it doesn't exist (there is a shit ton of halo and mario crap to buy) but how many Ico or Devil May Cry shirts do you see on sale? Even the most obscure bands sell t-shirts.
-
-
One of my biggest problems with these publishers/developers is they are so quick to jump on the anti-used game sale and DRM bandwagon at an attempt stop all this never realizing that their game was shit from the very begining and people just flat didn't want it. I'm going to use Homefront as a perfect example, if I had thought for just one minute how terribly aweful/short/generic and boring that fucking game turned out to be I would have never EVER bought it new. I slapped down 60 dollars for that piece of shit game and I got completely ripped off, but since THQ/Kaos already got my money they don't give two craps how I feel and yet I'm supposed to be accepting and supportive of stupid ideas like this that are supposed to make me feel special because I bought it new.
-
No one put a gun to your head to buy Homefront. You could have bought it used and paid for the code that allows you to level up in MP beyond level 5 or not paid for the code, or waited for other opinions and not bought it at all. The code isn't supposed to to make you feel special for buying it new. It isn't supposed to make you feel any which way. It is supposed to make some people who buy it used give some money to the developer when they purchase the code that allows them to fully level up in MP or perhaps buy games new in the future if they don't want to deal with codes when buying used.
What difference would it have made if THQ didn't have a code that shipped with new copies? Did you only pre order or buy on day one because of the code? Either way it sounds like your issue is you feel you got burned on the actual game, not any code that comes with new copies.
But anyway THQ closed Kaos and THQ stock is dangerously low so you may have the last laugh.-
Well you just brought up another point, I don't play games for their MP, I buy for the single player. So now what? Buy it used? Then we are back to square one again. Oh yeah you bet I spread the word quick to everyone I know to NOT buy that game.
No question I was burned by Homefront, no one put a gun to my head to buy it I pre-ordered it with my own free will, doesn't change the fact that I was ripped off.-
I am not arguing for you to not buy used game. I was arguing on the behalf of developers to provide incentives for players to buy new. If you don't play MP so you decide to buy it used then it was the developers failure in its attempt to change your buying behavior or get some money out of you after buying used.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I also don't see the "Sewers" or whatever feature a developer locks out of a game that is a bonus to people who pre-order or buy new I personally see it as punishment/blackmail for their consumers. They are under the assumption that a used game buyer would buy new if used wasn't an option, well we all know what assuming in life gets you, nowhere assumptions are not facts. The other thing is if publishers and developers hate Gamestop so damn much then why the hell do they come up with retail specific pre-order bonuses and DLC? Kinda of hypocritical don't you think? It sounds like you work in the field so thanks for letting me pick you brain on the subject.
-
So if you couldn't buy used game what percent of your yearly game budget would you use to spend on new games and how much would you not spend and instead save or spend on something else because there were no used games to buy?
-
I would continue to do what I do now and wait till I could get the game new for very VERY cheap ($10 or less) months or maybe a year after release, as it is for me right now there are very few developers I trust anymore to lay down money for a release day purchase (Valve Blizzard to name a couple), so where do I get categorized now? Worse then I pirate even though I got the game new?
-
No way. Buying a game say on sale on steam the developer at least still gets some money instead of only to the middle man. So at least on 100% of your purchases some of your money is going to the developer. If you buy an older game from a brick and mortar store eventually the store will order more copies from the developer. Developer want to see some of your money going to them rather than all to gamestop.
-
-
I don't know I am sure there is some edge case or loop hole. But if Gamestop is making HALF of its money on used game sales you can't tell me with a straight face that that doesn't show there are consumers out there showing a willingness to spend money on games. And at least a very good percent of those used sales would become new sales if they couldn't buy used. I mean I have done it myself where I am ready to buy a new game Gamestop waves a used copy for $5 less in front of my face. That probably trippled the money Gamestop made on that sale and reduced the game companies cut of my spending to ZERO.
-
Why don't game companies try to beat them at their own game i.e. a trade-in/buy back system instead of locking their game or coming up with ridiculous retail specific DLC? Which by the way I never got your thoughts as to why companies cry "boo hoo Gamestop" then turn right around and make specific Gamestop DLC? I mean really, what is this shit? It's all looking like one big cluster fuck from my end.
-
I don't think they want to be involved in some mail order trade in buy back system. It would be difficult to compete with someone who is an established brick and mortar store on that.
Why do they make Gamestop specific DLC? I don't know, perhaps Gamestop promises they will push their game for pre orders or something. Either money is changing hands or somehow Gamestop is providing some kind of marketing to the developer that would otherwise cost the developer. While I am sure many developers don't like Gamestop, business still gets done in that store. If Gamestop is going to exist, it is better to try and use them to sell as many new copies as possible as pre orders BEFORE there are used copies to be had. The developer benefits because in theory it sells more new copies and pre orders can only be new and Gamestop benefits because people go into Gamestop to pre order because the DLC is bonus is exclusive to DLC and the buyer at least buys from Gamestop and might buy something else while they are there.
Also the more pre orders there are the more copies a store will order from the developer for the first shipment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, this too seems better for the dev than if you just didn't play the game at all.
One argument that makes piracy different from used sales is that it drives the acceptable price point down towards $0 in the eyes of the consumer. When you buy a used game, at least you're paying someone something -- respecting the idea that a game is a piece of property that you buy. -
Buying legally is the same as pirating?
Too bad you can't edit your posts, eh?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah, because buying something used is the same as stealing.
You sure you have a point?-
It is worse than stealing to the developer, because you had money to spend, but gave it to someone else. Most people who pirate would not have bought the product or a cheaper version of the product, ever. People who buy used games have a budget for games, but are not spending it in a way that helps the developer, instead the store gets to pocket all the cash.
I rather make something and give it away free than make something and see no profit but make a store rich off my hard work.-
Buying used isnt stealing. Its not worse. Its a consumer's responsibility to get the best deal available, not to make the manufacturer as much profit as possible. I know you guys love your arguments of how video games are so special and different from every other legally sold used product on the planet, but its not. Most of you care too much about the issue to view it objectively.
-
That isn't what I said at all and I agree 100% with you but nice try twisting my words.
-
-
-
-
-
-
^^^^This x 10000
-
-
No. These tools work. It does generate extra money by having codes for new buyers that used buyers can also purchase but for an extra fee.
-
Do you work for Ubisoft by any chance? What have they gained from implementing their DRM? I can guarantee its not more fans which means less people buying their games? So what did this investment into their DRM get them? Nothing but even more lost sales and a guarantee that pirates have a better experience then the legit PC customers they have left. Oh big deal it stopped day one piracy (kinda), I have not purchased a single game from them on release day since they have done this and when I did acquire Assassins Creed 2 "legally" I only paid 6 bucks for it, so by your logic I'm just as good as the pirates because they saw nothing from my 6 dollars.
-
No not Ubisoft and I was referring more to codes in new copies of games that new buyers get free and have access to all the new game ships with and used players get locked out of some content unless they buy the code to unlock the rest of the game via DLC. I was not referring to DRM that is designed to stop piracy. It is unfortunate that people who buy new copies may not understand what to do with the code that ships with new copies or are inconvenienced by it. But I can tell you that people purchasing the code online does bring in meaningful additional profits, and I can also tell you there is a higher rate of people with new copies that don't bother redeeming their free code for one reason or another than we would like to see.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree, I'd be ok with a very rare inconvenience if it ends up boosting them sales in the end.
I know there's tons of arguments on what's good or bad. It seems to me that pirates feel a lot guiltier about ripping off an indie or underdog and really universally don't give a fuck about a major developer. The mentality is "they're rich...I'm not...fuck em" So the constant harping of small devs saying pirating is great for them is ok because they don't have millions of dollars and 200 employees at stake. -
Heh, exactly. I didn't think of it this way. I have traded for games a few times, and I accept that I might not be getting the full experience. That's why nowadays, I get my games new and don't have to worry about any missing features.
Like I've said on many other websites, this isn't about killing the used game market; it's about killing the $55 used game that gamestop sells, when the person could have put in $5 more and gotten the game brand new and supported the developer. I don't think they care if 1 year down the line someone buys the game for $10, it's the shady way gamestop sells a week old - 2 month old game for $55 and takes all the profit.
-
in case of used games, no. in case of content only available for preorders or by certain retailers, yes. fuck that and fuck those motherfuckers who do it. in case of brink i got a shitty clownhat and reskinned/modeled weapon with the same stats of another weapon for non preorder peasants. i can live with that. but in case of deus ex there will be real game content only available for some shitfuck preorder version of the game, in case of bf3 there will be weaponry that will be preorder access only that will break their already bullshit balance even further etc. don't get me started on bioware and their retarded gamebreaking items (take this retarded looking armor that makes 80% of the games items obsolete)...
as for always on internet, they can go fuck themselves. there are enough games out there that don't force that restriction on to me. if i want to be always on i'll play an online mp fps or a mmo. -
You aren't their consumer if you buy it used though.
-
-
Apologizes about the ULLLLLLTRA combo. We had a hiccup in the system.
-
-
Hats will become universal currency, eventually replacing the US dollar.
-
-
[deleted]
-
Seems likely enough, since PC gaming is already there except for a handful of titles.
-
Issue with that is it will make consumers much more conservative in their purchases. Knowing that if they don't like it they can't even pass it off to a friend let alone sell it will make people wait for reviews and be more cynical.
-
I'd like to think that would result in more polished games or lower prices, but it probably really means more "sure thing" series instead of new properties.
-
There is no way this is true. Have you ever read the comments on shacknews? Have you seen how many pre order suckers there are? People know they have the option of waiting yet they pre order game after game and announce their pre purchase on shacknews, then get the game, get burnt, complain about it, then announce they are pre ordering some other game a day later. A fool and his money are soon parted... on a new purchase, used, or pre purchase.
-
With PC games, sure. But at least with consoles games at the moment, I can pre-order, buy the game for $60, hate it, and still get most of that back by selling it used to someone else or even Gamestop. It significantly lowers the financial risk of pre-ordering/buying at launch.
If the publishers eventually all move to this model, that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to do it, it's their right...but it may eventually backfire when far more people are unwilling to buy games until they're absolutely sure it's a game they want.-
It won't matter anyway unless it crashes the industry because eventually it is all going to be digital download or a service like OnLive and there will be no more physical copies to be found used. Then people can either pay and play, or not play games and shut up.
-
This is true. But anything which makes consumers stingier with their cash is going to hurt the industry in some way or another.
-
-
-
-
Steam's already done this for me. I don't preorder, I don't buy without glowing post-release reviews from users/sites not terrified of no longer getting their free copies & swag.
I keep even bad games, collector mentality about games. But even so, not having the option to sell means I'm enormously more careful about buying at all.
I wonder if enough people think like this to have a significant impact, and what it'll take for companies to realize it?
-
-
[deleted]
-
No rentals, no lending games to friends. Seems fair.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Better sales though probably
-
-
I suggest you start importing from Portugal, it'll probably be cheaper even with the shipping costs...
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
BC2's "soldier" system allows you to create multiple characters on one account, no? So they could start from scratch with a used account if they purchased it--the problem there is most people have already tied BC2 to an existing EA account to get the veteran bonuses. One way another publishers and developers need to get paid and it's almost miraculous that they've been so magnanimous about the issue thus far.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
That as long as it's first and foremost a commercial art, posterity doesn't matter unless it pays.
-
-
How many is a "throng?"
-
In HoMM3, a throng is 100-249.
-
-
[deleted]
-
sewer access sounds like a anal porn
-
why is this being applied to the PC version? you can't sell used pc games over steam, and when is the last time you saw used copies of games ANYWHERE?
-
"Exclusive, Dirt Box access!"
-
The people bashing GameStop and used game buyers, and supporting publishers in their claims of "cutting into the pie" of used game sales, don't think things through fully. Yes, even a purchaser of a used game is a customer of the developer and publisher, because the copy of the game he bought was previously bought new by a different customer. Would the purchaser of the used game have bought a new copy if he couldn't have bought a used one for a little less money? Maybe. But then, the inavailability of said used copy would probably mean that the other guy who sold it probably didn't buy it.
Apart from GameStop and their customers, you're all forgetting about the third party involved: the guy selling off his game. Do you know why GameStop makes such profits from used games? Because they buy low and sell high! The guy who bought the game retail for $60 and played it for a month, later sold it for probably $10-$15, only so that GameStop could sell it again for $50. He's making quite a big loss on something he only enjoyed for a short while. And we're only talking about games being resold quickly here, because GameStop can't pull that profit from a game that's a year old, and the retail sales are pretty much over by then as well. Something tells me that these individuals don't plan to lose $40-$50 on a game they enjoy only for such a short time. So the question developers and publishers should really be asking is: why the hell do our customers want to get rid of our products so quickly? How can we make a game that people actually enjoy and want to keep in their collection to play and replay, rather than drop it off at the nearest store for a huge loss because they don't care about it anymore as soon as they're through, or even before.
This sense of entitlement that the publishers exhibit is outrageous. I can't believe that their PR machines can actually get people to support them in this, because it has no foundation in economics or ethics and fairness.
Actually, even the law is quite clear on this. Look up something called the first-sale doctrine. Once publishers have sold a copy of their work, they are simply not allowed to have any say in what their customer does with that work, as long as they don't make unlicensed copies themselves. The publishers have made their profit from the first sale, and that's all the business they deserve. If they think they don't make enough money off it, then they should raise their prices or lower their production costs. Things like these, limiting the use of the product for people who buy it second-hand, no matter how much they can get people to actually believe in their lies and accept these measures—they are definitely skirting the law.-
Players who purchase a game, play its content, and sell it used have taken no loss--they've secured themselves a retroactive discount on the sticker price after benefiting from the item; in the doing they create a huge profit solely for the middleman who resells the game. Selling from player to player cuts out the middleman but does nothing for the publisher and developer. First-sale has nothing whatsoever to do with guaranteeing access to value-added content or services whether they are paid or free.
Your wall of text cannot hide the fact that you have likely never created anything of value in your life be it material or ethereal.
-
-
-
-
To all the people complaining about an online pass type situation to combat used games sales. Mortal Kombat used at GameStop costs $45. Add the 800 point online pass, and it is $55. Same price you would have been paying if there was no online pass since GS almost always sells used at $5 below retail. Now they have to reduce the price, to account for the price you have to pay the game maker, or their used games won't sell at all. It literally has zero effect on your bottom line, and makes sure the publisher (and hopefully developer) gets a cut of used games sales. This is not just a good thing, it is a GREAT thing. It keeps the MAKERS of the games in business, and makes a price increase less likely as they aren't going to claim to be trying to make up for lost revenue from used sales.
-
