Support NeoGAF

[Enco]

That thread was not about Rage, but simply an opinion on the matter, no?

as far as I know id haven't implemented an always online DRM for Rage.



With respect to the OT, it seems fine I guess as I'll be there day one.
Better to be side content than multiplayer.

Would be nice if it was just on the damn disc though

I'm guessing they'll consider adding it to future games if they support it.

Not sure if Rage has it.

 

[Zzoram]

Does this mean every PC buyer gets it since you can't buy PC version used?

 

[-tetsuo-]

Does this mean every PC buyer gets it since you can't buy PC version used?

But of course

 

[NBtoaster]

That is indeed the case.

The contents of the aforementioned sewers is unknown.

The wording makes it clear that you won't be greatly gimped without access to these.

 

[-tetsuo-]

The wording makes it clear that you won't be greatly gimped without access to these.

The sewers are, in actuality, Doom 4.

 

[OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather]

That thread was not about Rage, but simply an opinion on the matter, no?

as far as I know id haven't implemented an always online DRM for Rage.

No, they haven't. Yet. With their strong vocal support of always on DRM, you can count on them including it though.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=440348

So that's a possible always on DRM, and locking out single player content. Keep up the good work, id.

 

[Striek]

Online passes just make gaming seem like a fucking chore. Sooner or later publishers will realise that if they're so hard up they have to squeeze $10 out of the fraction of consumers who buy used and the fraction of those who are willing to pay for such passes, something is seriously fucking wrong.

And to all the idiots finding nothing wrong, SMH. They're stripping content off your discs, making you go online, input a code, spend time downloading that content, all while reducing the resale value and utility of your purchase. Great deal.

 

[Bog]

Do they want me to play their game or not? Ok, no problem with that, I can easily buy something else, all you have to do is say.

Uh, if you're buying it used, they don't really give a damn. If you're buying it new, you shouldn't have a problem with this.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Yup, people only ever get annoyed by things that directly affect them, you're correct. No such thing as 'principles'.

What principles?

People buying the games I love second hand (with the excuse that some of that money will channel back to some random developer) means less budget/reward for the people who make the games I love (and possibly more for some random shitgame dev).

If you don't pay the people who make it then you have no right to make demands.
It will affect me too btw, I buy the occasional second hand game (where I don't want to give my money to the developer, usually games with DRM) so I won't have access to mp/sp content either.

Shitty lan support doesn't affect me either, because the lan I play on with friends has a good connection, but I still hate it when a mp shooter or rts doesn't bother supporting it.
Not everyone is a selfish asshole with double standards.

Piracy vs second hand is double standards though, keep it up guys.

The only valid argument I've seen here is about having to enter a stupid code or register a game, fuck that indeed, let them use a system like steam where you just install and enter your normal cd key and are done.
edit: oh and offline only players, another valid argument.
Poor execution will most likely be a problem here, but people complaining about the principle behind it are hypocrits.

 

[Suairyu]

And to all the idiots finding nothing wrong, SMH. They're stripping content off your discs, making you go online, input a code, spend time downloading that content, all while reducing the resale value and utility of your purchase. Great deal.

Until you mentioned resale value (not a concern of the developers), you had something of a point. Being forced to download stuff that should be there in the first place is indeed a valid counterpoint to new-only content argument.

 

[alr1ght]

So, y'know, I'd like to just hear how people are equating this to DRM - something that does negatively impact the company's actual customers.

How about those 35% (?) of console users that aren't connected online? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who lend games to children/friends/family? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who want to sell the game after they're finished? Yeah, those actual consumers.

So, y'know, I'd like to just hear how this does positively impact the company's actual customers.

Until you mentioned resale value (not a concern of the developers), you had something of a point.

It is a concern of me (THE CONSUMER) when I place a value on a potential new game buy. If I know I can sell it for $40 a week after I completed it, it has very little risk. If I know I cannot sell it and I'm stuck with $40 sitting on my shelf, it has a tremendous amount of risk. Which basically equates to less purchases.

 

[raphier]

What principles?

People buying the games I love second hand (with the excuse that some of that money will channel back to some random developer) means less budget/reward for the people who make the games I love (and possibly more for some random shitgame dev).

If you don't pay the people who make it then you have no right to make demands.
It will affect me too btw, I buy the occasional second hand game (where I don't want to give my money to the developer, usually games with DRM) so I won't have access to mp/sp content either.

I would agree, if it was indie. But big companies, they are on salaries and most of the money goes to the biggest moneyhat, the shareholder who doesn't believe in games.

 

[Suairyu]

How about those 35% (?) of console users that aren't connected online? Yeah those actual consumers.

(Extremely) valid point.

How about players who lend games to children/friends/family? Yeah those actual consumers.

Valid point.

How about players who want to sell the game after they're finished? Yeah, those actual consumers.

Not a valid point.

 

[Reuenthal]

Here is what I suggest or rather have no problem with a company doing.

A) Any DLC or content you have at the time the game has shipped is included.

B) Additional content created preferably quite some time after that that might be offered to first time buyers for free or some other group like those who pre ordered it.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

My pre-order is ready.

 

[SneakyStephan]

How about those 35% (?) of console users that aren't connected online? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who lend games to children/friends/family? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who want to sell the game after they're finished? Yeah, those actual consumers.

So, y'know, I'd like to just hear how this does positively impact the company's actual customers.


It is a concern of me (THE CONSUMER) when I place a value on a potential new game buy. If I know I can sell it for $40 a week after I completed it, it has very little risk. If I know I cannot sell it and I'm stuck with $40 sitting on my shelf, it has a tremendous amount of risk. Which basically equates to less purchases.

Sounds like you need to stop buying bad games and start trying demos.
If a game isn't worth it's price then don't buy it at all or wait for a price drop, that is called voting with your wallet.

Second hand market causing people to blindly buy shitty 60 dollar games sends a terrible message.

I would agree, if it was indie. But big companies, they are on salaries and most of the money goes to the biggest moneyhat, the shareholder who doesn't believe in games.

That's a problem on it's own and it can't be solved by just boycotting all games.
If you hate moneyhatters, don't buy their games, or do buy them second hand but don't complain about the limitations, because those will exist to protect the people who DO make games worth buying.

 

[Goldmund]

The new consoles should implement a method to tag the profiles of people who buy games used. It would only be visible to publishers/developers. This way »sewer content« could be secretly sealed off even if you did happen to buy a game from the same publisher/developer new for once, as a form of punishment.

 

[Striek]

Until you mentioned resale value (not a concern of the developers), you had something of a point. Being forced to download stuff that should be there in the first place is indeed a valid counterpoint to new-only content argument.

(Extremely) valid point.
Valid point.
Not a valid point.

The fuck? I'm not mentioning the concern of developers and that was a valid point. Why the fuck should I as a consumer care about the developers point of view. If I buy a game new and the developer/publisher went out of their way to reduce my resale value thats fucking bullshit. When I buy a book or a movie - new or used - I don't give a shit about whether the author or the production company makes money.

Having less rights to a product you buy is bullshit. I can understand people not liking it but feeling its inevitable and they want the games so much so whatever, but I can't understand people who actually sympathise with companies and actually support moves like this.

 

[Ken]

But as you're not actually the company's customer, why should they care about how you feel?

Because not being one company's customer means that I'll be another company's customer elsewhere.

 

[erragal]

How about those 35% (?) of console users that aren't connected online? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who lend games to children/friends/family? Yeah those actual consumers.
How about players who want to sell the game after they're finished? Yeah, those actual consumers.

So, y'know, I'd like to just hear how this does positively impact the company's actual customers.


It is a concern of me (THE CONSUMER) when I place a value on a potential new game buy. If I know I can sell it for $40 a week after I completed it, it has very little risk. If I know I cannot sell it and I'm stuck with $40 sitting on my shelf, it has a tremendous amount of risk. Which basically equates to less purchases.

Did you just make up a statistic and KNOW you made it up to try and bolster your point? Yet you're calling everyone else idiots for favoring developers getting money over vendors? Do you own stock in Gamestop?

If you're only playing games for a week but buying them new you're not being efficient with your money to begin with. I'd highly reccommend that you invest in an online game rental service; especially since it's clear you don't play PC games either. Strangely enough the developers get more money if you rent games than if you buy them used.

 

[Raonak]

im all for new buyer incentives.

 

[WanderingWind]

Because not being one company's customer means that I'll be another company's customer elsewhere.

Well, no. Not necessarily.

 

[Ken]

Well, no. Not necessarily.

It does for me and I wasn't speaking for others.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Because not being one company's customer means that I'll be another company's customer elsewhere.

This argument holds up for piracy just as much as the second hand market.
It is always agressively attacked by the anti pirate force, so the incredible irony is just too funny every time I see it mentioned here.

It's a pretty poor excuse for capitalism/free market when throwing a dart at a list is what decides who gets the money for your work haha.

Equal distribution for all comrade.
Most of you commie hating gamestop loving xbox players should think before you act.

 

[erragal]

Having less rights to a product you buy is bullshit. I can understand people not liking it but feeling its inevitable and they want the games so much so whatever, but I can't understand people who actually sympathise with companies and actually support moves like this.

You can't understand because you don't believe that people who create ideas are valuable or that what they do matters. If you did you'd respect the rights of a content creator (Whether it be a movie, book, game, song, card game, board game) to choose how to distribute and control their creation. You're approaching everything from the perspective that every content created must be distributed in a manner of your choosing. This is ridiculously common on this board and it's such a false premise. You don't have a right to be sold everything you're interested in; if you're not willing to meet the terms of the creator of that content than you're not their customer.

Why is this concept so challenging to understand? You didn't make anything so you don't have any say in how it's distributed. Some of us have 'sympathy' with content creators because we understand the amount of work, effort, and time that goes into creating that content and recognize that quality content creation is actually a skill that should be rewarded instead of treating it like a disposable commodity that anyone can replicate. When you take away the right of a creative entity/individual to control their ideas you're destroying any incentive to put the time and effort into creating polished publicly accessible content.

Do you understand THAT?

 

[WanderingWind]

It does for me and I wasn't speaking for others.

I think if you were to honestly look at it, and decide to only purchase anything from companies who you personally agree with 100 percent of the time you'd probably grow your own crops, tilling the earth with tools you fashioned from the root vegetables you also feast on.

 

[glaurung]

I think if you were to honestly look at it, and decide to only purchase anything from companies who you personally agree with 100 percent of the time you'd probably grow your own crops, tilling the earth with tools you fashioned from the root vegetables you also feast on.

Our children will play with squirrels instead of video games.

 

[Visualante]

Not a valid point.

Yes it is, used games increases numbers of heads in game stores. Often credit is used to buy new games. It exposes people to new games, and instead people are being forced to buy less games as easily, because they are unable to trade in games. It's a poor choice, and premature.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Am I misreading this or are people actually happy that a game is sealing off singleplayer content unless you buy it breand new?

It all comes down to the developer.

Because it's id...it's called "a great idea".

If it were Valve...it would be called "the best idea ever". (although I don't believe Valve would ever do something like this.)

If it were Bioware...this thread would be at 79 pages already.

 

[WanderingWind]

You're approaching everything from the perspective that every content created must be distributed in a manner of your choosing.

...you mean like a consumer who has to make choices with their money, as opposed to a developer whose job it is to make the same? Imagine that.

 

[IonicSnake]

I actually rather take online pass for multiplayer stuff than single player stuff being locked out if you buy it used.

 

[SneakyStephan]

You can't understand because you don't believe that people who create ideas are valuable or that what they do matters. If you did you'd respect the rights of a content creator (Whether it be a movie, book, game, song, card game, board game) to choose how to distribute and control their creation. You're approaching everything from the perspective that every content created must be distributed in a manner of your choosing. This is ridiculously common on this board and it's such a false premise. You don't have a right to be sold everything you're interested in; if you're not willing to meet the terms of the creator of that content than you're not their customer.

Why is this concept so challenging to understand? You didn't make anything so you don't have any say in how it's distributed. Some of us have 'sympathy' with content creators because we understand the amount of work, effort, and time that goes into creating that content and recognize that quality content creation is actually a skill that should be rewarded instead of treating it like a disposable commodity that anyone can replicate. When you take away the right of a creative entity/individual to control their ideas you're destroying any incentive to put the time and effort into creating polished publicly accessible content.

Do you understand THAT?

You don't even have to go there (and I disagree on most of it, as in if a content creator can't meet your needs then you shouldn't have to excuse yourself for going elsewhere).
But these people aren't looking to buy from the content creators to begin with, that is why they have no rights.
As a seller, you get the full use of your product as long as you keep it, it only affects the buyer. If that tanks your precious resale value? tough shit.

Maybe you should start up a store if you are looking to set up trades for eveything you buy, and then you can go live in it.

Physical goods actually degrade over time and break, so at least there the second hand market doesn't cause the normal market to tank, because a new product has real value over a used one.

Digital content doesn't work like that, so big surprise if content creators choose to artificially do it to protect themselves.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

The fuck? I'm not mentioning the concern of developers and that was a valid point. Why the fuck should I as a consumer care about the developers point of view. If I buy a game new and the developer/publisher went out of their way to reduce my resale value thats fucking bullshit. When I buy a book or a movie - new or used - I don't give a shit about whether the author or the production company makes money.

Having less rights to a product you buy is bullshit. I can understand people not liking it but feeling its inevitable and they want the games so much so whatever, but I can't understand people who actually sympathise with companies and actually support moves like this.

People with attitudes like you(I don't give a fuck about the devs making the games I love to play blah blah blah) are why we are one step closer to having all games require a product key tied to an Xbox live / PSN account with an always on connection being required to play.

And devs can do whatever the hell they want to protect their game so more people have incentive to purchase new. Striek, you just bitched about your resell value being affected. You sit here and say you don't give two fucks about the people who make our content and then complain about how dare they do something that lowers my resell value, like they have some obligation to make sure they maximize the money you can get by reselling the game when you don't give a fuck about them???? Some of you guys really crack me up.

 

[Fersis]

I will buy it brand new week one to support the devs.

 

[subversus]

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

 

[Suairyu]

Because not being one company's customer means that I'll be another company's customer elsewhere.

No you won't. You'll go purchase some other company's product second hand, thus not being their customer either.

 

[Frankfurt]

I'm fine with this. If you don't buy the game new, you're not actually giving money to the company, so they don't owe you anything.

 

[Striek]

Just wow.

You can't understand because you don't believe that people who create ideas are valuable or that what they do matters.

Did you just pull that out of your ass?

If you did you'd respect the rights of a content creator (Whether it be a movie, book, game, song, card game, board game) to choose how to distribute and control their creation. You're approaching everything from the perspective that every content created must be distributed in a manner of your choosing. This is ridiculously common on this board and it's such a false premise. You don't have a right to be sold everything you're interested in; if you're not willing to meet the terms of the creator of that content than you're not their customer.

Herp derp. No, I'm not 'approaching everything from the perspective that every content created must be distributed in a manner of my choosing', I'm saying its fucking illogical to be happy to accept less than what you got yesterday for the same thing without question.

Why is this concept so challenging to understand? You didn't make anything so you don't have any say in how it's distributed.
No shit sherlock. I don't publish videogames. Publishers can and are abusing digital distribution mechanisms.

Some of us have 'sympathy' with content creators because we understand the amount of work, effort, and time that goes into creating that content and recognize that quality content creation is actually a skill that should be rewarded instead of treating it like a disposable commodity that anyone can replicate.

What is this I don't even. Rewarding the content creators are the people who buy the content.... ie. me, you, anyone else who buys games. In an ideal world we'd be able to take that content we've purchased and do whatever the fuck we want with it. ALL of it.

When you take away the right of a creative entity/individual to control their ideas you're destroying any incentive to put the time and effort into creating polished publicly accessible content.

Okaay.

Do you understand THAT?

No, your position is still quite illogical, but after that rant I have to believe you're more intimately involved in this affair... because otherwise... just wow.

 

[Striek]

People with attitudes like you(I don't give a fuck about the devs making the games I love to play blah blah blah) are why we are one step closer to having all games require a product key tied to an Xbox live / PSN account with an always on connection being required to play.

And devs can do whatever the hell they want to protect their game so more people have incentive to purchase new. Striek, you just bitched about your resell value being affected. You sit here and say you don't give two fucks about the people who make our content and then complain about how dare they do something that lowers my resell value, like they have some obligation to make sure they maximize the money you can get by reselling the game when you don't give a fuck about them???? Some of you guys really crack me up.

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.

 

[erragal]

...you mean like a consumer who has to make choices with their money, as opposed to a developer whose job it is to make the same? Imagine that.

No. A reasonable consumer can look at a product and how it's distributed and say "Ok I choose not to buy this because of this reason."

An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator. Why would any human being ever expect that? It's cognitive dissonance; you are saying that you should only do what's best for yourself and the content creator should only do what's best for you. That makes no sense? Why do people expect that? Are people really that entitled in this day and age? It's awful.

 

[Amneisac]

I was super hyped for this game and Skyrim both (love TES), but I'll wait on both, because all DLC and shit like this does is reward people for waiting two years and picking up the GOTY (patched and functional) edition for $20 and skipping the bullshit.

 

[Dynoro]

I will buy it brand new week one to support the devs.

Don't know about day one - but I will buy it new (I don't buy or sell used games unless they are no longer available for initial sale)

 

[SneakyStephan]

Tell me Striek, what incentive does any content creator/working man etc have to deliver a good product if they have no guarantee that the money for it will end up in their hands , but will end up in the hands of any other random content creator/worker.

Why the fuck would you even try then, then your new priority would just be to exist as creator, market to get your piece of the pie, and spend as little as possible doing so.
The industry is doing a good enough job on it's own to corrupt itself like that, they don't need your help.

Enthousiasts/talented people need to be nurtured, the untalented/jaded money grabbers DON'T need a piggy back.
Yet you seem okay with it as long as some of your cash ends up in the hands of some developer.

 

[Mithos]

I will buy it brand new week one to support the devs.

The retailer you bought from was the one supporting the devs, FYI, not a single cent/dime whatever you payed for the game was sent to the devs/publishers.

Unless of cause you bought it from the devs/publishers own webshop?

 

[GraveRobberX]

I'm still confused to what is being hidden away?

Sewer? of what?

If it is random "dungeon" that helps the Day 1 users get an advantage to certain weapon/items...no big deal...almost has a Fallout Vault vibe to it

Now if this is a part of the story, or something that can affect the overall game, then this is some bullshit

Remember all those Pro-Corporate GAF "Dev's gotta' Eat yo'" for PSN Pass, Capcom 1 save slot BS, now maybe that shit is infesting Single Player =/

I can't wait for SkyRim and their Day 1 policy of hiding 2 dragons behind a mountain, and only way you access to the mountain is a "CAVE" but the doors is locked by an ancient magic, Day 1 users get a spell that will open the doors to enter and enjoy it

 

[Enco]

I will buy it brand new week one to support the devs.

If you like the game then cool. If you're doing it mainly to support the devs then you're being stupid.

 

[Ken]

No you won't. You'll go purchase some other company's product second hand, thus not being their customer either.

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.

 

[FrankT]

It was day one for me anyhow. So all good in my book.

 

[Reuenthal]

No. A reasonable consumer can look at a product and how it's distributed and say "Ok I choose not to buy this because of this reason."

An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator. Why would any human being ever expect that? It's cognitive dissonance; you are saying that you should only do what's best for yourself and the content creator should only do what's best for you. That makes no sense? Why do people expect that? Are people really that entitled in this day and age? It's awful.

Consumers expecting behavior that does not derive their product of value and is consumer friendly is certainly not awful and not a sign of this day and age. In this case, consumers not only vote with their money but also with their mouths and keyboards.

 

[sk3tch]

This has to be the dumbest incentive yet. Don't get all cutesy on me. Just give me my game and content. As if a bunch of sewers is going to make me buy the game at or near release for the full $59.99. I'd rather save $20+ or more by waiting a few weeks for the price drop, sale, or a used copy. These sewers are catered to the hardcore and that's who is already buying the game no matter what. This doesn't make sense to me at all.