Support NeoGAF

[gregor7777]

Actually i've seen only a couple of those type of posts and a shitload of people playing extreme damage control acting disingeniously.

The only thing that's disingenuous here is making up quotes.

The actual issue of leaving out the end of the game is an extreme one...laughable. I mean really, does anyone here think it's even within the realm of possibility for a retail title? Come on now.

 

[Mooreberg]

Read and comprehend this, people. It rather changes the statement. Paid DLC endings suck shit; free DLC as a means of curbing used game sales and piracy is A-OK.

It punishes the wrong people. If somebody is playing a single player game that they bought legit and don't have their system connected to go online, they don't get to see the ending? I don't mind what they did with the flashback maps (well, other than taking up more hard drive space for what could have been on the disc) because it is a bonus and will be used online anyway.

If they got a problem with what GameStop is doing (and that particular grievance is valid) than take it up with them. Once you start penalizing the consumer you're heading into the same septic tank as the music industry.

 

[Wurm]

Yes, its all about taking shit away from consumers rather than offering better incentives for them to stay. Go on, take more of it away! Let me cross you off my list of publishers so I'll never buy your product ever again!

The Gears 2 concept of DLC being free from the off for 1st week/fresh copy users is the best way to do it. But taking stuff away from the main experience will just kill your game dead in the water from public perception if you try the OP's suggested shit.

"Hey dude, you played that Halo 5 yet? I wanna buy..."

"Nah, you have to buy the ending and it'll probably be shitty ending like the previous 3 anyway.."

"Dude! Well fuck that!"

 

[haowan]

This was completely made up by someone and this never crossed any developers mind anywhere that was then passed on to Michael Capps who then said it to someone? This idea was never passed through any of their minds and was completely fabricated by this website?

Whewwww...Thank God. Don't worry people, nothing to see here. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Looks like you didn't read my post? As I said, if you bought the game new at retail you would not be paying extra for the final boss. The developer gets their royalties, you get your game.

Look the problem isn't second-hand sales per se, it is the practice of retail making it into their primary revenue model. It hurts the industry and we need to protect ourselves from it as creators.

 

[Chrange]

If somebody is playing a single player game that they bought legit and don't have their system connected to go online, they don't get to see the ending? I don't mind what they did with the flashback maps (well, other than taking up more hard drive space for what could have been on the disc) because it is a bonus and will be used online anyway.

So you agree with him, while trying to disagree?

 

[Ponn]

The only thing that's disingenuous here is making up quotes.

The actual issue of leaving out the end of the game is an extreme one...laughable. I mean really, does anyone here think it's even within the realm of possibility for a retail title? Come on now.

:lol :lol Quote saved for the future. I'm going to make you famous.

Looks like you didn't read my post? As I said, if you bought the game new at retail you would not be paying extra for the final boss. The developer gets their royalties, you get your game.

Look the problem isn't second-hand sales per se, it is the practice of retail making it into their primary revenue model. It hurts the industry and we need to protect ourselves from it as creators.

No, thanks, I read fine. If you cherry pick your arguments while ignoring what everyone else is ACTUALLY talking about that would be a failure on your part.

And thank you for identifying yourself as part of the industry so we will know how you stand. Have you worked at a Game store recently? Do you know they were closing down years ago and have been bought up into just about one company now for a reason? Do you have a solution for them on how to survive on the razor thin profit margin of new games alone or will you be happy with just Wal-mart as your only retail presence? Do you feel the same on game rentals? Did you ever rent games as a kid? Do you use blockbuster or netflix even though you don't support this model for your industry?

 

[Eel O'Brian]

The only thing that's disingenuous here is making up quotes.

The actual issue of leaving out the end of the game is an extreme one...laughable. I mean really, does anyone here think it's even within the realm of possibility for a retail title? Come on now.

Oh, someone will try to do it, eventually. But they'll only do it once.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

I think the reason was that MS wanted a 300$ system out there. And this DLC we are talking about, is but a code, something that would be really small i'm guessing.

And in any case, uh what does that have to do with other Publishers doing things in their own way?

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what they publicly announced. We're also talking about game content, which MS has gone out of their was to make customers pay for when developers have wanted to give free maps for fans, so I don't think MS considers it to be a small thing (though that's arbitrary here). Which brings us to other publishers wanting to do things in their own way, MS have prevented such in the past.

So can you see the hypocrisy on behalf of the industry here?

MS provides systems for those that don't want DLC > MS allowing publishers go include DLC as part of retail packages > MS provides systems for those that don't want DLC?

 

[ZealousD]

I haven't seen anyone in this topic arguing about what he actually suggested. Everyone I see bitching is assuming that they'll have to pay for an ending regardless, when the suggestion he put a voice to (not his own, even!) was that new copies would get a code to download the ending while used/pirated copies would pay a fee.

If you see something wrong with that, please expand on your concern. These one-liners aren't very conducive to discussion.

edit: See, the GameFly angle I hadn't thought of. Good point!

Here's another angle you probably hadn't thought of. Paid DLC endings for used game buyers means that it's less likely that people buy used, right? That means the average sale price for used copies of the game would go down (supply and demand), whether at GameStop or on eBay.

Which means... if you decide to fucking hate Gears 2 and you want to sell it, you're going to get less for that copy than if they didn't have the paid DLC.

 

[itxaka]

Simple solution for developers.

Incorporate registration codes like with Windows. You either register online, or via telephone. You get a limited number of installs (like 2), before you have to call in and prove your identity. This would effectively kill rentals and re-sales in one easy motion.

Because giving consumers control over what they bought is not a good idea right?

No way I'm buying a 65€ game day one without knowing that I cannot resell it if I don't like it or get bored.

That is getting closely to the music industry, who wants you to pay for the products but use them as they want, and that is non acceptable in my book.

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

So you agree with him, while trying to disagree?

He's saying he's fine with it if it doesn't affect singleplayer. Maybe I was wrong and this thread really is a clusterfuck of poor reading comprehension.

 

[Chrange]

Here's another angle you probably hadn't thought of. Paid DLC endings for used game buyers means that it's less likely that people buy used, right? That means the average sale price for used copies of the game would go down (supply and demand), whether at GameStop or on eBay.

Which means... if you decide to fucking hate Gears 2 and you want to sell it, you're going to get less for that copy than if they didn't have the paid DLC.

How far did you have to stretch for that one?

 

[Slavik81]

You say he's stopping one step short of online activation. How is that not hysterics when you actually read what he said?

Epic has nothing to do with the 'buy the boss' bullshit people are spouting off about.

How is the idea he's referring to not one step short of online activation? You're not telling me anything about why you disagree.

He said:
"I’ve talked to some developers who are saying ‘If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free’."

In the idea he's talking about, the retail version would have an online activation code that would allow you to play part of the game. If you did not get the retail version, you'd have to essentially rebuy part of game from the developer.

I find that very similar to giving you a CD code in your Left4Dead box that would allow you to play the entire game on Steam. If you bought the game second hand, the code would have already been used on Steam and you'd have to rebuy the entire game.

It's a matter of extent.



So I've explained myself again. If you still disagree, please be more specific in your criticism.

 

[Diablos]

If gaming ever gets to this point... how pathetic...

 

[nyong]

Because giving consumers control over what they bought is not a good idea right?

No way I'm buying a 65€ game day one without knowing that I cannot resell it if I don't like it or get bored.

That is getting closely to the music industry, who wants you to pay for the products but use them as they want, and that is non acceptable in my book.

Well, with the rise in developments costs I would imagine that many studios are having a harder time turning a profit. Game development is anything but 'low risk'

Sooner or later they're going to have to figure out a way to make more money, and putting a stop to rentals and used game sales is probably the best way.

 

[gregor7777]

:lol :lol Quote saved for the future. I'm going to make you famous.

:lol

Care to make a perm bet?

Retail title, missing ending, download required to get it.

 

[Crisco]

I wish developers would start pricing games relative to their value. There have a been some steps made in this direction, but they need to take it further. When $10 XBLA and PSN games offer more content and replayability than $60 full retail releases, there is a problem.

I blame the proliferation of the rental and used game market squarely on developers and publishers who keep raising prices while simultaneously reducing value. Do they honestly believe will choose to spend $60 on something like Mirror's Edge or Dead Space, when given the choice to purchase Gears of War 2 or LittleBigPlanet?

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

The main reason this is awful: it communicates that by paying for a game you're merely purchasing the right to play it, and not the right to own your copy. True ownership allows the power to fully resell. This shit should be illegal.

 

[haowan]

Well, with the rise in developments costs I would imagine that many studios are having a harder time turning a profit. Game development is anything but 'low risk'

Sooner or later they're going to have to figure out a way to make more money, and putting a stop to rentals and used game sales is probably the best way.

Yes - and it needs to stop now before it gets further out of hand. HMV have just announced they're doing used game sales. Where is the used CD section in HMV? Where is the used DVD section? How is it possible to fuck an entire industry like this without repercussions?

 

[Kapsama]

How about the big publishers take Gamestop to court and demand a cut from used sales rather than coming up with new ways to hurt customers?

 

[linsivvi]

It's signed to only work on one console.

Eh, no. As long as a console is hacked, games can be modified to by-pass any kind of check and DLC can be installed via external ports.

Even though they don't get any money from 2nd hand games anyway, what he suggested would just encourage more piracy. People who buy 2nd hand games buy new games too. But when somebody is motivated enough to pirate one game, there's nothing to stop them from pirating everything.

Just another idea from a typical suit who are too disconnected with consumers.

 

[Ponn]

:lol

Care to make a perm bet?

Retail title, missing ending, download required to get it.

I think perm bets are stupid. And really, we both would lose in the end

 

[jibblypop]

What a suggestion. I thought games couldn't get any worse than they've got to this generation with ads on everything and DLC that costs money. These jerks will always find a way to ruin it even more.

 

[realraptor]

As long as the DLC is FREE, it might be interesting to see how things turn out.

EDIT: Damn it, didn't read the first post clearly.

 

[itxaka]

Well, with the rise in developments costs I would imagine that many studios are having a harder time turning a profit. Game development is anything but 'low risk'

Sooner or later they're going to have to figure out a way to make more money, and putting a stop to rentals and used game sales is probably the best way.

For them. And it's a solution at short term. Do you believe people is gonna buy 65$(or whatever they start to charge in the future, 100$?) games knowing that it will be difficult to sell them or even exchange them for another game?

In my opinion, if somebody will try to do that it will be a big big error and a total "fuck you" to the consumer.

 

[Malvolio]

I think this idea is decent but needs to benefit the consumer more. I think all action/story driven games should have an option where you buy the game for say $20. You play halfway through the game and can unlock the second half for an additional $20. Then you get to the end and can give them the final $20 if you want to complete the game. This way consumers aren't out a full $60 if your game is a POS. Yet if you've created a $60 worthy game anyone who has finished your game will have given you the full amount.

Solves the problem for them and one for us too.

 

[haowan]

The main reason this is awful: it communicates that by paying for a game you're merely purchasing the right to play it, and not the right to own your copy. True ownership allows the power to fully resell. This shit should be illegal.

You're dodging the issue to push your own IP rights agenda. Imagine that the product as labelled is a paid-for demo of the first 80% of a game. Anyone can have the last 20% but you have to pay the developer directly for that last section. Do it in the shop or do it online, up to you but if you want to see the end of the game, we'll sell it to you from our own shop.

 

[Mooreberg]

So you agree with him, while trying to disagree?

No. I understand the issue of relying on GameStop to push your game, while at the same time telling people to trade it back in a week later so they can make a higher margin on a used game sale. But creating more hurdles for the customer is a braindead idea. They should do more promotions with stores like Best Buy and Walmart that don't sell used games. They could also do a lot more to create an incentive for keeping games for a longer period of time. There are so many games that come out now that take less than 10 hours to beat and have no replay value for the people who don't want to be called some type of racial epithet by a 13 year old online.

 

[malsumis]

first company to do it gets a lifetime ban for my money, period.

 

[SovanJedi]

I know that it's a shrinking demographic, but how does this benefit people who don't have internet connections on their home consoles?

Oh and also: lol Youtube.

 

[soco]

sounds like a great idea.

wouldn't really kill much as everyone would get the fake 'end' message and then go to youtube to see what they missed.

 

[Farnack]

Epic Fail.

 

[haowan]

The likely outcome is free/paid noncritical DLC (see: Dead Space) available for retail users and locked out multiplayer modes and other internet-specific stuff. If it's unlockable via internet then the content should be internet-based. That's clear.

With that out the way, is this still a bad idea? How does it hurt you?

 

[Xapati]

I can't believe people actually approve of this shit. Are you people actually happy about reducing the value of your property? And what happens if your 360 RROD's? Gonna pay Cliffy some extra cash? What when the servers go down? I mean I know people also defend draconian drm that prevents you from installing the game more then five times, basically turning you're purchase into a long term rental, but the sheer willingness to give away their rights is simply mind-boggeling.

 

[gabe90]

How about the big publishers take Gamestop to court and demand a cut from used sales rather than coming up with new ways to hurt customers?

To be fair, I haven't read through every post, but thank you for actually suggesting something different.

I think we can all agree that the industry is being hurt by used game sales. People are trying to come up with ideas to make sure that game developers are not suffocated by the retail shops taking all the profit.

This is one suggestion, and I find it interesting. IMO the real question here is whether downloadable games are close enough that GameStop will be going out of biz soon enough anyways? Next gen, will we have full DLC?

 

[nyong]

Apparently I misunderstood what the OP was saying.

So you have access to the entire game if you purchase it as new retail? And you still have the option of selling the game, but buyers of used titles will have to spend a bit more for the entire experience?

I don't see a problem here. In fact, I would fully support this move.

 

[jepjepjep]

I think a lot of people forget that games are a medium just like books and movies. I go back and play 20 year old video games (I played Snatcher for the first time this year). If you eliminate the used market, you eliminate the future use of the game. I know that Gamestop is evil, but please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As true fans of gaming, we should be thinking about the preservation of our games for the future. If part of the game is locked through DRM-laden DLC, and the publisher/developer goes out of business, that game can be lost forever.

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

You're dodging the issue to push your own IP rights agenda. Imagine that the product as labelled is a paid-for demo of the first 80% of a game. Anyone can have the last 20% but you have to pay the developer directly for that last section. Do it in the shop or do it online, up to you but if you want to see the end of the game, we'll sell it to you from our own shop.

Dodging the issue? Complete ownership is the entire fucking issue here. You're paying for the whole game, but you only truly own 80% of it? What is that shit?

As for your example, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Which means... if you decide to fucking hate Gears 2 and you want to sell it, you're going to get less for that copy than if they didn't have the paid DLC.

Unless you decide you want to sell it before you reach the end, then you can sell it for big bucks with code included.

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

GAMES R DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Projectjustice]

If they want to beat the 2nd hand market, they need to treat the 1st hand market better. This is not the way to do it.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

I must've missed the part where Epic said you couldn't.

 

[Version 3.0]

Why are we assuming this would end used game sales? It's not like Gamestop wouldn't take trade-ins, or that they would advertise to their used game audience that the game they're selling won't work quite right. I think their used sales wouldn't decline all that much. Instead, you'd just end up with some pissed-off customers who would get the finger-pointing routine.

I still think it's lame that publishers want to be paid more than once for one game. This would also affect lending games, or buying one copy for multiple-console households. The solution to the "problem" of used games isn't this sort of BS. It's providing a reason to own the game or buy it new. Try selling at a reasonable price and see how fast used sales dry up.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

I must've missed the part where Epic said you couldn't.

The part where they even suggest the idea of doing such bullshit as to remove part of the game just because I decide to sell it. Or conversely, if I decide to buy something pre-owned.

My property, my right.

 

[realraptor]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

You can do whatever you want within LEGAL means or as long as you don't get caught.

 

[Version 3.0]

GAMES R DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, they're not. Game makers are different, though: they're whinier and think they're entitled to get paid for the same product again and again.

 

[Chrange]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

Even the red names aren't reading the OP?

 

[Scrubking]

I buy a book, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a CD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a DVD, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a set of furniture, I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

I buy a game, I better be fucking able to do whatever the hell I want with it.

Fuck you Epic.

QFT

 

[Dragona Akehi]

You can do whatever you want within LEGAL means or as long as you don't get caught.

Legal means: it's my property and I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, including destroying it if I so choose.

The idea that you're given a licence for a game is complete and utter bullshit.

Why are you people so eager and adamant about giving up your few remaining consumer rights?

Even the red names aren't reading the OP?

I'm telling them to fuck off on the very notion they could even attempt to try this in the future. The fact it even crossed their minds is an affront to gamers, consumers, and people everywhere.