Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
glaurung said:
If you're not able to craft guns or hats out of the looted shit, it'll have been a huge missed opportunity.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rage Has A New Buyer's Incentive
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
If you're not able to craft guns or hats out of the looted shit, it'll have been a huge missed opportunity.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
linsivvi said:
Don't worry the EA's and Activision's of the world will start inching towards that area too
Enjoy exclusive map packs for $10 that give you an advantage in Call of Farmville and Medal of NewGrounds
I only quoted your response to my post and not your entire post about second hand sales.Suairyu said:
Suairyu said:
I took it as a question directed at me as an individual and not as some representative of the views and beliefs of second hand gamers. I assume this is where some confusion occurred as you wanted the "you" to refer to the population of second hand gamers?
Ken said:
My answer to why they should care is because, as far as I know, developers would much rather have my money go to them than to some other developer, and the inclusion of sealed content isn't much of a selling point of Rage to me as someone who only buys sealed games.
Also, my first post in this thread wasn't complaining at all about second hand gamers getting less content, but was me expressing dismay over content being sealed just because the developer believed it was "easily missed" and therefore something most gamers wouldn't care about or even realized existed. Some people will never encounter a shiny Pokemon in their five play throughs of the game; why not seal off shiny Pokemon in future games just because they are rare? With Rage, I'd probably be okay if the sewers weren't on disc because they couldn't complete the sewer system and whatever is within each sewer in time for the game's release, and offered a free redemption code in each sealed copy. I'm not okay with them sealing off well hidden content just because it's well hidden.
I was speaking from a gameplay perspective, not a second hand versus new copy perspective, and how this could potentially reduce the the total playtime for Rage for some gamers.
RedNumberFive
Banned
It's interesting to me that I can discover games from previous generations that flew under the radar for me, go to a second hand store, and buy a complete experience. Years from now, due to some of these insane DRM schemes, and knowing that the DRM servers will likely be down, I'll never be able to play some of these titles completely, if at all. One of my favorite retro games is Ducktales on the NES. Because of dissolved licensing agreements, it's highly unlikely that a title like this will EVER be released digitally. Luckily, my Ducktales cartridge doesn't have always online DRM, or first time buyer levels that can't be transferred from console to console. I will always be able to play that game as long as I have a working NES. We've already seen Microsoft shut down the servers for original Xbox titles. How long will it be until Sony and MS do the same next generation? Will I always be able to play my copy of Final Fight / Magic Sword? Or will they become useless bits once Sony decides it's not profitable to maintain PSN on an aging platform. I'll always be able to play my copy of Ducktales, but I highly suspect that most of my EA titles will be severely crippled.
Bottom line, developers need to be paid, but putting such insane DRM and first buyer incentives on these games shows that they clearly don't care about YOU, the consumer. Supporting such intrusive DRM also shows that you care little about preserving the history of gaming. As companies go out of business, and rights become unclear, many of these smaller games will be lost in the ether. It really surprises me that so many people here, not only support these practices, but applaud them. If all you see these games as is quick, disposable entertainment, then I can at least understand your sentiment here. Instead, if you see games as an artform, and are concerned about preserving it, you would do like I now do, and not put up with shit like this out of principle. Now's the time to send a clear message, before it's too late.
Bottom line, developers need to be paid, but putting such insane DRM and first buyer incentives on these games shows that they clearly don't care about YOU, the consumer. Supporting such intrusive DRM also shows that you care little about preserving the history of gaming. As companies go out of business, and rights become unclear, many of these smaller games will be lost in the ether. It really surprises me that so many people here, not only support these practices, but applaud them. If all you see these games as is quick, disposable entertainment, then I can at least understand your sentiment here. Instead, if you see games as an artform, and are concerned about preserving it, you would do like I now do, and not put up with shit like this out of principle. Now's the time to send a clear message, before it's too late.
What's wrong with outrage in the face of this? The consumer is being treated like shit. When you lend the game to friends or sell it, it's not the same experience since you don't get those levels. They're actively making it harder for you to get everything out of your product, just like you would be able to with any other non-software product, but they do it now just because they can. This practice is just like the always-online drm. It's ridiculous, they need to remember that customer is king.Suairyu said:
dragonfart28
Banned
I prefer the removal of inconsequential content to forcing people to pay an extra $10 for quintessential content.
I'm glad I was considering getting this game, so that they lost a sale from me. I wish movies cut out scenes, required you to be online, and made you pay 10 bucks to unlock the ending, so people might could see how stupid their rationale is. I also notice supporters seem to think you either buy all your games new or used, and even if you have been a faithful customer for ever other game they have published, if you dare pick one up used once in a blue moon you are suddenly a shithead in the dev's eyes, devs who have surely never bought used digital media. Also, everyone who doesn't like this has the corporations are evil and greedy mindset and all used game sales are done through gamestop. Nevermind the places that sell used games like Amazon are the same ones they happily make their $120 special edition preorders. It blows my mind how eager people are to bend over.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Understood. I wasn't trying to single out Microsoft, but with so much tied to online servers this generation, I see how disposable this stuff becomes once a new console is out.zeelman said:
Extra shit is found in sewers confirmed?
If these folks really don't want to sell games anymore but rather want to sell services where you pay to play, then just come out and say it. Stop hiding things behind invisible pay walls, and all these other gimmicks they're coming up with.
Sure, it's nice that you're not obviously missing something, but it's still missing stuff if you buy the game secondhand or are a second rental customer, etc.
Should be interesting in the next few years. These companies are going to kill themselves if they kill off the secondhand market like they want to. They'll have to figure out how to make these giant budget products on much less money.
If these folks really don't want to sell games anymore but rather want to sell services where you pay to play, then just come out and say it. Stop hiding things behind invisible pay walls, and all these other gimmicks they're coming up with.
Sure, it's nice that you're not obviously missing something, but it's still missing stuff if you buy the game secondhand or are a second rental customer, etc.
Should be interesting in the next few years. These companies are going to kill themselves if they kill off the secondhand market like they want to. They'll have to figure out how to make these giant budget products on much less money.
sixteen-bit
Member
Not surprising. It seems most publishers will eventually adopt similar practices.
Neuromancer
Member
I have no problem with this. Its a very non punitive, non invasive bonus.
Version 3.0
Member
Suairyu said:
And they want you to buy it again so your brother, or roommate, or family can play it on the other console you own. There are more ways to use a game twice besides selling it.
You could still argue that a game should be shipped complete on a disc...but whatever.Version 3.0
Member
McLovin said:
Excuse me, but the "you're not my customer" argument is factually incorrect. Whether you buy a new or used game at Gamestop, you're still Gamestop's customer. I don't know why people fail to realize this, but retailers buy games from publishers.
But you don't benefit the publisher.Leondexter said:
You could argue the publisher should give you the full thing anyway, and there are certainly benefits to that in terms of possibly gaining a fanbase who might buy new in the future, selling DLC etc. But I think we all see where this is going. CD keys for console games have been long rumoured, patents come up every couple of years, but it is going to happen.
Mister Zimbu
Member
McLovin said:
Firsthand customer issues:
1. Resale value of the game is diminished. Sure, the buyer of the used game may not be a customer of the publisher, but the original purchaser certainly is, even if they intend on selling the game used in the future.
2. The game will more than likely not work properly in the future. I trust more respectable companies such as Blizzard and id to keep their DRM and DLC servers up long in the future, but with the majority of companies that would be implementing schemes like these (like Ubi/EA/Activision), I'd be willing to wager that the servers would be shut off within 5 years' time.
In any other industry this type of behavior would be considered reprehensible. How about a car that remotely disables the stereo/AC/brakes if you buy that car used? I mean companies gotta make money, right?
Everyone's saying that this is "the future" because game consumers are notorious for bending over and taking it whenever the publishers further and further diminish the gamers' rights, not because it's innovative or good in any way.
balladofwindfishes
Member
No it isn'tMcLovin said:
It'd be if the brand maker stuck an ink packet in the shirt that exploded if the item touched a Goodwill shelf.
Technically the shirt is still wearable, it's just heavily handicapped and missing features it had before.
Imagine if a car company required car dealers to strip out the radio and air conditioning of every used car. The car is still useable, but it's value is downgraded even further. Therefore people get less on their car trade in, and therefor they do not buy a new car as often.
The used market can be used to help justify and continue a ever price increasing game market. A lot of gamers entirely rely on the fact they can trade in a game and get money back, to justify purchasing a new game at 60 dollars.
You remove that incentive, and people buy less games. The trouble is, this trend does not happen immediately, giving credit to the theory that these tactics work. But over time, we're going to see less and less value being placed on new games, as they slowly become boggled down by pre-order DLC, used game killing tactics and overall less perceived bang for your buck.
Yet again, I get to say, no it isn't.McLovin said:
There's more to being a consumer of someone's work then buying their product new. Buying a game used still opens the person to DLC, talking about the game, and overall spending more on video games in general.
The game industry seems to believe that only a few privileged should own the entire product, and that's going to seriously hurt them in the long term.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
If it's as minor of a thing as Willits is suggesting, why would people have incentive to pay more to buy a new copy of the game that includes these supposedly unimportant additions?
I'm sure there are completionists who just want to have the whole game, but I can't imagine that set being very big. It seems to me that either this is a poorly thought out plan, or the "cuts" are going to be a lot more significant than Willits is letting on here.
I'm sure there are completionists who just want to have the whole game, but I can't imagine that set being very big. It seems to me that either this is a poorly thought out plan, or the "cuts" are going to be a lot more significant than Willits is letting on here.
balladofwindfishes said:
So, here's a serious question I have for you and for anyone else who's upset about this:
Should developers encourage people to buy their game first hand? Should it be something they want?
I think the obvious only answer to this question is yes. So is it greedy to want people to buy your product first hand?
If it's a tiny nod to those who have indeed bought the game first hand (maybe a small in game perk or bonus, nothing that would directly change gameplay) then why is that ridiculed?
I understand and would be upset myself if it was a massive exclusion/inclusion or something that directly changed gameplay, but small things don't bug me, and I don't see a logical reason they should bug anyone.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
I reread that like ten times and still thought he was just joking.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Don't bring that car analogy stuff in here. Although I think it's an apt analogy, and agree with you completely, there are a lot of people here that think that games fall under their own special set of rules, and are willing to side with even the most disgusting things that these publishers do. You are way to reasonable and levelheaded for this conversation.balladofwindfishes said:
Wario64 said:
It's to be expected now from GAF nowadays. People care more about the companies who give them their shiny new toys than their hard earned money. It's ass backwards.
I'm waiting for the inevitable bomba sale. I'm going to be too entrenched in Gears 3 and Skyrim to want to spend $60 on a game I won't play that much initially. Plus, to hell with online/offline/whatever passes. That's not fucking "incentive".
StuBurns said:
Inevitable indeed, i'll probably migrate to pc gaming by then. I see everyone talking about Deus Ex being $30 pc pre-order, what do i get for consoles? $60? Publishers would love nothing more than to have cd keys for console games while giving you absolutely none of the benefits that pc gamers get like mods/cheaper prices/free dlc
I view myself as a customer to the gaming industry as a whole, and on the console side publishers are looking to tighten the screws every chance they get.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Remember the days when a first purchase incentive was an action figure, a poster, or a t-shirt. Instead, the incentive is having the keys to actually unlock and play a game.-PXG- said:
RedNumberFive said:
Yep.
Or remember when developers made games so fucking good, that you actually wanted to buy it the day it came out? No incentives, no codes, no bullshit. Just the game.
Now I either buy it used (only for older stuff), borrow it from a friend, wait for it be dirt cheap (I do this a lot, for new games) or just say fuck it and pass it altogether.
Guess I'm not ever buying rage unless it's a 5$ steam sale.
Was considering it at 20-30 during the inevitable huge Bomba but not anymore.
"Buy incentive" ...no.
Stuff like this is why I feel no empathy when publishers cry about piracy. Guess what is going to happen when you screw over customers who sell the game they bought new, or screw a customer who buys a mix of used and new? They will buy less, and eventually not buy at all.
Was considering it at 20-30 during the inevitable huge Bomba but not anymore.
"Buy incentive" ...no.
Stuff like this is why I feel no empathy when publishers cry about piracy. Guess what is going to happen when you screw over customers who sell the game they bought new, or screw a customer who buys a mix of used and new? They will buy less, and eventually not buy at all.
RedNumberFive
Banned
The way some of you guys so blindly defend these tactics and demonize used gaming is kind of sickening. They might as well just start stocking the games next to razors and soap at the store, because clearly they are one-time use, disposable items to you.
I love knowing that I can grab any classic Nintendo game and introduce it to my kids. My only limitation, is a working console. It took me something like 2 days to get all of that Cereberus Network crap working in Mass Effect 2. I couldn't even imagine trying to get it to work 10 years from now on what will likely be a replacement console. Having my kids try and get that shit working would be borderline child abuse.
I love knowing that I can grab any classic Nintendo game and introduce it to my kids. My only limitation, is a working console. It took me something like 2 days to get all of that Cereberus Network crap working in Mass Effect 2. I couldn't even imagine trying to get it to work 10 years from now on what will likely be a replacement console. Having my kids try and get that shit working would be borderline child abuse.
Calcaneus said:
I know publishers aren't going to do a thing. Why interfere with something that could potentially increase your revenue? Why risk pissing off a major retail partner?
Still, I wish some companies had some balls and some integrity and did the right thing for a change.
Neuromancer
Member
They also sell more new copies of games at GameStop than any other retailer.Calcaneus said:
Put me in the category of "cool with anything that gives the finger to Gamestop"
Also I'm primarily a PC gamer who waits for sales unless I can't possibly wait, so this doesn't affect me, it's more about the principle as people say. I see selling used games as a luxury that gets abused with newer games to the point that the developers had to take a stand on it.
I'm sure your little brother or sister wouldn't care about the sewers too much. As for "Grandma's house", always online DRM is a whole other discussion all together. I feel that is to combat against pirates, and presents a huge problem to legitimate customers without proper internet access.
Either way.. This also isn't a preorder bonus. Those things still exist in the form of figurines or special, optional content.
Devs want to make their money, and if it comes down to you getting the game cheaper but having to pay 5-10 bucks to get the full experience, then they're okay with that. Essentially, that would take power away from Gamestop and the used market in general and force people to wait for a sale, or pony up the money. At least if it's on sale the developer makes some money.
If you want to support the devs or not is your choice. Sometimes you just want to play the game, I guess.
Also I'm primarily a PC gamer who waits for sales unless I can't possibly wait, so this doesn't affect me, it's more about the principle as people say. I see selling used games as a luxury that gets abused with newer games to the point that the developers had to take a stand on it.
I'm sure your little brother or sister wouldn't care about the sewers too much. As for "Grandma's house", always online DRM is a whole other discussion all together. I feel that is to combat against pirates, and presents a huge problem to legitimate customers without proper internet access.
Either way.. This also isn't a preorder bonus. Those things still exist in the form of figurines or special, optional content.
Devs want to make their money, and if it comes down to you getting the game cheaper but having to pay 5-10 bucks to get the full experience, then they're okay with that. Essentially, that would take power away from Gamestop and the used market in general and force people to wait for a sale, or pony up the money. At least if it's on sale the developer makes some money.
If you want to support the devs or not is your choice. Sometimes you just want to play the game, I guess.
Ugh. Buying games is a luxury, period. New or used. Developers just want rules that only apply to them and not the rest of the world of consumerism.M.J. Doja said:
Again, when they get their way, either through technology or law, they'll find out that those used games were how they ended up with so many sales in the first place. Without used games, a large segment of gaming will just stop buying games because they won't be able to trade in their old ones to offset the high cost of a new one.