Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

Just purchased Catherine, which incentivized users to purchase new and early by giving them a free artbook and soundtrack. Dark Souls is doing something similar, which is why I have it preordered. See you can add incentive to buy games early and new without stripping content out. Easy peasy!

Okay, let's say for example it was a digital soundtrack on iTunes, and you could only redeem it once. So that piece of the package is then locked to you and can't be resold. Would you still think that's good?

 

[RedNumberFive]

You don't buy the game, you buy the license to play the game. It is a service.

True, but unless locked into a user account (Wii Ware, XBL, PSN), you are welcome to buy and sell it as if it was a product. This whole area is a bit fuzzy anyhow, and not relevant to the conversation, so I'll concede.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Okay, let's say for example it was a digital soundtrack on iTunes, and you could only redeem it once. So that piece of the package is then locked to you and can't be resold. Would you still think that's good?

It's a flaw with digital distribution

Which we are not talking about. This is about a used market that already exists, not one that cannot exist (and never really did).


Further, if a person cares about reselling their music, they don't buy it on itunes anyway. CDs are still around and are very easy to resell.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Okay, let's say for example it was a digital soundtrack on iTunes, and you could only redeem it once. So that piece of the package is then locked to you and can't be resold. Would you still think that's good?

A digital soundtrack in iTunes these days is DRM free. There is no technical reason that I couldn't sell it to a friend. If we're talking about the letter of the law, then again, it's a gray area at best. Regardless, again, this isn't quite relevant to the conversation, but certainly an interesting topic.

 

[RedNumberFive]

hmm, maybe. It might help the early adopters but it's more than that. The developers want people who buy the game a little bit later (after the swag is gone) to buy it new not used. The big selling titles all have decent legs and I think for the devs it's more about protecting those legs, not just getting them on day one with free stuff.

The developers want the moon and the stars. That doesn't mean they deserve it. For as much as I hear on GAF that we gamers have a sense of entitlement, nothing compares to that of the game industry. If they want us to purchase these games new, day one, they need to earn it.

 

[bathala]

Buying the game so I really don't care

 

[scitek]

Attach a percentage to it and don't let those who buy it used get 100%.

 

[Zeliard]

Just purchased Catherine, which incentivized users to purchase new and early by giving them a free artbook and soundtrack. Dark Souls is doing something similar, which is why I have it preordered. See you can add incentive to buy games early and new without stripping content out. Easy peasy!

Exactly. What Namco has now been doing for monthssworn Dark Souls is a much better solution - you give pre-order incentives to consumers that are both a) significant on their own and b) take utterly nothing away from other players, as the bonuses there have nothing to do with the main game, and never should.

This way, you get a large number of pre-orders, so you also satisfy various retailers, consumers obviously win since they are basically getting CE content for free, and the publisher/developer has a lot more people buying their game.

Other companies are hurting consumers by taking away value instead of adding it. Removing game content from a selection of players is an attempt at addition by substraction - instead of offering additional bits of real value for "first buyers" and creating incentive from that, they instead take away value from others and consider that an addition. It's a similar concept as Microsoft delaying demos for Silver members. They didn't add value to Gold; they just removed it from Silver. It's punitive.

 

[StuBurns]

A digital soundtrack in iTunes these days is DRM free. There is no technical reason that I couldn't sell it to a friend. If we're talking about the letter of the law, then again, it's a gray area at best. Regardless, again, this isn't quite relevant to the conversation, but certainly an interesting topic.

My point, which I possibly made quite poorly, is Rage is locking an aspect of the game away from people buying used. Some people here would prefer new buys be attractive by more 'honest' means, such as things in the package outside of the game that are nice to have, soundtracks etc. That's fine, and it makes perfect sense to me, but the issue comes in at what point are those things part of the core product, that just exist outside of the experience. These sewers are within the game world, and they can only be accessed if you bought the game new (or as some sort of DLC possibly), if these are additional things for new owners, not preexisting that are being removed for used owners, for me it's very similar to the soundtrack concept.

Essentially if the content was created just to do this, I consider it adjunct to the game, in the way I would soundtracks, big cloth maps, Catherine sex pillows etc.

 

[erragal]

I'm more surprised that people are surprised by this. There's always been an unfortunate element on GAF that rushes at every turn to defend the latest bit of corporate douchebaggery and to flaunt their embarrassing complacency, actually proud of the fact that they bury their heads in the sand.

And an even larger contigent that ignores rational philisophical arguments about the rights of content creators to control the means of distribution of their products. Are you against that? Do you believe that as soon as you create something you lose all control over the distribution of that creation? What is your argument -against- a content creator having the rights to do what they want with the sharing of their content?

Why not just say "Hey this really pisses me off because I was really interested in this but I don't like this tactic for -insert reason- here" What's the point of criticizing people based on apparently reading our minds? And getting it completely wrong, by the way.

 

[TouchMyBox]

Seems kinda useless if most people won't see it?

What's up with game companies these days?

Awful CEs at ridiculous prices (Skyrim)
Awful DRM (Ubi, Blizzard and Id)
Awful updates (Sony with their latest sync firmware)

Game companies haven't always been fucking around?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

And an even larger contigent that ignores rational philisophical arguments about the rights of content creators to control the means of distribution of their products. Are you against that? Do you believe that as soon as you create something you lose all control over the distribution of that creation? What is your argument -against- a content creator having the rights to do what they want with the sharing of their content?

Why not just say "Hey this really pisses me off because I was really interested in this but I don't like this tactic for -insert reason- here" What's the point of criticizing people based on apparently reading our minds? And getting it completely wrong, by the way.

The Law

Besides, these practices HURT developers more than help them because it devalues their creation and lowers the perceived value of the product.

It's a short term gain for long term loss, a fault the game industry really have a problem fixing.

 

[Version 3.0]

You don't buy the game, you buy the license to play the game. It is a service.

Another naive or brainwashed convert, I see. No, you buy the game, despite what the EULA says. That is the state of the law at this time. "Agreeing" to the EULA does not override your rights - which is also stated in the EULA, if you actually read the whole thing. Publishers want to change this situation, make no mistake, but so far the law is on consumers' side.

 

[StuBurns]

Another naive or brainwashed convert, I see. No, you buy the game, despite what the EULA says. That is the state of the law at this time. "Agreeing" to the EULA does not override your rights - which is also stated in the EULA, if you actually read the whole thing. Publishers want to change this situation, make no mistake, but so far the law is on consumers' side.

I don't see how that contradicts what I wrote. A service does not exclusively mean it is something which can't be resold.

 

[Version 3.0]

Do you believe that as soon as you create something you lose all control over the distribution of that creation? What is your argument -against- a content creator having the rights to do what they want with the sharing of their content?

I would think the answer to these is quite simple and obvious.

Do I believe that as soon as you create something, you lose control over it? No. But when you SELL it, that's quite different.

What's the argument against, say, Activision controlling the "sharing" of their content? Simple: they sold (1 unit of) the game to Wal-Mart, who sold it to me. By law and by any sane reasoning, Activision has no right to even know that I have the game, much less any say in what I do with it (so long as I'm not copying it).

 

[erragal]

The Law

Besides, these practices HURT developers more than help them because it devalues their creation and lowers the perceived value of the product.

It's a short term gain for long term loss, a fault the game industry really have a problem fixing.

How are they infringing on first sale? They aren't preventing you from selling the product they're choosing to add value to purchasing it directly from them. That law doesn't require the copyright holder to go out of their way to improve the resell value of their products.

Wait. How do you -KNOW- they hurt developers? Of all the things that the game industry is doing this is one of the few things that's actually improving the value of new-sale games. If you want to talk about how they're hurting themselves the lack of budgetary tiers for software (IE: the blockbuster or bust mentality) is a million times more impactful than this.

How is this hurting in the long-term? In the long-term they're going to switch to a completely digital distribution method and this won't be an issue at all. This is just a stopgap method before that happens. Help the short-term and realize that the long-term is already taken care of.

 

[Arcblade]

I don't buy used games. I don't sell my games. I have HUNDREDS of games from this generation across all platforms + steam. I mentioned resale value because consumers should always be in control of the content they purchase.

The lengths people go to to rationalise getting dicked over is AMAZING.

This.

Precisely this.

 

[Jin34]

Second hand scrubs? When did that talking point get passed down from the companies? I missed the memo.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How are they infringing on first sale? They aren't preventing you from selling the product they're choosing to add value to purchasing it directly from them. That law doesn't require the copyright holder to go out of their way to improve the resell value of their products.

Wait. How do you -KNOW- they hurt developers? Of all the things that the game industry is doing this is one of the few things that's actually improving the value of new-sale games. If you want to talk about how they're hurting themselves the lack of budgetary tiers for software (IE: the blockbuster or bust mentality) is a million times more impactful than this.

How is this hurting in the long-term? In the long-term they're going to switch to a completely digital distribution method and this won't be an issue at all. This is just a stopgap method before that happens. Help the short-term and realize that the long-term is already taken care of.

They're limited the amount of the item you can resell. If the package you bought came with a one time DLC code, when you go to resell the package you bought, you can no longer resell the entire package.



If there's no used games, there's less money for the consumer to buy more games with. When making a purchase, many, MANY gamers consider the resale value into the actual price of the game. If this option is not present, it will instantly raise the perceived price of the item to those people (and thus, lower the value of the product).

Further, it limits the longevity and legs of online heavy games as less and less copies are in circulation, until the game is finally discontinued and online is left to die. This lowers DLC sales and ultimately makes people less receptive to a sequel, as less people are playing the game (or have played the game) in general.

 

[Zeliard]

And an even larger contigent that ignores rational philisophical arguments about the rights of content creators to control the means of distribution of their products. Are you against that? Do you believe that as soon as you create something you lose all control over the distribution of that creation? What is your argument -against- a content creator having the rights to do what they want with the sharing of their content?

Why not just say "Hey this really pisses me off because I was really interested in this but I don't like this tactic for -insert reason- here" What's the point of criticizing people based on apparently reading our minds? And getting it completely wrong, by the way.

Not my fault so many here are naive and brain-washed to the point where they are literally arguing against their own interests. That deserves to be called out whenever it's seen. Gaming industry is particularly susceptible to corporate cheerleading as well. The reason I'm so critical of it is because complacent goons with no capacity for critical thought have, by bending over and taking it so willingly, ensured these practices won't go away any time soon.

Short of copyright infringement, these game publishers have no business with what I do with the game once it's been sold to me. Attempting to control resale ability is obnoxious. They can find a new line of work that doesn't feature a used product market.

 

[StuBurns]

Not my fault so many here are naive and brain-washed to the point where they are literally arguing against their own interests. That deserves to be called out whenever it's seen. Gaming industry is particularly susceptible to corporate cheerleading as well. The reason I'm so critical of it is because complacent goons with no capacity for critical thought have, by bending over and taking it so willingly, ensured these practices won't go away any time soon.

Short of copyright infringement, these game publishers have no business with what I do with the game once it's been sold to me. Attempting to control resale ability is obnoxious. They can find a new line of work that doesn't feature a used product market.

That's all fine, but what do you propose? Everyone refuse to buy the Rages and Diablo 3s of the world even if they personally are unaffected by these things out of solidarity?

It's ultimately a case of vote with your wallet no? If enough people think it's compromising on their rights, they can not buy those games.

 

[erragal]

They're limited the amount of the item you can resell. If the package you bought came with a one time DLC code, when you go to resell the package you bought, you can no longer resell the entire package.



If there's no used games, there's less money for the consumer to buy more games with. When making a purchase, many, MANY gamers consider the resale value into the actual price of the game. If this option is not present, it will instantly raise the perceived price of the item to those people (and thus, lower the value of the product).

Further, it limits the longevity and legs of online heavy games as less and less copies are in circulation, until the game is finally discontinued and online is left to die. This lowers DLC sales and ultimately makes people less receptive to a sequel, as less people are playing the game (or have played the game) in general.

That's why they do it with a code in the first place. You're basically given a separate downloadable product for free. Nothing is keeping you from selling that code separately from the game that you bought. If you redeem the code you have the exact same reselling opportunities as someone who paid to unlock the content. You could also not use the code and resell the package at a higher value by the way.

My argument would be that encouraging gamers to resell their games in order to buy new games has an even more detrimental effect for online communities. If gamers are more committed to specific games then only higher quality games with the proper amount of gameplay for their original price.

It might actually lower the new sale price of some games but the industry needs a wakeup call and to create more mid-tier budget games. More people waiting for price drops is also better than people waiting for used games and not giving any profit to the developer.

The less copies thing is a little unnecessary; there's no practical limit to the number of copies of any game except the amount the publisher decides to print. If a game is successful then more copies will be printed; digital distribution has ended any practical limit even years down the road.

The one thing I do acknowledge is used games aren't harmful to DLC heavy financial models. My issue is that transitioning to little base content with lots of DLC is an even more consumer unfriendly model than doing value added features for new-game buyers. It also is a very specific format of game design that isn't appropriate for every type of game (Sure gets forcefed into a lot of them though).

 

[Arcblade]

It's not even close to every industry is it (I know you're not saying it is)? Can you buy Photoshop used? What about airplane tickets?

There are items that are tied to users, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's been like this on PC for awhile.

Ummm... yes, you CAN buy PHotoshop used.

Who is the fucktard who told you otherwise?

I own a legal copy of Photoshop, and I can sell that copy to whomsoever I want to sell it to, for whatever price I deign to.

The key, you see, is mine.

And it is transferrable.

Also, the plane ticket example is so mouth-breathingly stupid, I must suspect that you are mouth-breathing this paid shill nonsense through an iron-lung.

A used plane ticket?

Seriously?

You shouldn't be allowed into another debate until you at least nominally understand what a category error is.

 

[StuBurns]

Ummm... yes, you CAN buy PHotoshop used.

Who is the fucktard who told you otherwise?

I own a legal copy of Photoshop, and I can sell that copy to whomsoever I want to sell it to, for whatever price I deign to.

The key, you see, is mine.

And it is transferrable.

Also, the plane ticket example is so mouth-breathingly stupid, I must suspect that you are mouth-breathing this paid shill nonsense through an iron-lung.

A used plane ticket?

Seriously?

You shouldn't be allowed into another debate until you at least nominally understand what a category error is.

I asked a question, fucking hell.

If you don't like my posts, add me to your ignore list, that's what it's there for.

 

[FLEABttn]

Attach a percentage to it and don't let those who buy it used get 100%.

Oh god this could be so deliciously evil.

You get 100% of the game when you buy used, but you can't unlock the platinum trophy. That requires the code.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Ummm... yes, you CAN buy PHotoshop used.

Who is the fucktard who told you otherwise?

I own a legal copy of Photoshop, and I can sell that copy to whomsoever I want to sell it to, for whatever price I deign to.

The key, you see, is mine.

And it is transferrable.

Also, the plane ticket example is so mouth-breathingly stupid, I must suspect that you are mouth-breathing this paid shill nonsense through an iron-lung.

A used plane ticket?

Seriously?

You shouldn't be allowed into another debate until you at least nominally understand what a category error is.

Take a chill pill bro. That isn't cool.

 

[Stallion Free]

Oh god this could be so deliciously evil.

You get 100% of the game when you buy used, but you can't unlock the platinum trophy. That requires the code.

That's a troll I can get behind.

 

[Vilam]

I remember Mike Capps were talking about locking out a final boss for those who bought the game used.

I'd be thrilled to see something like this implemented - hell, lock away the ending, whatever. Someone just needs to figure out a system that doesn't require an online connection so that it doesn't affect anyone who legitimately purchases the game.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Ummm... yes, you CAN buy PHotoshop used.

Who is the fucktard who told you otherwise?

I own a legal copy of Photoshop, and I can sell that copy to whomsoever I want to sell it to, for whatever price I deign to.

The key, you see, is mine.

And it is transferrable.

Also, the plane ticket example is so mouth-breathingly stupid, I must suspect that you are mouth-breathing this paid shill nonsense through an iron-lung.

A used plane ticket?

Seriously?

You shouldn't be allowed into another debate until you at least nominally understand what a category error is.

I disagreed with him as well, but there is no reason to be that rude.

 

[Derrick01]

Second hand scrubs? When did that talking point get passed down from the companies? I missed the memo.

I think it's a feeling people get. I know I felt pretty trashy coming out of gamestop with used games sometimes when I played on consoles, but I was probably just thinking of the people I saw in there who were very trashy looking and the discs or cases that were all fucked up. Florida definitely has no shortage on trashy people.

 

[linsivvi]

This is GAF, where we place developers that we don't even know on the highest pedestal. Where buying a used game is taking the food from the mouths of the developer's children. Where the game industry has a special set of rules applied to them that allows them to "double dip". Here, we don't just drink the publisher's Kool-Aid, we bathe in it!

This. Or some of these people are actually working in the industry in some capacity. They should at least come clean and admit it though.

 

[Heart Attack]

I loved Doom 3. I don't see why people are down on this game. The game looks like it will be tons of fun. Though i will not pick it day 1, i will get it for $40. In ID i trust.

 

[Version 3.0]

Oh god this could be so deliciously evil.

You get 100% of the game when you buy used, but you can't unlock the platinum trophy. That requires the code.

That's not evil, that's awesome. I'd seriously consider paying extra to have trophies and achievements removed from my games. Your plan would ensure I buy all games used (which I rarely do now).

 

[Version 3.0]

This. Or some of these people are actually working in the industry in some capacity. They should at least come clean and admit it though.

I work in an industry where my paycheck depends on customer revenue, too, but I'm not about to suggest trampling on consumer rights to get my product to sell better.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

My argument would be that encouraging gamers to resell their games in order to buy new games has an even more detrimental effect for online communities. If gamers are more committed to specific games then only higher quality games with the proper amount of gameplay for their original price.

So you think it's healthier for an online community to have a copy of a game nobody is playing just sitting on some dude's dresser, rather than him selling said game to someone who wants to play it, actively participating in the community?

 

[Death Dealer]

Day 1.

Therefore, I don't give a fuck.

+1

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

So they're cutting off single player content from 2nd hand buyers then.

How far will this go? Will they start cutting out gameplay features next? Purposely break the controls for 2nd hand buyers? Replace the entire game with a looping video of a rotating lump of shit?

Here's a hint to all publishers and developers who use these anti used sales systems. Whenever I see your game using something like this, it instantly tells me that your game is disposable garbage that is not only not destined to be remembered years from now, it is trash that won't even be remembered 6 months from now.

 

[StuBurns]

This isn't the first game to do this is it?

 

[NullPointer]

I work in an industry where my paycheck depends on customer revenue, too, but I'm not about to suggest trampling on consumer rights to get my product to sell better.

Same here, and exactly this.

 

[goldenpp72]

Thanks for assuming that I always buy second hand games, never support developers, and as a result have no rights to express my thoughts on the topic.

So what you're saying is, if one company screws you because you screwed them, you will go to another company and not screw them so that they will not screw you.

???

 

[Mxrz]

If this is considered DRM, then I'll gladly take it over the shit last gen that fucked with paying customers right out of the box.

For the whole "We're losing our rights!" bit, the difference between then and now is there wasn't a something like Gamestop around pulling in $1.8 billion in sales, and slanting their entire business towards the used market to the point where they treat you like an asshole if you dare to ask for a sealed copy of a game.

 

[GotchaForce]

Sorry to bump but according to Cooptimus this game has splitscreen co-op. Has this been confirmed anywhere else?