Obviously it's probably going to be incoroporating a more responsive Kinect system, and supposedly it will be rocking a AMD 6670 chip. I expect it to be the best concole running games at the time of its release. HOWEVER the rumor that bugs me is that it will have a system that will prevent players from using second-hand games. I think that really sucks. We aren't talking about pirating here.
What about rentals? What about borrowing a game from a friend? I also expect that we may see a rise in game prices soon...and I think 60 bucks is an OK price....if your are buying Skyrim which gives you endless hours of play. Some games can be beat in 4 or 5 hours (Force Unleashed 2 anyone?). Maybe Microsoft is taking a cue from Apple with their proprietary take on buying music at the iTunes store. I will probabaly be getting an "Xbox 720" or whatever it will be called, but I'm guessing I'll be way more selective in game purchases if this rumor is true.
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-720-won-t-play-used-games-says-report-1057564 (http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-720-won-t-play-used-games-says-report-1057564)
Yep they want to kill the secondhand market as Microsoft and the publishers don't make any money on these.
Quote from: Chris-El on February 19, 2012, 05:15:50 AM
Obviously it's probably going to be incoroporating a more responsive Kinect system, and supposedly it will be rocking a AMD 6670 chip. I expect it to be the best concole running games at the time of its release. HOWEVER the rumor that bugs me is that it will have a system that will prevent players from using second-hand games. I think that really sucks. We aren't talking about pirating here.
What about rentals? What about borrowing a game from a friend? I also expect that we may see a rise in game prices soon...and I think 60 bucks is an OK price....if your are buying Skyrim which gives you endless hours of play. Some games can be beat in 4 or 5 hours (Force Unleashed 2 anyone?). Maybe Microsoft is taking a cue from Apple with their proprietary take on buying music at the iTunes store. I will probabaly be getting an "Xbox 720" or whatever it will be called, but I'm guessing I'll be way more selective in game purchases if this rumor is true.
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-720-won-t-play-used-games-says-report-1057564 (http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-720-won-t-play-used-games-says-report-1057564)
Actually, IF they are going to prevent the second-hand market, they are taking a cue from Steam and other digital-download services where second-hand markets don't exist at all. (Unless you consider piracy, which is technically sharing games with others). And as Dangelus said, Gamestop and the rest have been rather obstinate about making sure publishers don't make any money off their markets and if MS does decide to go ahead and stop this practice, it would be Gamestop and related's fault for not giving them a piece of the pie. It would also immediately kill Gamestop and related which would be interesting. I have a feeling they would probably cut a deal with MS to prevent their businesses from being destroyed like that, so ultimately, I wouldn't worry too much.
However, if that were to happen, that is playing with fire and Microsoft should know that. I would guess that the reaction would be very negative from the console crowd and would put a lot of hurt on early-upgraders buying new consoles. I have a feeling that a lot of console players would simply stick with their current-gen consoles and wait. But I'm mostly guessing at this point, there are way too many variables to make a solid guess on what such a restriction would do in the console market. It would be a high-risk move.
King
If they do it then the publishers will put a lot of pressure on Sony and Nintendo to do the same with their next generation of consoles. We may see publishers releasing games for the Xbox exclusively if they don't which I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind at all ;)
I think it's a truly stupid idea, what about just lending a game to a friend, or what if you have to get a new X-Box cause your X-Box breaks. Does that mean you'd have to replace all your games too.
If they do streaming downloads, like they do a little now that's a little different. I don't mind getting rid of the physical copies of games so much and used X-Box Live online to keep track of everything I could see it working better, but this would kill Gamestops and businesses like it.
Quote from: Sheppard on February 19, 2012, 03:21:26 PM
I think it's a truly stupid idea, what about just lending a game to a friend, or what if you have to get a new X-Box cause your X-Box breaks. Does that mean you'd have to replace all your games too.
I think the game would be linked to your Gamertag.
This rumor has already bene debunked and there's no New xbox coming any time soon.
Quote from: X on February 19, 2012, 04:00:57 PM
This rumor has already bene debunked and there's no New xbox coming any time soon.
source?
Microsoft has said that there won't be a console released in 2012. But it's fairly well known in the industry and those who watch it that MS will be releasing a console in Q3 or Q4 of 2013.
I don't envy companies who have to push the graphics on games up a notch for the next couple of years on consoles. Because by the looks of MW3, the console is already at its limits...
King
I can see them wanting to implement this sort of copy protection, it doesn't seem too difficult to me. We've had a system in place for years: serial number licenses.
It isn't full proof on PCs as they are easily circumvented but on a close system console? No problem there.
I think the best part of the rumour involves talk of Microsoft adopting Blu-Ray for the next console, bringing with it Blu-Ray movie playback presumably. Add to that all the network media capabilities of the console and hopefully it will continue to be a Media Center extender too. Very tempting.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 21, 2012, 10:04:10 AM
I can see them wanting to implement this sort of copy protection, it doesn't seem too difficult to me. We've had a system in place for years: serial number licenses.
It isn't full proof on PCs as they are easily circumvented but on a close system console? No problem there.
I think the best part of the rumour involves talk of Microsoft adopting Blu-Ray for the next console, bringing with it Blu-Ray movie playback presumably. Add to that all the network media capabilities of the console and hopefully it will continue to be a Media Center extender too. Very tempting.
I wouldn't count on the licenses. While I'm not sure about your specific example, console piracy still exists on consoles. So presumably, ppl could get around that as well. Heck, even if MS implemented this suggestion, people will eventually find a way around it.
As for the media center thing, that does seem to be the other goal of Xboxes these days so Blu-ray makes sense.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 21, 2012, 10:08:30 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 21, 2012, 10:04:10 AM
I can see them wanting to implement this sort of copy protection, it doesn't seem too difficult to me. We've had a system in place for years: serial number licenses.
It isn't full proof on PCs as they are easily circumvented but on a close system console? No problem there.
I think the best part of the rumour involves talk of Microsoft adopting Blu-Ray for the next console, bringing with it Blu-Ray movie playback presumably. Add to that all the network media capabilities of the console and hopefully it will continue to be a Media Center extender too. Very tempting.
I wouldn't count on the licenses. While I'm not sure about your specific example, console piracy still exists on consoles. So presumably, ppl could get around that as well. Heck, even if MS implemented this suggestion, people will eventually find a way around it.
As for the media center thing, that does seem to be the other goal of Xboxes these days so Blu-ray makes sense.
King
Console piracy exists yes but you have to hack the console which is very difficult these days. The 360 hasn't been completely hacked by the way, you need to do all sorts of soldering and need a specific motherboard etc. The disc drive was hacked but with a license system in p,ace this wouldn't matter.
*shrug*. Either way, adding licenses or restrictions on discs will be unpopular. I can't imagine anyone saying they want these coming to Xbox...
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 21, 2012, 10:24:55 AM
*shrug*. Either way, adding licenses or restrictions on discs will be unpopular. I can't imagine anyone saying they want these coming to Xbox...
King
If the next Xbox came with disc licenses but the games were half the price how about then? I'm not talking silly DRM that some PC games have these days, this will be built into the hardware so no problem for the consumer.
You buy a game, type in your code (ties it to your gamer tag) and off you go.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 21, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 21, 2012, 10:24:55 AM
*shrug*. Either way, adding licenses or restrictions on discs will be unpopular. I can't imagine anyone saying they want these coming to Xbox...
King
If the next Xbox came with disc licenses but the games were half the price how about then? I'm not talking silly DRM that some PC games have these days, this will be built into the hardware so no problem for the consumer.
You buy a game, type in your code (ties it to your gamer tag) and off you go.
Maybe, and this isn't in the same argument as DRM because technically, CD/DVDs are DRM that works. This is more about whether or not the second market deserves to live. In any case, I dunno if that would work, I'm not on consoles so I can't say if the price drop is enough. I can say publishers won't go for it. They may not make money off the second hand market, but losing half of their early profits would probably be upsetting.
King
The only reason reason why there is a second hand market is because new games are so expensive. Theoretically games are this price because of piracy which I can agree with to an extent.
Nobody is crying out for a second hand market for its games are they? Why? Because the games are relatively cheap. I know it isn't quite the same thing and part of the problem is the games themselves. A lot of these big console games have budgets like small movies. And they are crap, throwaway titles.
We need to get back to when games were challenging and cut all the bull. Half these titles are like watching movies these days with about 20% spent on the actual gameplay, the rest on sfx, voice talent etc.
you've described the entire problem with Modern Warefare 3 and other games like it. It's why Indie titles are getting a lot of attention these days. Because they did cut the bull and made games a visceral challenge. Still, if AAA devs have anything down, it's presentation which isn't bad either.
As far as the price thing, it's subjective. People claim that $5 is too much on the iOS store so idk what people consider "cheap" on the console market. Maybe it is $30, but it easily could be $10.
King
All the debate is basically Nero fiddling as Rome burns to the ground. As more and more of the console demographic adopts high speed internet, pretty much all purchasing will be done online and that will be the end of the purveyors of used games. It wont be exclusive in the next console cycle, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the next gen consoles have an option sometime soon down the road of a SKU similar to the PSP Go, which had no optical media, and everything purchaseable for the system is download only. That system was an example of Sony being ahead of the curve when it comes to the downloadable market. It will be very interesting to see how they do with the new Vita, considering they are adopting a very similar style of distribution while still offering consumers the choice of physical or digital media.
There's TONS of full retail games on the Xbox marketplace now, many of which are less than a year old. It is not anything of a stretch to see them releasing online for download day and date with the brick and mortar release. Lower the price by ten bucks and I'd download a digital copy over a disc of a new release any day of the week, and not worry about being able to sell it back when I'm done with it.
Now that I have a large hard drive for my Xbox, I find myself perusing their online store quite a bit for games I haven't played this generation. The problem with the Xbox marketplace is that there's nothing driving their pricing beyond their own model that they've decided on and are sticking to come hell or high water. Older current gen titles that are in the 5.99 bargain bin at Best Buy are still priced at 19.99 or 29.99 on the Xbox marketplace. There's hardly ever any kind of sales the likes of which you see regularly on Steam. If there was some developer input in the pricing of their games, we'd see a much more robust marketplace over Xbox live. I hope that's something we experience on the 3rd Gen Xbox.
"Console piracy exists yes but you have to hack the console which is very difficult these days. The 360 hasn't been completely hacked by the way, you need to do all sorts of soldering and need a specific motherboard etc. The disc drive was hacked but with a license system in p,ace this wouldn't matter."
This isn't completely true, the Wii is very easily hacked with just a software modification that runs off an SD card. And I'm pretty sure that the PS3 is in the same situation since the highly publicized hack that occurred last year, or was it 2010? But PS3s with old firmware can be made to play pirated games without hardware mods. I believe that the same is true for older Xboxes as well, but it depends on what motherboard you have and the newer systems are safeguarded against it.
Yep the Wii is softmoddable but soon to be replaced with a new system which I'm betting will be like fort Knox.
The PS3 has been hacked but like you say you limited to old firmware and being offline, also limiting the usefulness.
The 360, older motherboards with older firmware have to be physically modified with some sort of battery to "jolt" the OS into being able to run unsigned code. Some proof of concept tests were done getting a distribution of Linux to run on the system but this hack has never been practical at a consumer level. Older DVD drives were able to be modded to run pirated discs but this I believe was stopped with firmware updates and again it kept you offline.
My point is having to enter a serial at the OS level would negate all this piracy since you may be able to full the system that your disc is real but unless you can get in deep enough into the operating system you can't rewrite it to stop accepting license codes.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 21, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
Yep the Wii is softmoddable but soon to be replaced with a new system which I'm betting will be like fort Knox.
The PS3 has been hacked but like you say you limited to old firmware and being offline, also limiting the usefulness.
The 360, older motherboards with older firmware have to be physically modified with some sort of battery to "jolt" the OS into being able to run unsigned code. Some proof of concept tests were done getting a distribution of Linux to run on the system but this hack has never been practical at a consumer level. Older DVD drives were able to be modded to run pirated discs but this I believe was stopped with firmware updates and again it kept you offline.
My point is having to enter a serial at the OS level would negate all this piracy since you may be able to full the system that your disc is real but unless you can get in deep enough into the operating system you can't rewrite it to stop accepting license codes.
Uhh, yeah, I'm sure there are a few hackers willing to figure a way around it. Plus, I've heard that if you get another system and modify it somehow, that also works for pirates. Don't ask me how, I don't remember the details.
But yeah, to bring it back to the point, it is as Joby said. We're rapidly moving to a digital distribution system that effectively kills the second hand market so it doesn't really matter at this point. The only problem we have to face is the increased demand on ISPs at this point.
King
"My point is having to enter a serial at the OS level would negate all this piracy since you may be able to full the system that your disc is real but unless you can get in deep enough into the operating system you can't rewrite it to stop accepting license codes."
Right all you'd have to really worry about is people sharing Gamertags and game libraries. If you hard code it to the individual system and institute a license thing similar to how Xbox currently operates it could work.
It's a difficult position for the big three to be in. You want to support your developers because without the games, no one wants to buy your product, and used game sales are bad for developers. You want to support your retailers, because they sell your products. It would be a mercenary act to decide to destroy the major revenue stream keeping retailers like Gamestop, Game Trader, GameFly, etc. in business. It would be a disaster for those companies, and like Chris suggested I highly doubt the console manufacturers are willing to burn those bridges by locking out second hand games from working on the next gen consoles. We'll continue to see functionality like the "online passes" and content getting locked behind codes that are freely available to purchasers that bought games new but available for sale to used buyers in order to send some revenue from used game sales to developers and publishers.
I really think if there was a more robust marketplace online supported by the console makers, and prices of games available digitally were reflective of the value customers place on one, two, or three year old content, then people would be more apt to buy older games new at a deep discount, benefiting the developers, rather than paying a retailer a lower price for a used copy that gives nothing to the developer.
I think in the end, it's going to come to publishers providing online content and other perks for people who buy the game and zip for people who buy it second hand. They will of course offer codes to unlock said content, but it will be at a fee so that the publishers can get a piece of the resale market.
Here's the simple math. I don't think that publishers care about used games needing to exist. If you can't buy it cheap, that means you might actually buy it at cost and that translates into more dollars for them.
Keep in mind the lending or transferring of digital content is in it's infancy. Ebooks are starting to allow some of this to a degree. I think games will also go this way eventually - also, to a degree.
Quote from: X on February 21, 2012, 08:21:15 PM
I think in the end, it's going to come to publishers providing online content and other perks for people who buy the game and zip for people who buy it second hand. They will of course offer codes to unlock said content, but it will be at a fee so that the publishers can get a piece of the resale market.
Yes, this is what's happening now and it is at least something for the devs and publishers. I don't know for sure how much it is going to work for the average consumer, though. I was talking to a friend who is not a hardcore gamer, but enjoys playing. He was talking about the new Batman Arkham City, which offered it's Catwoman content free for people who bought the game new behind a code unlock and made used buyers pay to unlock it. He was asking me if he should install it, even though it was free, almost ten percent of the content of the game, and about a 30 second download. I think his experience, missing out on the content of the game just because he isn't entirely clear what it meant to download and install it, will be the majority rather than the minority experience, and it ultimately is a loss for the consumer.
Quote from: X on February 21, 2012, 08:21:15 PMHere's the simple math. I don't think that publishers care about used games needing to exist. If you can't buy it cheap, that means you might actually buy it at cost and that translates into more dollars for them.
Some dollars is better than no dollars. If a three year old game is up on Xbox Live marketplace at 300x the price you can buy it used, who would buy it online ever? I'm saying there should be some parity with used content pricing and online downloadable pricing, then many, many more people will be buying their stuff on the marketplace which then transfers into more sales for the devs and publishers.
Right now, games are similar to movies in that they live or die by the sales they get in the first week or two after release. This shouldn't be, especially with massive number of great games that get shoved aside and forgotten to make room for the next new big thing. With the availablility of old games online, this doesn't need to happen, as long as the Xbox Live Marketplace and Playstation Store price things in a way that makes sense to consumers.
Edit to add this link, funny but this article publishedthis morning speaks to exactly what we're talking about:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/02/why-sony-needs-to-be-flexible-on-ps-vita-download-pricing.ars (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/02/why-sony-needs-to-be-flexible-on-ps-vita-download-pricing.ars)
Quote from: Rico on February 22, 2012, 05:14:56 AM
Keep in mind the lending or transferring of digital content is in it's infancy. Ebooks are starting to allow some of this to a degree. I think games will also go this way eventually - also, to a degree.
Yeahhh, I'm not sure about that one. It makes sense if and when things go all digital and physical media goes the way of the dodo, but I still don't think it will happen. I think you're going to have to actually give a disc to someone if you want to lend it out. I would highly doubt even in an all digital world you'll ever be able to transfer licenses or lend content the way you can on the Kindle right now. That's what free game demos are for.
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 21, 2012, 10:53:30 AM
you've described the entire problem with Modern Warefare 3 and other games like it. It's why Indie titles are getting a lot of attention these days. Because they did cut the bull and made games a visceral challenge. Still, if AAA devs have anything down, it's presentation which isn't bad either.
As far as the price thing, it's subjective. People claim that $5 is too much on the iOS store so idk what people consider "cheap" on the console market. Maybe it is $30, but it easily could be $10.
King
King, not sure what you mean by the MW3 comment? MW3 is an awesome game, in the look, feel, experience and even the soundtrack. Granted, the offline campaign is short, about 4-6 hours, but these games are intented for online mutiplayer gaming. The campaigns are really designed to just get you used to the gaming engine, how the controls work, feel, etc. I see nothing wrong with gaming companies shelling out mega-movie sized budgets to create film like games. Why is that an issue?
You know, it's like the whole George Lucas Star Wars argument. Zealots complain about him changing and "improving" the Star Wars films, accuse him of being a greedy money grubbing dork, yet STILL buy his goods! Here's an idea: if you don't like, then don't buy...that's the BEST way to protest something. Just my opinion...
King, what game systems do you currently have? It doesn't seem like you're coming from a first hand perspective with your comments. Big games are still getting a lot of attention and maybe 1 out of 50,000 indie games get a nod. Advertising are skewed to the big titles as well with the on system ads. What system are you using where indie games are getting more attention?
@Al: presentation shouldn't mean the game is just a really fancy movie which games like MW3 and Battlefield seems to be going towards. That's what I was talking about. Yeah, they are multiplayer games, I'm just talking single player.
@X: On PC platform they are getting a lot of attention and services such as Steam are giving them some spotlight attention. iOS as well.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 22, 2012, 04:34:50 PM
@Al: presentation shouldn't mean the game is just a really fancy movie which games like MW3 and Battlefield seems to be going towards. That's what I was talking about. Yeah, they are multiplayer games, I'm just talking single player.
@X: On PC platform they are getting a lot of attention and services such as Steam are giving them some spotlight attention. iOS as well.
King
What's wrong with an interactive movie? It's not like you don't know this when you buy it. They aren't advertising that it's anything else and there's nothing wrong with that.
Didn't say there was anything wrong with ppl buying them. But other people want something more interactive and engaging than a movie, hence why the Indie scene is getting attention.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 22, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
Didn't say there was anything wrong with ppl buying them. But other people want something more interactive and engaging than a movie, hence why the Indie scene is getting attention.
King
I hear what you're saying, but I just don't agree. Highlighting a few games out of hundreds doesn't mean it's getting any more attention than it was before. Add to the facts that some of these "indie" games are of far better quality than other games. Main stream publishers are also creating very interactive games and getting press for them. I don't see how indie games are doing something that isn't being done. The last point I'll make is that a huge majority of the attention is still going in the direction of main stream publishers and distributors. When you think about the most anticipated games of the year, what games come to mind?
My anticipated games? Well:
Next expansion of Ai War: Fleet Command
Castle Story
A Valley Without Wind 1.0
Sanctum 2
and the fifth would have been Mass Effect 3 until recent events...
So instead: the new XCom: Enemy Unknown game.
You seem to be implying that indie Devs aren't indie Devs at all with one of your sentences. Care to elaborate? Because something you should know is that AAA development has slowed down in advancement due to consoles not improving plus indie Devs have easier access to better technology and graphics engines so they can do better, high quality games. Such as the epic, rage and Source engines.
Also, there are a ton of games out there I could tell you right now are doing things that the big boys aren't and are making a profit. But that depends on if you want to take this topic even further off course ;)
King
Tim, what recent events have transpired that have turned you off of Mass Effect?
I wont be playing Mass Effect for a long time, I'm so mad I lost all my saves and I refuse to play it with a new character. I am going to play through both 1 and 2 before I start 3 and I just dont know when I'll have the time or inclination to do that.
I talked about it at length yesterday on FB and my blog but sure, I'll talk about it quickly.
Bioware is releasing an important character via a paid DLC pack on the first day release of Mass Effect 3. By the looks of it, this is an important plot point for the original game yet is being kept out of the final product so Bioware/EA can make even more money off it's fanbase. I have no problem with expansion DLCs, but cutting out chunks of the game to make money off of it could lead down a very greed-driven road for gaming.
ME3 is also being exclusively released on Origin, despite ME1 & 2 being sold on a wide range of services, including Steam. Their stated reason is that it improves the experience of buying the game. I won't touch Origin software due to it scanning your hardrive without your permission.
I listed out my thoughts on Bioware more thoroughly on my blog so I won't retype it again so you can go there if your that curious. Heh. But they are really long reads so that's entirely up to you, I just gave you the tl;dr here :).
http://kingisaaclinksr.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/musings-i-will-not-buy-mass-effect-3-2/ (http://kingisaaclinksr.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/musings-i-will-not-buy-mass-effect-3-2/)
http://kingisaaclinksr.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/musings-i-will-not-be-buying-mass-effect-3/ (http://kingisaaclinksr.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/musings-i-will-not-be-buying-mass-effect-3/)
And yeah you guys may not agree with my stance and can understand if you don't agree/doesn't bother you. But it bothers me...
King
The DLC practice of publishers when done this way is their way of combatting the Pre-owned market in the only way they can. We are getting to the point where some of these big budget games will come out on disc in a "crippled" state and requiring an online purchase to complete the content. This is a pretty similar practice to just buying a licence for your disc.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
The DLC practice of publishers when done this way is their way of combatting the Pre-owned market in the only way they can. We are getting to the point where some of these big budget games will come out on disc in a "crippled" state and requiring an online purchase to complete the content. This is a pretty similar practice to just buying a licence for your disc.
It's one thing if we were all buying discs these days. We now have a digital market so such practices aren't as necessary. Even so, im paying $60 for a "complete" game and now it's only 3/4ths a game? No thanks.
King
I highly doubt that the Prothean mission constitutes 1/4 of the gameplay content in ME3. Even so, I agree it's frustrating to not be able to have access to it, but I have a good feeling that ME3 will be high quality and well worth the $60 without it. Did you purchase and play Lair of the Shadow Broker and/or the last bit of DLC for ME2 Tim? Those missions are pretty essential to the overall storyline of the series.
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 10:07:01 AM
I highly doubt that the Prothean mission constitutes 1/4 of the gameplay content in ME3. Even so, I agree it's frustrating to not be able to have access to it, but I have a good feeling that ME3 will be high quality and well worth the $60 without it. Did you purchase and play Lair of the Shadow Broker and/or the last bit of DLC for ME2 Tim? Those missions are pretty essential to the overall storyline of the series.
I did. It still remains to be seen if those DLC-packs will actually affect ME3 in any meaningful way. Cause, the game still isn't out yet ;). I did enjoy the Shadow Broker DLC, the last one...was very meh for the $$$ I paid.
And it's not quality I'm concerned about, though the demo has some issues from what I've seen, just not interested in encouraging the DLC behavior and the only power I have is my wallet at this point.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 23, 2012, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 09:45:36 AM
The DLC practice of publishers when done this way is their way of combatting the Pre-owned market in the only way they can. We are getting to the point where some of these big budget games will come out on disc in a "crippled" state and requiring an online purchase to complete the content. This is a pretty similar practice to just buying a licence for your disc.
It's one thing if we were all buying discs these days. We now have a digital market so such practices aren't as necessary. Even so, im paying $60 for a "complete" game and now it's only 3/4ths a game? No thanks.
King
It's necessary to claw some revenue away from the used disc market though. It's a HUGE market that most retailers don't disclose accurate figures for.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 11:39:27 AM
It's necessary to claw some revenue away from the used disc market though. It's a HUGE market that most retailers don't disclose accurate figures for.
If I'm understanding correctly, this is not "gateway" content available for new game purchasers. It's exclusive content for people who buy the collectors edition. This has nothing to do with used sales. In my opinion Bioware are perfectly within their rights to offer additional gameplay to people who want to pay more. It's annoying but I'll reserve judgement until I play the game and decide for myself if it's worth $60.
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 11:39:27 AM
It's necessary to claw some revenue away from the used disc market though. It's a HUGE market that most retailers don't disclose accurate figures for.
If I'm understanding correctly, this is not "gateway" content available for new game purchasers. It's exclusive content for people who buy the collectors edition. This has nothing to do with used sales. In my opinion Bioware are perfectly within their rights to offer additional gameplay to people who want to pay more. It's annoying but I'll reserve judgement until I play the game and decide for myself if it's worth $60.
I don't know the details of this specific DLC but all add on purchases like this do have relevance to combatting profits lost in used sales. If somebody buys a game used the publisher makes squat. If they can offer the used customer some DLC they are making revenue from a used sale indirectly.
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 11:39:27 AM
It's necessary to claw some revenue away from the used disc market though. It's a HUGE market that most retailers don't disclose accurate figures for.
If I'm understanding correctly, this is not "gateway" content available for new game purchasers. It's exclusive content for people who buy the collectors edition. This has nothing to do with used sales. In my opinion Bioware are perfectly within their rights to offer additional gameplay to people who want to pay more. It's annoying but I'll reserve judgement until I play the game and decide for myself if it's worth $60.
I don't know the details of this specific DLC but all add on purchases like this do have relevance to combatting profits lost in used sales. If somebody buys a game used the publisher makes squat. If they can offer the used customer some DLC they are making revenue from a used sale indirectly.
If its to combat the used market, Mass Effect 2 had the Cerberus network which was a code that gave you a bunch of DLC, including a character funnily enough, for free as a thank you for buying the game new. I can get behind that a lot easier than this heavily encouraged premium DLC that is possibly overpriced for the content it provides.
It came with all versions of the game, not just the collectors edition. And that to me works. This arm bending for a character with a probably cool story just doesn't sit with me well.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 23, 2012, 01:00:21 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 12:01:58 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on February 23, 2012, 11:39:27 AM
It's necessary to claw some revenue away from the used disc market though. It's a HUGE market that most retailers don't disclose accurate figures for.
If I'm understanding correctly, this is not "gateway" content available for new game purchasers. It's exclusive content for people who buy the collectors edition. This has nothing to do with used sales. In my opinion Bioware are perfectly within their rights to offer additional gameplay to people who want to pay more. It's annoying but I'll reserve judgement until I play the game and decide for myself if it's worth $60.
I don't know the details of this specific DLC but all add on purchases like this do have relevance to combatting profits lost in used sales. If somebody buys a game used the publisher makes squat. If they can offer the used customer some DLC they are making revenue from a used sale indirectly.
If its to combat the used market, Mass Effect 2 had the Cerberus network which was a code that gave you a bunch of DLC, including a character funnily enough, for free as a thank you for buying the game new. I can get behind that a lot easier than this heavily encouraged premium DLC that is possibly overpriced for the content it provides.
It came with all versions of the game, not just the collectors edition. And that to me works. This arm bending for a character with a probably cool story just doesn't sit with me well.
King
Yep, that's the other method. ONLY include a free code with new purchases which leaves used purchasers out in the cold. If its a popular franchise with a huge following the customer will be more likely to purchase new to get the code.
Well, and even then the DLC was unimportant if you bought it used, you didn't miss out on too much really. It was a minor perk.
King
Some DLC is really great, like some of the add ons for Dragon Age, like the Stone Prisoner which I couldn't get becuase my wife used it on her playthrough. I think if exclusive DLC content was really good, it could entice folks to buy new.
My only question is how is a side character and side quest a major part of the story? It's not. It's a perk and reason for buying the collector's edition. The fact that they're including some in game stuff for the collector's edition makes 100% sense. This isn't new. It's a reason to buy the game beyond the standard edition. Buying a better edition implies getting something the lesser editions won't be getting.
Quote from: X on February 23, 2012, 03:27:24 PM
My only question is how is a side character and side quest a major part of the story? It's not. It's a perk and reason for buying the collector's edition. The fact that they're including some in game stuff for the collector's edition makes 100% sense. This isn't new. It's a reason to buy the game beyond the standard edition. Buying a better edition implies getting something the lesser editions won't be getting.
Since Joby already spoiled it, the Prothean playable character is part of a mysterious race in the game that gets its named dropped a lot because they were all wiped out. Supposedly. 10s of thousands of years ago. So now everyone is wondering where this playable character is suddenly coming from and how is it that he/she/it survived.
Yeah, Collector's editions should have perks, but I've always held that they should not contain in-game content that is important to the story and/or balance of the gameplay and IF this character is not important to the story, then the DLC is overpriced and worthless.
Think of the outrage over Catwoman and her content being a pre-order bonus only for the Batman Arkham City game. That is incredibly unfair to people who don't pre-order the game. And no, I don't pre-order games. There is no reason to it because games never run out of stock and I would much rather not deal with the hassle of pre-ordering. So those who didn't pre-order don't get the Catwoman content and thus get a lesser game for it. Even if they bought it new a month after release.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 23, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: X on February 23, 2012, 03:27:24 PM
Since Joby already spoiled it, the Prothean playable character is part of a mysterious race in the game that gets its named dropped a lot because they were all wiped out. Supposedly. 10s of thousands of years ago. So now everyone is wondering where this playable character is suddenly coming from and how is it that he/she/it survived.
Yeah, Collector's editions should have perks, but I've always held that they should not contain in-game content that is important to the story and/or balance of the gameplay and IF this character is not important to the story, then the DLC is overpriced and worthless.
Think of the outrage over Catwoman and her content being a pre-order bonus only for the Batman Arkham City game. That is incredibly unfair to people who don't pre-order the game. And no, I don't pre-order games. There is no reason to it because games never run out of stock and I would much rather not deal with the hassle of pre-ordering. So those who didn't pre-order don't get the Catwoman content and thus get a lesser game for it. Even if they bought it new a month after release.
King
My only question is how is a side character and side quest a major part of the story? It's not. It's a perk and reason for buying the collector's edition. The fact that they're including some in game stuff for the collector's edition makes 100% sense. This isn't new. It's a reason to buy the game beyond the standard edition. Buying a better edition implies getting something the lesser editions won't be getting.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. first off, the plot isn't a major plot point, it merely provides some back story to the universe. Secondly, you have every option to pre-order. There is nothing stopping you from doing it and what's wrong with giving people the incentive to buy it? How is that not fair? People that decide to make the extra effort are being rewarded for doing so. By deciding that you don't want the hassle, you decide that you don't want the extra content.
Your argument pretty much consists of "I want to be lazy and get the same perks as the people that decide to invest up front in something that they want."
You have a very odd and narrow line. You want collectors items to have stuff to make it desired, you don't want it to break the game, and when it achieves this but gives you some optional background, it's worthless.... Huh??
For people that want to see that part of the story, it's more than worth it. If you don't want to see that part of the story, you don't have to pay for it, but don't get mad at the creators for making enticements to the buyers.
Catwoman was pre-order and that was more than fair. If you decided that you wanted it later, you could pay for it. Companies and studios need those pre-orders to see how the game is doing, how many to press, and if they need to strengthen their ads. It's also money in stores with more known to be on the way. This is still a business after all and if Gamestop can get pre-order perks to get people into the stores, that's a good thing. Jobs can't pay their employees on "I might get that later when the price drops".
Catwoman was not pre order, it was a free one time use code to download the content available in all new copies of the game. It was part of the developers strategy to encourage people to buy new rather than wait and buy used, by making the content unavailable to used purchasers unless they pay ten dollars to download it. Interestingly, there was so much outrage over this by customers that GameStop made a deal with the publisher of the game to purchase thousands of the codes and packed them in to their used copies to include them for sale.
Edit to add: the pre order "bonus" for Arkham City was a skin to change the look of Batman (the gamestop exclusive is the Animated Series Batman) which you couldn't use in the main story until you beat the game once. I actually got one even though I didn't pre order because I got the game the night it launched at a midnight sales event. Funny I can't even use it now since I lost all my saves and my Xbox doesn't know I already beat the game.
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 06:45:43 PM
Catwoman was not pre order, it was a free one time use code to download the content available in all new copies of the game. It was part of the developers strategy to encourage people to buy new rather than wait and buy used, by making the content unavailable to used purchasers unless they pay ten dollars to download it. Interestingly, there was so much outrage over this by customers that GameStop made a deal with the publisher of the game to purchase thousands of the codes and packed them in to their used copies to include them for sale.
Huh, then that must have changed because I heard it was a pre-order only bonus. Oh well.
Ok Ok, let's simplify this argument, we're getting out of hand and its crossing wires on arguments.
And I will not touch Pre-orders because I have gotten burned on pre-orders more often than rewarded. Whether it was Gamestop that screwed me over, the game was broken and unplayable or just the fact that I could go to the store and get it on the same day rather than wait up to two weeks, Pre-orders do not entice me. It is not an issue of me being lazy, it is me protecting myself from bad investments. Even "trusted" companies have done this to me. So no. Pre-ordering is out of the question. But I was using that as an example, that is an entirely different subject for another day.
Second Off: I do not find this cutting up the story into sell-able pieces acceptable and then selling them on Day 1 as DLC-packs for a $60 game. If Bioware/EA wants to sell their game for $80, then do it already.
Coming in after the game has launched and then launching addition pieces to the story that are not important to the main storyline is borderline reasonable for me, though tbh, out of all the DLC-packs that ME2 sold, only one was really worth the price.
The reason that I'm making such a stink about "From Ashes" is because the game has yet to launch yet clearly this DLC seems to have been intended for the original game and was then cut from the original game to sell as a DLC-pack. My worry is then, developers will make a "complete" game, cut up sections and set them as day-one DLC packs for $10+ and then basically requiring us to pay even more for the game if we want the full experience of the game when it easily could have been in the original game.
I hope I made that clear.
King
Quote from: KingIsaacLinksr on February 23, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Quote from: Jobydrone on February 23, 2012, 06:45:43 PM
Catwoman was not pre order, it was a free one time use code to download the content available in all new copies of the game. It was part of the developers strategy to encourage people to buy new rather than wait and buy used, by making the content unavailable to used purchasers unless they pay ten dollars to download it. Interestingly, there was so much outrage over this by customers that GameStop made a deal with the publisher of the game to purchase thousands of the codes and packed them in to their used copies to include them for sale.
Huh, then that must have changed because I heard it was a pre-order only bonus. Oh well.
Ok Ok, let's simplify this argument, we're getting out of hand and its crossing wires on arguments.
And I will not touch Pre-orders because I have gotten burned on pre-orders more often than rewarded. Whether it was Gamestop that screwed me over, the game was broken and unplayable or just the fact that I could go to the store and get it on the same day rather than wait up to two weeks, Pre-orders do not entice me. It is not an issue of me being lazy, it is me protecting myself from bad investments. Even "trusted" companies have done this to me. So no. Pre-ordering is out of the question. But I was using that as an example, that is an entirely different subject for another day.
Second Off: I do not find this cutting up the story into sell-able pieces acceptable and then selling them on Day 1 as DLC-packs for a $60 game. If Bioware/EA wants to sell their game for $80, then do it already.
Coming in after the game has launched and then launching addition pieces to the story that are not important to the main storyline is borderline reasonable for me, though tbh, out of all the DLC-packs that ME2 sold, only one was really worth the price.
The reason that I'm making such a stink about "From Ashes" is because the game has yet to launch yet clearly this DLC seems to have been intended for the original game and was then cut from the original game to sell as a DLC-pack. My worry is then, developers will make a "complete" game, cut up sections and set them as day-one DLC packs for $10+ and then basically requiring us to pay even more for the game if we want the full experience of the game when it easily could have been in the original game.
I hope I made that clear.
King
I get what you're trying to say, but it doesn't match the history of Bioware. Additional characters have always been there for exclusive DLC or other rewards. While they have some cool things, you can tell from how the characters are setup on the ship that they were added later even if you could get them the day of launch. They didn't have the interactivity of the other characters. So, no they weren't cutting anything to charge you more. The were making more content as the game finished and charging you for that additional content, but only if you bought the game later and a used copy of it.
There are games that lock on disc content behind DLC codes, but I can't really blame them. If the DLC was beyond the scope of the initial project, then people have to get paid for the extra work. RE5 had a bunch of code locked. If something is outside of the scope of the project, then they should find a way to benefit, even if it's code locked on the disc.
I guess at this point we're just going to have to wait and see how it all plays out. That will tell us how integral this character was to the game. (And yeah, the disc content locked behind DLC codes has also raised a lot of annoyance.)
Even if I do, one day, forgive the day-one-DLC thing, I'm still not going to deal with Origin so until EA backs down...well...I'll be waiting a while. Probably forever. Oh well.
King