Single-Player Content Locking for Used Purchases of RAGE [GameRevolution - Revolutionary Rant]

GR: According to Creative Director Tim Willits, RAGE will have several locations on its map with locked doors, doors that are only accessible to players that purchased the shooter new. Unlike most new-purchase incentives, these doors do not have a purchasable access code tied to them. That means you either buy new or you go without these missions.

[Trexman89]

Developers and publishers need to stop trying to kill off the used game market. For some reason, people think its ok to do this with video games but not other markets.

[Nitrowolf2]

This is F'n Stupid.

Okay guys i understand this only affects used buyers, but how far will this go? I think if gamers let sh1t like this happen now it'll only get worse as time passes. Eventually we will see a lot more stuff being locked. Seriously now they begin doing it on Single Player games? What BS is that.
I was okay with the online passes since it sounds more reasonable. I get that devs can say it cost them to run online, but come on Single player now?
WTF is this sh1t. I plan on buying the game new and all, i'm just upset knowing that this will only get worse later on.

Imagine if they start locking huge map areas in games like Skyrim or Mass Effect 3.

I have no doubt that Capcom will be among the first to abuse this system. Well they kind of have by charging locked content on the disc to all buyers.

[evrfighter]

I agree with this. It's selling a book new and when it gets resold there's a page missing every 10 pages.

the game got bought. once that copy is paid for publishers need to mind their own damn business. The only beef they should have is if there's a way to copy and burn it to play on non modded consoles.

But

I blame gamers in the end. They showed they were willing to drop 5 bucks less than it would cost to buy a brand new game and developers I'm sure were nerdraging about it to their bosses.

[SilentNegotiator]

Any sort of DRM or protection is bad. It takes away from the longevity of the game (If games were always like this, we wouldn't ever have AVGN, lol) and the rights of the legitimate buyer.

Anything that affects legitimate customers now or in the future is not at all fair.

And furthermore, I have a right to sell my copy of a game, unmaimed. At $60 a pop, I'll sell it to whomever I want when I through with it. And if the game is good enough, I never will.

[DrRichtofen]

I think its the developer /publishers fault for people wanting to buy used rather than new. $60 + tax is f$#king expensive and for people who don't think so do not know the value of a dollar. I wish games were at $50 like last gen I guarantee that more people would buy new at that price than $60. I hope they don't up the price another 10 next gen, if the price of a new game ever gets over $70 thats the day I quit gaming.

[Pro_TactX]

You can't really use that excuse. Games are no more expensive today than they were 25 years ago. NES games were sold for $30 new. That is equivalent to a game sold new for $60 today.

[Mfire528]

I totally agree. I should be able to play the full game without letting the developer have any profit from their hard work. I'm such a huge gamer that I would rather be a cheap ass and buy it second hand then to give the developer any money. It's ok because when I go to work I let the money go to a third party that had nothing to do with my job. Do you people even hear yourselfs. If you can't afford the $60 game when it first comes out then wait. Mass effect 2 was just $25 bucks brand new the other day. Don't get all pissy when game companies try to keep their hard earned profits out of gamestops grubby little fingers. Id is locking out side missions nothing from the main story. Why should you not pay them but still get a full experience. Get a job and buy the games new. Otherwise wait until they go down in price which they always do. Stop being selfish. How can they companies keep putting out games with insane budgets when you keep mooching preowned copies.

[jetlian]

mooch whats not there! So they need to blame themselves for not giving a reason to hold on to the game. And for all the hate for gamestop they are the ones getting the games to the people!

I don't see to many devs trying to run brick and mortar stores. So I bet you they would do same as gamestop if in the position

[hazelamy]

yeah, we should give them a cut when we sell any of our own property.

they got their profit when they sold the game the first time.

what about the people that worked a lot fucking harder than any game developer to pay for that game.
the publisher is stealing off them.
but that's ok right, they can devalue their property because the publishers profits are more important than our rights, right?

well fuck that noise.

they have no right to any preowned money, just like aevery other industry.
but only in this fucking industry will fucking fanboys defend the publishers trying to take what they have no fucking right to.

[HenryFord]

You say reasonable stuff, but you just overlook the fact that EVERY SINGLE Company on this world has to deal with it. Used Ford car? No money for Ford. Used Harry-Potter Book? No money for J.K.Rowling. Used movie/cd/whatever you can buy yourself? No money for publisher/whatever.
Literally everything you can buy (except for food I guess), you can buy second-hand. And in no case there is money for the one who initially manufactured it.

They just should deal with it, it's not that huge of a problem at all...

[kneon]

There is no way to justify blocking out part of the single player for used games. The single player part of the game is equivalent to a book, movie, car etc. Once it's sold the seller has made their money and shouldn't expect anything more.

The multi-player is different though and this is what makes games different from every other product. The more you play the multiplayer the more it costs the developer, I can't think of any other product that costs the seller money after the product is sold yet has no additional revenue.

So blocking out multi-player in used games can be justified as this is a situation unique to games, but there is no way to justify blocking out the single player nor any part of it.

[Christopher]

I've said this before and I will continue to say it, if you're a person who buys used, you're not their customer and have no right to complain to them. So, your complaints about online passes and now locked content as it affects used game buyers and renters? They couldn't care less just like you couldn't care to buy new, even if it meant waiting two months until the price of the game dropped to $40 or less.

We live in an age where gamers want their cake and to eat it too, but that age is changing in order to ensure that the people who make games can continue to do that rather than put money in the pockets of people who only feed off of the work of others.

And, yes, I agree that more money shoukd go to developers over publishers, but if the publishers don't make their dough in at least equal fashion to developers, then the games tend to have very limited releases or they just take more money from the devs. We should realize that the order of thing that affect developers getting paid are Used Game Stores > Publishers > Poorly Developed Games.

***You say reasonable stuff, but you just overlook the fact that EVERY SINGLE Company on this world has to deal with it.***

True, and every single one of them combats it in the best way possible.

Movies, music, and books are going digital. In all cases, you don't have national franchises that sell any of those used.

Used cars lose their initial warranties but still maintain the need for the owner to replace the parts of the car from the manufacturer.

Video games? These are $20-40 million dollar development products that can be completed in a week, the people who put the money in get a fraction of the cost, and they can easily be redistributed with little to no chance of damage or difference from a product bought new. Most of that? Something most devices that are sold used just can't do. And most products sold used, other than cars, don't have those national franchises that aid in making it more possible to get things used.

[MostJadedGamer]

Why should they stop trying to kill off the used games market? Used games cost them a ton of money. I am just surprised that they haven't tryed to kill it off long ago, and are not trying harder.

[beastgamer]

its all about money, greed, forcing you to pay 60 for one game, denying anyone that can't afford it, making you suffer when your tired of the game and no one wants to buy it used off of you, corporations having more money than the government cough*Apple*cough* MS forcing us to pay for their services while Sony PS Plus is building features you would like free (auto-Trophy) sync, but then again we still pay for an online pass! Forcing us cheap and poor to pay what the rich does, mainly in an economy like this.
Excuses: We need to pay for severs. BS, EA with your Billions of dollars. I was hoping for Battlefield 3 from Dice, no EA but then again you lock steam out to support yourself with origin installed on everyone's computers just to get hits, and even since Activison doesn't do that shit with COD, they just event their copy and paste for you to pay up each f***ing year.
Hey, your gonna buy all 4 Black Ops map packs, well, you just paid 60 dollars bitch, for something that should of been in the final game.
This is why my money is going to one game
"Deus Ex Human Revolution" Reveal the conspiracy!

[Prototype]

They just lost me as a sale and here's a big reason why; if I let someone borrow it (or if someone lets me use their copy for a few hours/days) to test out so they can see how the game plays before purchasing it, how will they get a full hands on experience outside using my acct on my console to even see if its worth the $ ? Especially on games that have no demos.

It's shit like this that makes me hate certain companies because they whine and bitch about used game sales; at this point its not even about used sales its about how far will you go to "protect your investment?" Online pass I was at least on the fence about because it only limits multiplayer; but to cut certain areas out of single missions is going a little too far. What's next, cutting option menus out of used sales also?

[Liquid_Ocelot]

Fine id/Bethesda.. because of you, I just saved a bunch of money without having to switch to Geico.

**IMO**
As many have stated above, once a game has been bought/paid for they've already gotten the money for that copy and that game has become 'used' why should they keep making money of the same game over and over?
It's like saying, if I buy the game and decide to sell it to a friend they'd want a piece of the money I made selling it to that friend. I understand the costs to make these games etc, but I mean come on.. that's BULLSHIT as we all know this game will and most games make the $$$ invested back AND a profit off the sales.. smells like GREED, smells like BULLSHIT.

[potedude]

I hate when the content is already on the disc and you have to pay to unlock it. Then I feel like waiting for GOTY editions, which are usually much cheaper anyway, and buying it then. Obviously doesn't work with some games. Those I gotta have straight away. Here's looking at you Skyrim, UC3, Mass Effect et al.

But it does feel a bit scummy, its kinda like - "lets chop a bit off the game and if they want it they have to pay extra for it". Just make the whole game accessable and if you have extra content, make that for me to download later...

[BongSmack]

Not sure that you understand the article. It's not saying you have to pay extra for all of the content, it's saying you have to pay the full price for the game instead of saving 15-20% to buy it used. Understandable considering developers make no money on used sales and it costs over $50 million to make some games. A game like Rage which will have been in development for 5 years or more upon release will most likely fall into this category.

[potedude]

I know, just having a whinge...

[HenryFord]

yeah - you mean like every company on this planet? Deal with it.

Also - I wonder how ID will this do anyway...

[jwk94]

you're not necessarily paying extra though if you buy it new, it's only the used game people that're paying extra.

[christheredhead]

yes you're not paying extra if you buy new but the system is ridiculous. there should a reward for buying new not a monetary punishment for buying used. the incentives for buying new aren't even incentives they're just punishments on the used game market and gamers are caught in the middle.

[dabri5]

Isn't it punishment on the devs when you buy it used because they see no money from the sale but still have to pay money to support it?
Maybe the single player content that is locked utilizes some online servers for it's content? Like race times or highscores. None of this really bothers me because one day I had to ask myself who I hated more. Greedy publishers or gamestop. I chose gamestop. I will gladly support devs over them any day. If the game is too expensive, I'll wait the few weeks it takes to drop 10- 20 bucks cheaper. At least then, the devs get their pay.

[christheredhead]

if i buy used i dont see it as punishment because they already got paid for a copy. a used copy cant exist without a sold new copy. i will gladly support devs but new buyers dont get any rewards except for the content that used purchasers have locked. all im saying is there needs to be a better system in place. you cant constantly punish the used market as i often buy a lot of my games from the trade value of used games. Thats really the only way i can afford to buy bf3 day one. i know im not the only one here. trying to diminish that market isnt a help to developers the way i see it.

eventually were gonna be at the point where they charge you for going to your friends house and playing his copy. i mean they really need to take a step back and let the market work its self out. lower game prices, increase new buyer rewards, release non broken games, stop the dlc overmilk and things of that such if they want to increase profit. locking content for used games isnt helping.

[BongSmack]

That's a good point

[MrBeatdown]

"there should a reward for buying new not a monetary punishment for buying used"

Um, that's like the difference between a half empty glass and a half full glass. In other words, there is no difference.

Used players' "monetary punishment" is basically them paying for the content that new buyers get as a reward.

I'm really not sure what could be so clearly defined as "rewards" for buying it new. No matter what, someone is going to cry about it as if they are punished when they buy used.

[BongSmack]

Wow. Totally disagree with your second point though. "a used copy cant exist without a sold new copy", of course that's true, but it's also completely irrelevant. Buying used games isn't much more beneficial to a company than pirating them. Don't get me wrong from a moral point of view there is a big difference, but financially buying a used copy does nothing for the developer.
"new buyers dont get any rewards except for the content that used purchasers have locked. In a way that is a reward since it's content that used purchasers aren't getting..

[christheredhead]

@mrbeatdown

yah i wasnt very clear but what i mean is that new buyers need to be rewarded with content that used purchasers dont have access to and will never have access to. everytime you buy a new game there is a code that allows access to play. well with that code there needs to be additional content. whether it is already on the disc or not its fine but when i enter the code give me 2 free maps, new weapons for single player, new areas that can only be accessed with my code. if you choose to buy used and have to buy an online code for access to play, thats fine, but no matter what you will never get those 2 maps, those certain weapons, areas or whatever that may be. i mean its not a crime to buy used so support those who buy the games new. instead of attacking those who buy used.

game companies want to act like theyre the victims yet constantly screw their number one supporting fans with cut dlc, cheaper ultimate versions, locked content and so on. like i said. the people who support the companies need to be supported themselves. having access to another users locked content isnt much of a thank you. i try to support developrs as much as i can but i dont support what theyre doing with the pass system. especially when i buy day one and still have to shell out more money in the long run for content or things i have already paid for. they are going about it in the most backwards way and i refuse to support it.

[jwk94]

The reward for buying new is being able to play online without an added expense.

[exsturminator01]

@christheredhead: It's only a reward if no one else is allowed to have it? I don't get that at all. Would you argue that getting a free vacation wasn't a reward because someone else could have paid for it? And the half filled glass argument MrBeatdown makes is spot on. Adjust your mindset and you'll realize that online play is premium content used players will NEVER have unless they pay for it. THAT is your reward for buying new.

As for the fuss about game developers "screwing" their fans, you're way off base there. No gamer has EVER been required to pay more money to play what they bought at retail. DLC is a reward for those who want to pay more, ultimate versions are released months or YEARS after launch to attract new fans, and locked multiplayer is a reward for those that buy new. Of course its all a scam if you have a negative perspective, but if you look at it fairly, game developers are WAY more dedicated to their consumers than companies are in any other market.

EDIT: Well, MMOs cost more money to play after initial purchase, but that's a different story. =P

[Christopher]

***yes you're not paying extra if you buy new but the system is ridiculous. there should a reward for buying new not a monetary punishment for buying used.***

Wait... So they reward people who buy new with extra content and give those who buy used the option to unlock it, and you think the better option is to not give the used game buyer the option to buy it at all?

Furthermore, you talk about monetary punishment as a bad thing, yet have no issues of the monetary punishment to the devs when you buy used? That's about as hypocritical as you can get.

***you cant constantly punish the used market as i often buy a lot of my games from the trade value of used games***

Sure they can. You just increased the used market of games by at least three fold after buying a single game. Even then, who's new game did you buy? Was it the latest CoD and not Rage? How do they ensure that people are buying their game new and not someone else's. No one is going to compete with Activision or Gears of War, so then what? It's their fault they don't put out good enough games to beat two powerhouse IPs that are stapkls of this generation?

No, your logic makes no sense no matter how you bend it. You buying one game new doesn't show support for the developers of Rage, only of that one game you buy after increasing the used game market potential. You're causing more issues than you think.

[dabri5]

"Wait... So they reward people who buy new with extra content and give those who buy used the option to unlock it, and you think the better option is to not give the used game buyer the option to buy it at all? "

Who said anything about not allowing people who buy the game used, to buy dlc or extra content? No company would ever deny people this. It doesn't make any sense at all.Point is, you buy used games to save a little cash here and there. The difference between a new and used copy is never more than 5-10$. Every time new copy prices go down, so do the used copies. It's how gamestop makes money. Is the 5-10$ really worth the developer who you are supposedly a fan of, not getting paid for your sale?

Argument doesn't really matter I guess as the industry as a whole is moving toward digital distribution.
Within the next ten years we will see a move to push all software released as DD. Next gen will prob be a hybrid of the two, allowing people to chose between physical or digital. Gen after will be full digital downloads. This is not a guess either. This is what people in the game industry have said.

@cgoodno

You make points as if the used game market helps the game industry in any way. Name one way that buying used games benefits the gaming industry? Why support a market that doesn't provide you any benefit?

[Christopher]

@catguykyou: you are misreading me. I am in no way supporting used game sales.

[christheredhead]

it makes perfect sense. i refuse to support a pass that is so blatently forced upon us with all the other mess that encompasses "great features" of next gen games. plain and simple it does more harm than good. what they are basically saying is "hey, buy the game new or were locking content for 10 dollars" um ok, i have always bought your games new so why do you have to force something so ridiculous upon me? thats fine. 50 to gamestop and 10 to the developers for their pass. i mean i try buy new, but i wont feel remorseful or bad for buying a pre owned game and ill gladly buy the pass.

the whole system pass tactic is a complete waste and does nothing. im tired of being told its to secure their profits but we can all clearly see its a flop. if they want to secure profits stop selling me dlc thats on disc, milking your content in various packs, lower the price of new games and so on. to say that the pass is a glorious way of helping devs is baffling. the 10 dollar margin is doing nothing.

i know it seems ridiculous to say that certain gamers are locked from content but those are better suggestions than endlessly whining with no solution. if thats the case dont tell me my incentive for buying new is getting to play the game. im not dumb and can see the real reason. in the end you lose my money with such ridiculous systems that hurt your consumers not help. help me to help you is the way i see it. i will gladly give my money up in exchange for something of equal value.

as it stands its not equal. the locking of content is bleeding into single player and thats where the line needs to be drawn. this effects various other things not just pre owned gaming. eventually we'll be at the point where single player and multiplayer are locked until you enter 2 passes simultaneously. i will never support the passes ever. it goes well beyond just buying a pre owned game.

edit: and of course, as its to be expected, a bubble is removed for non compliance with the general basis of opinion. if i agree and change my opinion do i get my bubble back? i mean its pretty unnecessary to remove a bubble when debating a topic.

[MrBeatdown]

"yah i wasnt very clear but what i mean is that new buyers need to be rewarded with content that used purchasers dont have access to and will never have access to."

But that goes against the whole point of an online pass. It's not about rewarding or punishing or even about selling a used copy over a new copy. It's purely about making up revenue lost when someone opts for a used copy instead of a new copy. It ends up costing more for the used buyer, but that's more the fault of the used seller than anything, since they don't take online pass costs into account when pricing their games.

Publishers want used buyers to buy the online passes, so making them as attractive as possible is better than offering them something less.

[vickers500]

"they see no money from the sale but still have to pay money to support it"

Actually they already have that money from the original purchase. It doesn't cost extra to accommodate used buyers, since the previous owner no longer has the game and cannot suck up resources, it's just that the resources that have already been paid for are being transferred to someone else.

[dabri5]

@vickers500

When a company decides on a budget for a game, a decline in people playing the game online is always a part of these estimates. When you throw in the factor that more people will be playing your game for longer with no extra income, this becomes costly to support.
5$ of that $60 purchase only covers a estimated few months amount of server time. If you then come in and buy my copy used and continue playing it for another few months on top of that, you just doubled the amount of time that single $5 was meant to cover.

[hazelamy]

but if you do buy new, they're deliberately devalueing your property.
how can anybody be happy about that?

[exsturminator01]

Yeah, the value goes down $15 without the pass, but Gamestop will buy it back at $40 off on the day of release. If you want to talk about devalued property, I'd look at the retailer before I fussed at the developer. Besides, they could make the online pass UNAVAILABLE to used buyers if they really wanted to. Making it available online is their attempt at letting you keep the resale value up.

[darksied]

I think people are taking this out of proportion (in THIS case). The entire single player campaign is playable. There's extra content that is locked unless you buy it new. But you can play the WHOLE campaign. It's like DLC that comes with the game.

Now, besides this case, this type of situation is actually worse to me than locking the multiplayer, because I'm a single-player guy more. If Uncharted 3, for example, had it's whole single player experience locked out unless you bought it new, that would be disastrous.

Fortunately, it's only extra stuff that is locked out. People who really want to complain about a bit of extra gameplay outside of the main campaign should either buy it new or wait for the price to drop to buy it new. With the releases still coming out this year, how long do you think this game will be $60? A couple of months, max.

[madpuppy]

I have been saying that every time an article like this comes out, if you have the patience to just wait, ignore the release date and wait, I can assure you that the price of the game will drop and you can get the game for less than used prices.

Also, the satisfaction of not letting the offending developer and publisher have those sweet, sweet first 2 week to one month numbers will screw up their business strategy and drop prices quicker.

we have the power to dictate what we are willing to pay but, being a bunch of impatient justifiers screws you worse than anything the dev/publisher could ever do.

[uncharted56]

im going to write a article about this and submit it after I have completed the current one. Hopefully it gets approved.

[Quagmire]

I for one have dropped this game on my to-buy list. I dont care how good it is, if they feel the need to lock SP content to maximise profits, then they can count on ultimately having a lost sale altogether.

This is seriously getting out of hand. Online Passes are horrible, however I dont play many games online anyway, so it doesnt affect me as much, however locking SP content? Taking it too far, and I can unfortunately see many developers adopting this practice.

[exsturminator01]

Would you have bought used? If so, then you're not a lost sale, and they had no reason to please you anyway. THAT'S the way they're looking at it, so your protest will only mean something if you were going to buy new, and if you were going to do that, then this wouldn't have affected you at all.

[LostTokens]

I tend to buy games new anyway (bad experiences with used games over the past few years) but this is just getting frustrating. It sounds like a slap in the face to all of us as gamers; it's essentially sending the message of "you can't be trusted," if you ask me.

[BongSmack]

Not sure I see how it's a trust issue.

[madpuppy]

no, it's more like the customer is scum and we have to do everything in our power to stick it to them so they know who's boss.

problem is, WE ARE THE BOSS!!! without us they have no business.

If everyone just didn't buy games with DRM, it would go away. IF everyone waited to buy that newly released game till the price dropped eventually new games would decrease in price.

online passes, unreasonable DLC, stupid restrictions, ALL of IT would simply vanish if most of the gaming community were SMART CONSUMERS rather than impatient idiots!

[exsturminator01]

No, the Always On DRM is a "trust thing", this is a, "We don't get any money unless you buy new, so please buy new" thing I think.

[DrW666]

the thing is with the gaming company's and trying to derail the whole pre owned games is that point that once you buy that game its yours to do whatever you please. Now i don't know bout most people but when i have finished a game or braught a game and it was crap (here's looking at you alpha protocol!!) and feel no need to play it again i dont want my house littered with games that im never gonna touch again, id much rather trade it in so that other people can play it and enjoy.

i mean they say buy the games new thats fair enough but some games are hard to find new, for instance i been trying to find the sly cooper collection on the ps3 for a bit of nostalgia....can i find it new in the shops or on the stores web site... nope. Can i find it second hand on ebay or othere sites if lucky....yup.
i can understand where they are coming from by if every one just braught second hand versions of the game then they aint making a profit...but to some people who cant always find afford it or find it a bit cheaper to buy it second hand (as depending on the popularity of the game determins when or if the price drops i.e call of duty) its kinda unfair. me personally i try buy game new if its a a franchise thats always been good or reliable (not broken or never fully gets fixed as they tried to cash in easy money). i dnt care bout multiplayer often as i prefer storys in single player, plus i dnt game alot that often so its a bit of a kick in the bollocks to hear that if for instance they sold out a new copy of this game but a store had a second hand one that content would be cut...sure why dnt i wait for stock to come in but id like to get a game i like straight away as bastards keep spoiling the damn game (i dnt just mean forums i also mean frnds or w.e)
All in all i think they so do as some of the above mentioned, either give extra content for people who buy the games new, or drop the price this would be easier as if reviews game out saying its not that brill or short single player or multiplayer is meh...at least the price is low so they wouldnt be to bothered if they didnt like it as it was to much of a hit to their wallets. And also like people said if they stopped the whole "pay us money to unlock new content.................which is already on the disk but thats besides the point IT'S NEW" (*they do a little hand wave and we all go oooooooooooooooooooo new content*) then yer id more more than happy to buy the games straight away brand spanking new and so would many others.
Or better yet if the company's do want to take this road, to stop most of us gamers bitching.......how bout releasing
1 hour trials for their games (once they in the gold stage not pre alpha here you go its buggy as crap but it will be amazing just you watch alpha protocal stage) that way we can get a feel for it and help us decide what to get if we're tight on cash and can only get one game between the crap load of new realses coming out (mass effect 3, uncharted 3, COD , Deus Ex etc). Yes this option would be risky if certain company's were relying on HYPE to sell their gamesd and then people go "Well..this is crap" and end up voiding their game, but at least its one way to make up for lockin content for thoes tied between affording one game or the other :)

[BongSmack]

If you want to unclutter your place you could always give your used copies of the games you don't want away, then whoever is lucky enough to take them off your hands won't have anything to complain about anyway since they aren't paying for them.

[DrW666]

i do on times, i forgot to ad that in, but if your frnds or people dnt want it.....the easiest option then is to trade, ive taking games in a gotten way less than i paid for it but i didnt really care as some one else can now grab that game cheap and i can kncok off a bit of cash off a game i am curious bout but not heard much of to give it a try.

[DrW666]

and yer sorry bout the essay and spelling mistakes n still half asleep and havent had my coffee xD

[hilyou]

now THIS IS GOING TOOOOOOOO FAR!!!!!!!! im a supporter of online passes, but this is going too far! same with capcom

[dinkeldinkse]

This is even worse than online passes.

[10987654321]

If Gamestop is such a threat to game companies, why dont they band together and buy them out?. That would be a lot better than punishing people who try to make a saving on insanely overpriced and unfinished games.

[aGameDeveloper]

Because then there'd be yet another GameStop-like company that would rise, with the goal of getting bought out...

[D3stinySm4sher]

I'm all about developers finding ways to earn their well-deserved money, but THIS is not the way to do it. Online-passes are understandable, and IMHO anyone who feels they are entitled to them when buying the game used is ignorant about how the whole deal works.

Devs don't get ANY OF THE MONEY from used games, people. They shouldn't be paying to run servers that people are mooching off of having not given them any cash. So I can understand the online passes.

But THIS? There is NO WAY for players to unlock some of the content at ALL? That's pushing it a bit. Granted, when you think about it, there's all kinds of pre-order-only goodies that you can't get otherwise...So I guess it's technically not TOO out there...but still.

[Xenial]

All this is bs. Just let us buy used games like we did before. >:(

[Quagmire]

Those days are long gone my friend. I cant think of many AAA titles which dont have some form online pass, locked content, DLC or pre-order bonuses.

Tekken 6 is the last game this gen I can remember not having any of those mentioned.

[knifefight]

I was looking forward to this game, but now I'm simply not buying it -- new or used. There are lots of other games out there, and I won't be buying ones that have a system like this in place.

What sucks is that most gamers don't have the balls to do the same, so this will continue and get worse and worse in the future.

[Jormungandr]

Been saying it for years. The future of software is online-only terminal style access.

Basically, there will come a day when your computer starts and, instead of booting from the hard drive, it will connect to your OSs service on a website over your 10Gbps fiber line. Half of that sounds awesome (10gbps fiber, hell yea!) and the other makes you worried about the thought police.

But that's where it is going. Cloud based services were the first major step in that direction (though I predicted it first in 2004... years before the cloud was even dreamed of). I mean it makes perfect sense from a software publisher point of view doesn't it?

You tell your customers (actually more like clients by this point) that by having the OS and all your software online that they gain the benefit of always up-to-date software, professionally managed security, the ability to avoid complex software installation and long software download. And the best part of, course, is that with the new monthly/quarterly/yearly method of paying your clients will save money compared to buying their software in the store... so long as they don't use it more than some arbitrary number of hours per day that a bunch of people with no understanding of how an average person uses a computer thought up (gotta get people with overage fees after all).

And then you, as a publisher, have the security of knowing that there is no way to pirate your software. The best those evil pirates can hope for is to get some one elses password and then have to deal with that users preferences and applications instead of their own.

Say it wont happen? Say then where would you store your pictures? Lol silly... computers will still have storage drives... they just wont hold your programs. Storage is only for music and videos and pictures and documents after all.... well at least the ones you don't want to be part of your Facebook 4.0 (with Cloud OS support) page.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Look back at the last 5 years of computer technology. The creation of C#. The advancement of Web 2.0? The high popularity of internet based applications that were once part of the software installed on your computer (web mail, maps and directions, document editing, photo manipulation, online backup). The improvements in remote desktop control (logmein). The increasing interest in social networking and the "apps" that go along with those sites. The assumptions by developers that their users have infinite internet access already. And above all else... the ongoing war with piracy.

Mark my words... it's not a matter of if... but when. All it will take is for the average network connection to be fast enough or reliable enough to replace current hard drive technology. And before you get too comforted by the idea that that's a long ways off... look again.

[JOHN_DOH]

I read somewhere that Microsoft tried to get a patent for windows for some kind of subscription fee based on how much you used your computer/windows but it was denied so it won't be happening that soon.

[SageHonor]

I was likely buying it anyway.... but this is unneccessary

[xtremegamerage]

Rage to dropped down to bargin bin for me. I'll get it next year lol. Thanks carmack.

Who's next into the bargin bin.

People sell their games when they are done with them, some in shops, some ebay etc.

Most of the time you lose out anyway.

I don't think these developers understand the reason people buy games second hand. I'll spell it out.

IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T FKING CARE WHETHER WE PLAY THE GAME OR NOT.

Just like a movie you dont care about, you watch the first 10mins, find out it's crap and forward to the end if you can even be bothered.

[MateSLO]

What the fuck? Seriously? Gaming developers/publishers need to back off from this. Why? Everybody sells/buys 2nd hand stuff and nobody doesn't permit you from using certain features.

It's like stupid. You don't get used cat without windshield glass........

But I tell you what. Game, Gameplay etc. have low prices after game stops selling that well...than i'll buy it for 20 pounds after few months .... :)

[Ducky]

... I bought my cat from someone else and it didn't come with a windshield glass.
WTH man, I feel ripped off. =/

[knifefight]

To be fair, I've never seen a cat WITH a windshield....

[madpuppy]

knifefight, this is just a guess, but I'm thinking maybe he means an Arctic cat snowmobile or some other vehicle from that company.

[Hicken]

Here's something people keep forgetting, and it's part of the reason why a lot of people buy used games instead of new ones:

Quality is not guaranteed.

If you bought Brink brand new for that $65 and hated it, you were out of pocket for that money. And a HELLUVA lot of people were out on Brink.

At least here in the States, there's a retail policy that says no digital media can (or should) be returned once opened: it could have been copied, or those exclusive bonuses inside taken out and used, sold, etc. The same is true for CDs, DVDs, everything.

If I buy a new copy of RAGE, play it, and after one day decide it's not my cup of tea, guess what? I'm stuck with a game I don't want to play. I can't get my money back. But- in most cases- buying a used game comes with 7 days to play, commitment-free. If I don't like RAGE, I can bring it back and apply my money to something else.

Until they can assure me that EVERY TIME I pony up full price I won't be disappointed, I'll keep buying used games. Yes, I buy some games new- all my rpgs, for example- but most of my library has been acquired secondhand. There is absolutely NO REASON why a developer should be telling me I can't access the content they built into the game they've already received money for because they didn't get any money from me.

I have decided: I will not buy RAGE.

[Johnvoice]

I hope that Rage come out soon. It looks really good and the story is great

[xtreampro]

The really bad thing about this is that a couple of years from now someone who never had a chance to play the game when it was new will want to play it and will obviously be looking for a used copy, the problem here is that buying a used copy will be pointless because some or even a lot of SP elements will be locked.

In other words games with locks particular SP locks will be useless/obsolete a couple of years from now.

[exsturminator01]

Okay, I'm just going to say this once instead of repeating myself over and over: To everyone saying "They've lost a sale," or, "I'm not buying this game because of this," please bear in mind that if you were buying used anyway, YOU ARE NOT A LOST SALE TO THE DEVELOPER. Used sales do NOT support the developer, therefor your opinion is VOID to them. If you were going to buy new and are not buying now out of protest, fine, power to you (even though this news would have had no effect on you), but those that wanted to buy used and now won't, just remember that you're only hurting yourselves, because you were already hurting the developer.

[Hicken]

Developers are not hurt. Developers are greedy(the ones hiding behind tactics like this, anyway).

I support certain devs by buying new; when Catherine came out, I made sure to pick it up new, because I love the work ATLUS does. But id hasn't made the same sort of impression on me. Hell, most companies haven't.

If I want to, potentially, get into a new genre, or see what all the hubbub surrounding a game is about, should I have to buy a new copy and run that risk? Money is tight enough as it is these days. And even people who don't lack for funds may still want to be frugal with their money.

I am a lost sale, because I would have bought it new. This "it has no effect on you" argument is stupid: it will affect me, because if I want to sell my game, the value will go down. If it becomes successful, there's no telling how far developers will go. And I don't know about you, but I don't just separate myself from what's going on because it's not happening to me.

[MateSLO]

Why not just wait few months until price for a brand new game drops to like 20 pounds or something... that's cheap!

[naiyo]

Drop the price down on new games for about a week when they first release and i buy it new that week but this will still not make me not buy used.

And these developers are rich so don't cry for them because they eat better than you.

[aGameDeveloper]

@MateSLO

So you would be saving some money AND the dev would at least get some money out of the transaction? Who'd a thunk that was possible? :)

[El Nino]

So less people will buy the game on the whole if this sp locking comes into play.

I want them to advertise it in big bold letters on the back somewhere, otherwise your not getting the product you paid for.

[Bladesfist]

How do you guys justify buying used games? Sure you are paying for them but the developer gets nothing. Same as piracy except more people buy used games than pirate. This is a small price to pay for being a lost sale to the devs. Stop moaning and be grateful that used games still exist. Its not going to last long.

[TheLastGuardian]

Die Gamestop die.

[Hicken]

Selling used games has existed since long before GameStop.

[TheLastGuardian]

I never said it was. I don't mind used game sales, I just hate how Gamestop does business. Their games are overpriced and they don't give nearly enough store credit for your games. They must be stopped.

I think only old games should be allowed to be sold used. Games that you can't find a new copy of anymore. None of this $55 for a used game BS.