Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Secret Project. All your IP are belong to us.

Click this to register, but you're probably an user anyway because we do have any friends.


If you're already an member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gaming News
Topic Started: Aug 28 2011, 09:03 AM (32,875 Views)
SaiyanShredder
Member Avatar
Saiyan gon...
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Am I the only one here who hates games that require a pass to play online? It's an unnecessary feature to have given how popular online play is today.

The copy of Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One I got from my friend requires an online pass, and since he got the game used, I'm shit out of luck unless I spend $10 to buy a new pass.

tl;dr Online passes are bullshitty bullshit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bigcalv2002
Member Avatar
Da resident crazy canuck!!
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah im not a supporter of it either. Personally I can wait for most games to come down in price after they are first released. That way I get all the benefits and a lower price. But if im going to buy the game the day its releases (like I will with mass efect 3), it wont matter anyways.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LifeAgainstDeath
Member Avatar
Sexual Orientation: Not Picky

How big time publishers like EA or Warner Bros. can justify that their games won't sell enough to the point that they have to punish people who buy used games with online passes is beyond me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Antunee
Member Avatar
#1 Girl
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Online passes can blow themselves. As far as I know, the only games that have online passes also have dedicated servers. The server cost argument is bullshit though. Developers can choose to have host-to-host servers instead of dedicated servers. Why certain developers like MUST have dedicated servers is above me, especially since they know it will piss people off when they shut it down citing the cost of keeping it running. EA is bad about this, so I'll use them as an example.

Honestly, I'll explode when EA shuts down Madden 11's servers. Why are you shutting down the servers if you are selling online passes to make your money back on hosting the server? Fucking greed. That's why.

Here's a little statistical data. Microsoft charges developers $40k to allow their game to have player-to-player servers. That's a piss in the ocean for most big name companies. How much money do you think they really spend on dedicated servers if they'd rather have those than player-to-player? And surely they make more than enough off their games to have p2p servers instead of dedicated servers. But, you know, if they had p2p servers, they couldn't charge for online passes. Or could they?

"Anti-used" protection is retarded. There is no possible way to implement this without pissing many people off. Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea, be it to compensate the developers or the distributors, or for any other reason needs to be beaten repeatedly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
failureatlife
Member Avatar
Indiscriminately discriminates
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Really Microsoft? I go through the trouble of defending you and giving you my business and you go and pull this shit? Fucking really?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LightningBolt
Member Avatar
Boring Person
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/01/29/ace-a...stered-for-ios/

Ace Attorney 5 was announced. I know some people here like it so yeah.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romanticide
Member Avatar
Cult Leader
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
LightningBolt
Jan 29 2012, 11:20 AM
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/01/29/ace-a...stered-for-ios/

Ace Attorney 5 was announced. I know some people here like it so yeah.

We didn't get the second Miles Edgeworth game. I'm not holding my breath for this one. :/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snowman
Member Avatar
Berserker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Twisted Metal demo on Tuesday! That's for North America, though. I assume other regions get it on whatever day their stores update, though. IIRC, Europe is Thursday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CALJR_8760
Member Avatar
The Lonely One
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A new hope?
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive...-t-too-bad.aspx

I'm perfectly fine with this. You can play the game, with some features that are left out. It's not game breaking, but its still enough incentive for some consumers to choose the new copy instead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Antunee
Member Avatar
#1 Girl
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It still irks me that a developer will lock out certain players to content already on-disc, like a few companies did with "Day 1" DLC where the DLC itself was already on-disc, and the "DLC" was just a key to unlock it. This sounds exactly the same as that to me. Like I said before, instead of limiting content that's already on-disc, add incentives to make people want to buy it new. Don't take away content that is already there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LifeAgainstDeath
Member Avatar
Sexual Orientation: Not Picky

>still $10

EA gon EA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CALJR_8760
Member Avatar
The Lonely One
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Andami
Jan 30 2012, 11:12 PM
It still irks me that a developer will lock out certain players to content already on-disc, like a few companies did with "Day 1" DLC where the DLC itself was already on-disc, and the "DLC" was just a key to unlock it. This sounds exactly the same as that to me. Like I said before, instead of limiting content that's already on-disc, add incentives to make people want to buy it new. Don't take away content that is already there.

That's a little different though. You HAD to pay for that. With this, if you buy it new, you get it. It's just a way for the developer to make a little bit of money. I honestly see nothing wrong with this, the standard online pass on the other hand....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Antunee
Member Avatar
#1 Girl
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
You probably see nothing wrong with it because it doesn't take away much of the gameplay, but when the pass doesn't sell (because really, who would pay $10 for experience?), they'll lock away more valuable content with their next game to insure more people will buy the pass.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Romanticide
Member Avatar
Cult Leader
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'll concede this one isn't as bad as some of the others (I own Madden '12 and I'd say that's worse), but less shitty is still shitty.

It's funny, EA did it right with Alice: Madness Returns. If you bought that game new, you got the original American McGee's Alice with the purchase. Why is that right and this wrong? Well, that was an incentive. People reply better to incentives than punishments. This is a punishment. Not an awful one, but a punishment nonetheless. Since then they have not done it right with a single release.

Anyway. How do we know the developer is truly getting any of the money that is made off these online passes?

I guess if EA, Activision, and Ubisoft were transparent about this and showed us documentation that conclusively PROVED the money were going to the developers, a lot of people against these things would shut up. The beef some people have (not all, mind you) is that this money is merely lining the pockets of publishers as opposed to developers.

That's not my gripe of course. My gripe is that it further erodes consumer rights. Not as important as civil rights or anything, but they do matter in such a consumerist society.

Someone might say, "but these are video games, you don't need them". To which I say, "it's precisely because I don't need them that I expect more of this industry." I need food and clothing and I'm not made of money. I have to accept bullshit practices (no unions, lesser pay for women, etc) from Wal-Mart just so we can stay fed and clothed without breaking our wallets. I don't have to make any such concessions to get a game.

We already don't "own the game"; we merely own a "license to play it", as if we somehow don't own the disk we paid $60 for. That's bullshit. I own every other product I have ever paid money for. Part of owning a legally acquired product is having the right to resell it, and while I do not lose that right, I effectively lose $10 when I no longer want the game because someone else will have to pay that extra $10. It *artificially* erodes the resale value of what should now be my product.

I understand that a disc being in bad condition will also erode the value, but that's not a bullshit limitation built into the product from the first sale - that was me not taking care of the disc. That's on me and I have to accept less money for my product.

I know, $10 isn't a whole lot of money. But when people sell games, most of that money goes back into the industry in one form or another. It may go back in via store credit or just using the cash to pick up something gaming-related - a new console, controller, game, points, or whatever else. It makes no sense to kill a secondary market that by and large helps the primary market make more money.

If we accept this today, it's only going to get worse tomorrow. At the start they only affected online multiplayer. Now they're slowly seeping into single player games, with the Kingdoms of Amalur pass locking out a free piece of DLC or whatever, the Rage pass locking access to sewers, amongst other games. And yet we still purchase the games brand new. Nobody is saying "this is wrong" with their wallets except for a small minority that knows what we used to have and what consumer rights are. So, the question is, "what next?" Do we all have to pay an additional $10 to play *any* used game? Do we have to be connected online at all times to ensure used/pirated (to them, used and pirated are the same though) games aren't being played? Do we all get one-time keys? Do they come up with something worse?

The video game industry has created the perfect little consumer. They fill their games with bullshit and we keep giving them money because all we give a shit about is our next fix. We're no better than crack fiends, by and large, and most of us are too blind to see that's how the industry is treating us: Like crack fiends.

The used game war also is a convenient way to drive a wedge between consumers who should be working together and voting with their wallets on what they wish to see from this industry. Instead we've been driven apart by publisher propaganda and we're fighting with each other on major gaming sites over how we choose to spend our money. It's funny, no other community gives a shit how its members choose to spend their money and acquire their products, but due to publisher propaganda, if you get your games in a way that some other gamer doesn't accept (generally the asshole who buys new all the time) you'll be insulted.


So how should it really be? I have a couple ideas, neither of which will be implemented due to all-around greed.

1) Strike a deal with Gamestop/other major used retailers.
The issue that publishers purport to have is that a store like Gamestop sees 100% of the profit from a used game, and can see it from one copy multiple times. The industry only gets money from a new game sale. You can see the issue.

A deal giving the publisher X percentage of the proceeds from a used game sale would ensure that they still get something, which in all likelihood would end the war on the used game consumer. To me a reasonable percentage would be something like 25-33% of the money. Gamestop/any other major player would still make a killing, the industry would have less to gripe about, and used game consumers would be a part of the industry. Everyone wins.

2) Focus even more on DLC/expansions.
Even the used gamer has no problem shelling out extra money for good DLC. Other than RB DLC, next on my list of DLC to purchase would be the Valkyria Chronicles DLC, which features two quests (the reward for one is a broke as fuck weapon) and the far harder "expert skirmishes", all for $15. That's good DLC that adds substantial content to the game, and I'm perfectly okay with buying such DLC.

Expansions like what you'll get with a Skyrim or a Dragon Age would be pretty swell too. Sure, those usually sell for about $20-30, but I know Bethesda has a knack for making great expansions (Shivering Isles, Tribunal, Bloodmoon) that effectively add another game's worth of content.

Of course, this requires more support of a game post-release and realizing that week one sales are not the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, another problem with the industry is that all of the focus is on early sales and pumping out yearly sequels to popular franchises. Make a good game that will last years, focus on improving it, and people will buy it new. If they don't buy new, they will still support you through DLC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LifeAgainstDeath
Member Avatar
Sexual Orientation: Not Picky

MementoVivere
Jan 31 2012, 08:58 AM
2) Focus even more on DLC/expansions.
Even the used gamer has no problem shelling out extra money for good DLC. Other than RB DLC, next on my list of DLC to purchase would be the Valkyria Chronicles DLC, which features two quests (the reward for one is a broke as fuck weapon) and the far harder "expert skirmishes", all for $15. That's good DLC that adds substantial content to the game, and I'm perfectly okay with buying such DLC.

Expansions like what you'll get with a Skyrim or a Dragon Age would be pretty swell too. Sure, those usually sell for about $20-30, but I know Bethesda has a knack for making great expansions (Shivering Isles, Tribunal, Bloodmoon) that effectively add another game's worth of content.

Of course, this requires more support of a game post-release and realizing that week one sales are not the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, another problem with the industry is that all of the focus is on early sales and pumping out yearly sequels to popular franchises. Make a good game that will last years, focus on improving it, and people will buy it new. If they don't buy new, they will still support you through DLC.

This just reminded me of something I forgot to share here: Nintendo President Mentions Downloadable Stages For Future Mario Games.

"Satoru Iwata"
 
“As I referred to before, for example, this is the idea of supplying new stages to Super Mario users who want to play the game more but have completed the game and lost interest in the existing stages,” Iwata shares. “This will not only give us new profits but will lengthen the life of a product, in that it will never be out of fashion and can keep attracting public attention as long as many people play it.”

Needless to say, I'm excited. I trust Nintendo to still release a finished product with the DLC just being an afterthought to keep the game fresh. Hopefully, this won't mean that they're just gonna cut out secret levels (considering every Mario game since Super Mario World has had them, I doubt it) and just sell those as DLC.

Also, in unrelated news, Pokémon Colosseum Developer Making Augmented Reality RPG For 3DS. That article has a few videos of the game if anyone's interested. It has piqued my interest, but not by much because no confirmation of an American (or anywhere outside Japan) release yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Entertainment · Next Topic »
Add Reply