The Death of Gaming

[Slime Slayer]

What do you guys think about this? Personally I think it's going to backfire in spades. I think that the amount of people who don't buy the game is going to out number the amount of people who pay for the subscription. Yes I have faith in the gaming community.

[bearhawk72]

I thought it was completely optional and you can still play the mp for free

[DrunkN]

Modern Warfare 3 monthly service charge
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000916913/lol_cat_12926_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

[Slime Slayer]

You can still play online, but it's limited, I don't know all the details but I think of it like a demo compared to a full game.

[Dudebro]

No you're wrong steven, according to what I heard. It seems like it's just a subscription service for people who are super try hards and need all kinds of info about their games played. The only "perk" is that they get map packs for free, with a paid subscription. They said it will probably be around 5 bucks a month. It's a huge rip off and it's a move in direction of a pay to play scenario but atm it's not.

Btw map packs for COD games are notoriously outrageous, like 10 -15 bucks, so you'd have to pay into it for three month or so to really get a benefit.

[DrunkN]

No you're wrong steven, according to what I heard. It seems like it's just a subscription service for people who are super try hards and need all kinds of info about their games played. The only "perk" is that they get map packs for free, with a paid subscription. They said it will probably be around 5 bucks a month. It's a huge rip off and it's a move in direction of a pay to play scenario but atm it's not.
Aw man...
http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/chimpy-frown.jpg

[Dudebro]

Well if you wanna hate on them for it I'm with ya. They claim it's just for stat tracking and such but we all know they will slowly try to push it as the best option for their fans. I wouldn't be surprised if they starting giving premium members priority in matchmaking or vote calling, elitist stuff that people love.

[Slime Slayer]

Regardless of what it entitles, the community needs to shut this down by closing their wallets. This direction for gaming needs to be stopped in it's tracks.

[Dudebro]

Don't count on it. Not to generalize but the kinda kids who love COD games will sign right up for it. Realistically it's chump change if it's 5 bucks or less so even a kid can get his parents to pay for that. Sadly I predict it will catch on. Halo already has a similar service but I dunno if it's monthly and it allows you to host your videos/maps on their site so it seems more worth it. If you're into that sort of thing.

[Slime Slayer]

I don't think mom is gonna agree to it, she'll see it as absurd. Wont she?

[Dudebro]

Your mom? I dunno go ask Tenser or Jim. But for reals, yeah I do think lots of moms will sign up for it. These are the same parents who buy them new 60$ murder sims and 10-15$ map packs. They already pay for xbox live, what's another couple bucks? They probably have a family plan anyways.

[lemon2000]

Actually, it was recently confirmed that all the features we know of so far for this service (stat tracking, clan system, etc) are free. There is also a premium subscription version, but aside from DLC we don't yet know what you get for subscribing. In any case you're not forced to pay extra money for anything (which is good, cause no way I'm paying a subscription fee for ANYTHING).

[Kugyince]

it's a move in direction of a pay to play scenario

This is the biggest problem.

This is optional currently but clearly Activision is testing out the viability of a p2p format for latter games.

[Dudebro]

There is also a premium subscription version, but aside from DLC we don't yet know what you get for subscribing.
That's kinda scary then. They can't really sell this on just DLC content maps alone, I think. Now I'm worried they will give special treatment to premium members.


This is optional currently but clearly Activision is testing out the viability of a p2p format for latter games.
This seems to be the theory most people are going with. We already know they don't care about making quality games or listening to their customers. Now we know they wanna charge additional money for games that they already get in excess of 100$ on from most of their fans because of DLC. It's pretty horrible.

But if they try to introduce this while people are paying for Live it will not work with most people, just the die hard COD people. Lots of people are already swearing off getting MW3 because of this move.

[jim5cents]

Your mom? I dunno go ask Tenser or Jim.

Lulz. +1.

Unlike Steven, I have zero faith in the gaming community. The community as a whole are sheep. As already described, if a parent is going to fork out 60 bucks for a game, plus have their card getting autocharged for XBL, then they are going to go for a MW subscription as well. Furthermore, like it or not, COD is one of, if not the biggest FPS franchise right now. People might talk the talk about giving it up, but when MW3 shows up on the doorstep, there will jump on board.

MP will still be available for free, it is my understanding that the pay service offers the following. Online tournaments for online and IRL prizes, access to things like the theater option like in Halo, download of videos, etc., access to betas in future games, map packs built into the cost (+early availability).

I think there is no problem with paying a premium rate for those services...however, I can also see the following scenario which would be totally wrong.
1. Only allowing party groups on Premium.
2. Leveling up/Prestige feature allowed only on Premium.

[Dudebro]

People might talk the talk about giving it up, but when MW3 shows up on the doorstep, there will jump on board.
Lots of people will, sure, but then again lots of former fans felt burned by how MW2 was allowed to be run into the ground by hackers/modders. That and plenty of fans are just sick of how repetitive the games have become.
I played MW2 a lot but I refused to buy Black Ops because it looked like more of the same. Same goes for MW3 imo. Battlefield 3 is a maybe though, looks awesome.

[Slime Slayer]

So those of you who were thinking of going over to BF 3 because of this, might want to look elswhere.
Battlefield 3 Limited Edition: Physical Warfare Pack Available Exclusively For Pre-Order (http://www.battlefield.com/uk/battlefield3/blog/battlefield-3-limited-edition-physical-warfare-pack-available)
Basically what it says is that, unless you want to be at a disadvantage online, then you'll pay extra.

[Dudebro]

It's annoying but it's still just typical preorder crap. A couple weeks after launch they'll be selling that pack on the marketplace anyways. It's not really comparable to having a premium subscription.
It's just two guns, armor piercing ammo(for one of the two guns), flash suppressor for a specific sniper rifle and old maps. The only one I'd really be mad about is the maps since it will make it so you can't join all the online matches without it(I think).

I'm not saying I agree with it, not even close. I'm just used to it by now.

[Slime Slayer]

Random quote from reddit:
"There's probably no chance that anyone is going to see this comment but I'll leave it anyway. I have a very good relationship with a person at DICE, who I don't want to out, who came to me when the physical warfare pack was announced to get me to look through forums to find negative feedback about the pack that he could give to his superiors at EA. He was pissed that they had announced it without the go ahead of DICE and wanted to show EA the reactions of the community. He said they now have to do similar packs in other country's in order to keep the balance.
So yes, the exclusives suck but it was EA marketing that did this and DICE knew nothing about it."


The topic:
halo73 comments on EA and DICE are chopping Battlefield 3 into store-specific pre-order DLC. Weapons and gear are being cut out of the core game and made exclusive. Say hello to the Physical Warfare Pack and goodbye to the T88 LMG, the first of many (http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/hxp37/ea_and_dice_are_chopping_battlefield_3_into/c1z8u91)
Another:
If you are tired of Exclusive DLCs butchering games like BF3, cancel your pre-order. : reddit.com (http://www.reddit.com/comments/hxtjy/if_you_are_tired_of_exclusive_dlcs_butchering/)

[Dudebro]

I'm sincerely unsure what your point is. A couple people posted negative stuff about this and one claimed to know a guy who knows a guy who works for DICE? Sounds about as credible as getting my info from xbox forums.

[Slime Slayer]

And this needs to stop:
http://wedonetwork.co.uk/wedotech/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/abXW9.png

[Dudebro]

What needs to stop?

[Slime Slayer]

I'm sincerely unsure what your point is. A couple people posted negative stuff about this and one claimed to know a guy who knows a guy who works for DICE? Sounds about as credible as getting my info from xbox forums.
I'm just trying to do my own small part in stopping the downfall of my hobby.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

What needs to stop?
Did you look at the image?

[jim5cents]

It is a listing of player profiles that said they would boycott mw2, and their profiles are currently playing mw2. Just goes along with what I was saying. MW3 will be the product. The players will want the product and they will do anything to get it.

So, EA is trying to bleed the consumer dry...shocking.

[Dudebro]

I'm just trying to do my own small part in stopping the downfall of my hobby.
By posting something that could be a complete lie by someone seeking attention or because they hate that specific game? Ok sure I guess.

Did you look at the image?
Yeah I noticed your point after I posted. So are Steam petitions as pointless as other online petitions or do they actually matter at all?

Also not a shock that COD fans are inconsistent. Whenever an expensive map pack is rolled out people are up in arms but then it goes on to be the biggest DLC purchase. Nothing new here.

[Slime Slayer]

By posting something that could be a complete lie by someone seeking attention or because they hate that specific game? Ok sure I guess.
My point about that specifically was to be careful not to blame Dice in this situatuation, this falls on EA's lap.

I'm just trying to help spread the mentality that this stuff needs to stop before it becoms the norm, because once it is then the next ripoff will become the norm, and so on, and so on.

You can try to rain on my parade all you want with your cynical attitude to all this but your not going to convince me to follow suit.

[Dudebro]

My point about that specifically was to be careful not to blame Dice in this situatuation, this falls on EA's lap.
Do you really believe that DICE, the company who makes Battlefield, was unaware of this ridiculous marketing ploy? Unless I'm confused about your point it seems obvious to me that DICE would know if EA was chopping up their game for preorder bonuses.

I read the comment you linked as a fanboy trying to spin damage control for DICE since so many of those fans are obsessed with the company and they hold it on this pedestal because they think it's soooooooo much awesomer than COD games. It's not.

I'm just trying to help spread the mentality that this stuff needs to stop before it becoms the norm, because once it is then the next ripoff will become the norm, and so on, and so on.
I have no problem with that. But posting some comment by an anonymous internet user isn't helping your case.

You can try to rain on my parade all you want with your cynical attitude to all this but your not going to convince me to follow suit.
Follow suit how, do you think I'm defending this practice? I'm adamantly against this kind of scam and I actually refuse to buy certain games because of it.

Or did you just mean follow suit like also be cynical? If so you don't need to worry about that, you got that covered anytime you speak about something that isn't Nintendo.

[Slime Slayer]

Follow suit how, do you think I'm defending this practice? I'm adamantly against this kind of scam and I actually refuse to buy certain games because of it.
I'm glad you feel this way then. I just seemed to me that you were suggesting that it's just the way things are now and we should just accept it.
Or did you just mean follow suit like also be cynical? If so you don't need to worry about that, you got that covered anytime you speak about something that isn't Nintendo.
I don't want to turn this into something personal. This is a serious topic and I'd like our conversation to reflect that.

[Dudebro]

I didn't want to turn it into anything personal either but I found it kinda ridiculous of you to bring up cynicism in a MS related topic.

[Slime Slayer]

I didn't want to turn it into anything personal either but I found it kinda ridiculous of you to bring up cynicism in a MS related topic.
I didnt know this was MS related... is there something I missed?

[Dudebro]

You're right, I meant FPS related.

[Slime Slayer]

Okay, keep in mind that I don't dislike the genre, I just dislike the over saturation.

I didnt know this but EA tried this before, and it was succussfully boycotted:
"On March 29, 2008,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_Gamer#cite_note-13) Sarcastic Gamer called for a boycott of the game Battlefield: Bad Company due to news that consumers would be allowed to purchase additional weapons for the game which, though already complete (and included on the game disc), were to remain locked until the user paid a fee to access them. The general consensus of the hosts was that this was an attempt by EA to test public receptiveness to downloadable content of this sort.
Many websites from around the world got involved in or mentioned the boycott[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_Gamer#cite_note-14) making it very popular among gamers and eventually reaching IGN[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_Gamer#cite_note-15) which contacted Electronic Arts, the publisher of the game, causing it to finally cease the idea of paid weapons.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_Gamer#cite_note-16)
As a result of this, on April 9, 2008 Sarcastic Gamer announced[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_Gamer#cite_note-17) that the goal of the boycott had been achieved and the boycott was lifted"

[Dudebro]

I didn't know that. I'll have to remember to bring that up when the BF fanboys wax on and on about how much better BF is than COD. Turns out it's just as bad but they caved to pressure. I give them credit for conceding to the demands of their customers but they obviously never cared about giving them a better experience, it's just about money. And yes I blame DICE equally with EA.

[Kong]

I don't know much about any of that but I think EA is the leader in trying to stop used game sales. And given that info then I would be inclined to believe Steven and that they are forcing the other company into this.

Imagine Ford saying we will sue you if you sell your used car because it hurts their new car sales. EA wants a special exceptions and that needs to be stopped. I might be inclined to think about it if they were struggling or if their bread and butter wasn't re-releasing the same games every year, but that is hardly the case.

[Slime Slayer]

Ya'know what one of the worst things about this is, the fact that this offer is limited to select retailers. So your mom and pop game store won't be selling any.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 PM ----------
NSFW


http://i.imgur.com/1hy5e.jpg

[ZedIsDead]

Ya'know what one of the worst things about this is, the fact that this offer is limited to select retailers. So your mom and pop game store won't be selling any.

That's my biggest issue with this. Not only do you have to buy the game new(that bit I understand), but you have to pre-order it without the benefit of reviews, at a certain store. If, say, you hate the business practices of Gamestop, but it alone has the "full" game available, would you cave and pre-order? I'm willing to bet that most gamers will. They may condemn it online, but when it comes down to it, they will buy it anyway.

This kind of garbage only makes me want to only buy EA's games used, if at all. I really only have interest in Bioware's offerings, anyway.

[Kugyince]

+1 for the Tetris image, SC.

I really don't care where I buy my games if I'm buying used. Usually either Gamestop or Glyde.
If I'm buying new I only preorder a game if it comes with a bonus unless I think the stock quantity will be small. Damn you Atlus!

[Dudebro]

To be fair anytime they do this kind of thing you can still buy the game used and just buy the preorder bonus online. Considering how expensive recently new games are at Gamestop you end up paying the same as a new game pretty much. So if you wanna avoid a certain retailer you can.

[jim5cents]

Stuff like this is one of the main reasons why I rarely buy games anymore...Red Dead Redemption was the last I purchased.

I am totally into the online game rentals. I'll take the pass on the bonus gun, or extra map, or stupid avatar generally because once I'm done with a game, I'm done with it. Rent it, keep it for a month,rental service costs $9.00 bucks a month, return it.

[Slime Slayer]

I don't buy second hand unless it isnt available new. Games for handhelds are cheap enough and I only buy a game a month, if that. So it's financially feesable.

[Dudebro]

I only buy a game new if I know for sure it's gonna be worth it. But even then it's still a crapshoot. Games that are iffy get purchased used or as a trade in so I don't pay 60 bucks for a piece of crap in a box.

[Kugyince]

I set myself aside $50 a month and limit myself to that. If I didn't I would drop hundreds a month on games I would only play for a few hours each.

I'm a pretty avid handheld gamer and log in 10-15 hours a week on my 3DS. I buy a new game once every 2-3 months and split the rest of the time between used DS games and (finally) downloaded titles.

I'll eventually finish my DS collection...

[Slime Slayer]

Good read:
The 6 Most Ominous Trends in Video Games | Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/)
@site mods, perhaps one of you could change the topic to something like, "the fall of gaming" or whatever your creative minds deem appropriate, I'd like to broaden this topic to encompass all of what we should be concerned about regarding gaming in our future.

[StarfoxFan2009]

This isn't the first time EA's done this. Look at what they did to the later Madden games on Ps3 and 360. They basically made it to where you have to buy new to play online

[Dudebro]

I read that already and you're right it is good. I'm glad more people are speaking out about this trend.

Btw I dunno what to name the topic, "The downward spiral", "End of the gaming world"(a play on our other topic)?

[Slime Slayer]

I read that already and you're right it is good. I'm glad more people are speaking out about this trend.

Btw I dunno what to name the topic, "The downward spiral", "End of the gaming world"(a play on our other topic)?
Maybe something like: "Dying bit by bit" silly pun intended.

On topic:
Then you got these guys: Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/lulzsec)
They are bringing down servers one at a time, apparently MK is next. I really don't know what to make of them, are they good or bad. On the surface they are obviously bad, but perhaps good will come out of it in the end?

[Kugyince]

Great article SC. +1

[Dudebro]

Nope they're bad. They aren't being vigilantes because of some wrong they must right, they're just trolls looking for attention.

[Kugyince]

That's probably right, DB.

I can also see the possibility that they tried to contact Nintendo about the security hole and Ninty being Ninty just ignored them. Maybe that was their only way to get it through Ninty's head. It's not like they caused any harm.

[Kong]

Yes, great article steve.

[warghoul]

I heard about those guys on npr this morning. It was a great segment.

[Slime Slayer]

I heard about those guys on npr this morning. It was a great segment.
They just brought down cia.gov, these guys are quite fearless it seems.

[Dudebro]

Fearless or stupid? I bet they just picked the wrong target.

[Slime Slayer]

Lulz:
http://i.imgur.com/7xiJi.png

Lets change the name topic shall we? How about "the death of gaming"

[Demon-Mask]

Oh my God!!! Dreadlocks? You bet I'm going to pre-order three copies of each version to be released.

[Dudebro]

I'd just like to say that I think the new title of this topic is silly and melodramatic. The gaming industry is far from dieing, in fact it seems to be finally gaining mainstream acceptance as our generation grows up and takes over. I sincerely doubt any of these cash grab scams will make a dent in the industry. It may kill the companies pushing them but that's not a big deal, companies come and go all the time.

I think what's really hurting the industry is the laziness of the developers. Seeing all the remakes, sequels and shovelware this year really made me think that things are coming to a head and we're due for a renaissance of sorts. People will get tired of seeing the same crap on the shelves year after year. Once people stop being morons and buying up all these lazy games just on brand recognition game companies will be forced to innovate.

[Demon-Mask]

I don't think the gaming industry is anywhere near dieing. It has died once before, and look at how it thrives today.

Eventually, games will get back on track again.

[Slime Slayer]

I'd just like to say that I think the new title of this topic is silly and melodramatic.
I left it open to suggestions, or said a mod could change it to whatever they wanted, and it didnt happen, so I just said screw it. Feel free to change it to whatever.

[Dudebro]

No it's fine I'm just voicing my opinion on it. If you feel it's right then it's fine since it's your topic anyways, right?

[Kugyince]

The Death of Gaming: Laser focus on the casual and hardcore markets.

[Dudebro]

As opposed to what, the middle?

[Kugyince]

Correct. The core gamer.

[Dudebro]

That seems a little ambiguous. How do you market to the middle?

[Kugyince]

Games. New IPs. Multitudes of genres. You simply focus on your core base and what would attract them.

All I'm saying is that the big three pay too much attention towards attracting and drawing in hardcore and casual gamers instead of pleasing the fans they have now. More games like LA Noir, Monster Tale, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus and the like and lets ease up on trying to get the bowling grandmothers and codblop try-hards.

I may be a fanboy but if Nintendo doesn't give me the games I want I will look elsewhere.

[Dudebro]

I agree with you.

I was really let down by the prospects for this year, across the board. Of course some of them will be awesome games but those same games will probably very familiar names. I'm not saying they sell on name alone but people do give a game a chance much easier if it's called Mario Bros or Halo. The big 3 have no guts at all and they just go with what they know will sell. It's gonna be an uphill battle to market to the middle.

[Demon-Mask]

All I'm saying is that the big three pay too much attention towards attracting and drawing in hardcore and casual gamers instead of pleasing the fans they have now. More games like LA Noir, Monster Tale, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus and the like and lets ease up on trying to get the bowling grandmothers and codblop try-hards.

My question is this: at what point did the term 'hardcore gamer' become synonymous with fourteen to twenty year old kids who play nothing but first-person-shooters?
That one thing has bugged me. I put more time into gaming than most of those people, and I play a diverse selection of games, yet that is less hardcore than playing two hours of Gears of Halo: Call of Honor: Modern Ops 845 every day. I just don't get it. Maybe they should try playing one of the Touhou games, see if they still feel hardcore after that.

But yeah, I think there should be more good games that target people other than Call of Duty fans and grandma.
It seems like back just one generation, back when it was PS2/Gamecube/Xbox, the problem was much less prevalent, and one generation before that it was even less prevalent, and each generation back is the same. Less focused on "hardocore" and "casual" gamers than the next.

[Dudebro]

I just don't get it.
Obviously if you think the hardcore kids only play a couple hours of the most popular FPS games. I can tell you with confidence that you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off with that number.

[Demon-Mask]

I was just making a point. I know they play more than a couple of hours. But, the crowd that claims to be "hardcore" tend to be the type that only really plays FPS games, as opposed to a wide variety of games. Seems very un-hardcore to intentionally limit yourself to a single genre of game.

[Dudebro]

Yeah but you can be considered a hardcore FPS, RPG, RTS, ect player right? You don't have to diversify to be hardcore, at least in my opinion. But even so I notice a lot of the COD try hards play all the popular other games like Fable and Assassins Creed, basically whatever the reviews tell them to play.

[Demon-Mask]

Therein lies the problem. The reviews they listen to, tend to be bought off, so they are playing the games by the companies willing to pay the most for a nice review. I don't trust professional reviews, I trust my friends to tell me a game is worth playing or not, and I find consumer reviews are more reliable when it comes to not being blatantly bought-off.

[DrunkN]

Therein lies the problem. The reviews they listen to, tend to be bought off, so they are playing the games by the companies willing to pay the most for a nice review. I don't trust professional reviews, I trust my friends to tell me a game is worth playing or not, and I find consumer reviews are more reliable when it comes to not being blatantly bought-off.
But why is that a problem? From what I have read so far, I take it you don't trust the mainstream cash flow when it comes to gaming and view people who do play these games (such as Call of Duty and God of War) as the type who are missing out.

Would I be correct? Why should people who enjoy those games branch out? What sense would it make for game companies to deviate from the types of games that have been raking in the most cash for ten years?

[Demon-Mask]

It's not so much that these games are bad, I just want the market to remain diverse, so I have the option of playing something more unusual, like Baroque or Dark Cloud. If these people don't branch out to some extent, then game companies will focus entirely on Call of Duty and Gears of War, and soon there will be nothing but Call of Duty and Gears of War. A market like this benefits those who only enjoy Call of Duty and Gears of War, and the companies that make Call of Duty and Gears of War, but the rest of us ultimately lose.

It isn't really a problem, just a less than optimal state.

[Dudebro]

DC Universe Online lighting Green Lantern DLC - News at GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6323256.html)

So I guess Sony really doesn't care about it's image even after that huge embarrassment recently. Now they're releasing a DLC for their DC Universe, which just came back online after being hacked, and it's gonna cost money. This may not sound too bad but they do charge a monthly fee already, I heard it's around 15 bucks, and this update is supposedly not as big as normal PC game expansions that would cost money. It's three missions and the ability to use Green Latern styled light powers. So it's like charging money for a new job class.

To put it in perspective when I used to play FF11 they released a few jobs that you had to pay to use but they all came attached to huge content expansions that added stuff like new zones, characters, items, crafting recipes and other assorted improvements. All that would cost like 30 bucks at first and then barely anything later when bundled with other expansions. This move by Sony is pretty greedy if my info is correct. Death of gaming indeed.

[Slime Slayer]

Ya know what really sucks about all of this, and where we are kinda screwed? The fact that for some kids, DC online will be their first game, and right from the get go they don't remember a time where dlc wasnt the norm. We should make a spin off of some drug psa "talk to your kids about dlc"
How about "the death of gaming as we know it" for the title? Not too dramatic, and gets the point accross.

[Dudebro]

Honestly I think the main problem is fanboys. In this case it's DC fanboys who will support the game because they are obsessed and they don't want it to die. The rest of the people will scoff at the scam and some will even cancel their subscriptions. I just hope the fanboys are the minority. Almost all other subsciption based MMOs are failing, I doubt DC online will do any better with this tactic.

[Slime Slayer]

One of my buddies finally quit EQ and went over to DC online. Not sure why I'm saying this, it's not meant to support either argument, but whatever.

A small example of consumers getting screwed:
http://i.imgur.com/fooZF.jpg

[Dudebro]

So? They don't allow people to cancel their paid subscription on their website and make you call support to verify it's actually you. As far as I know you can turn on your xbox and turn off auto renewal/membership, with your password, since the system is solely your responsibility. Their website is their responsibility so they take that extra step. Sure it's annoying but how are people getting screwed by it?

[Kugyince]

It's like a credit card. It's a lot easier to get a card than to cancel one. They want people to call them so they can have a telemarketer attempt to convince them to reconsider.

It has nothing to do with security. It's just as easy to prove that it's your credit card or account that you're using to renew as it is to prove that it's your account that you want to cancel. If one can be done securely online so can the other.

[Dudebro]

It's easy to just say it has nothing to do with security, got anything to back that up? I'm not saying they won't try to also convince you stay but so what? All you have to do is say no. It makes sense to me that you'd have to talk to a real person to verify all your personal info. When I played FFXI they did the same thing with anything dealing with your subscription.

[Slime Slayer]

Also, I don't know about M$, but some comapanies are next to impossible to get ahold of on the phone if it means someone is going to cancel something.

[Kugyince]

It's easy to just say it has nothing to do with security, got anything to back that up?

I can get an account without talking to a representative. I can renew or alter an account without talking to a representative. That alone backs it up.

Did you even read my last post?

[Slime Slayer]

Bottom line DB:

continuing to give MS money -easy
stop giving MS money -hard

And I said, this is a small example of a consumer getting screwed, but fits in the topic none the less.

[Kugyince]

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash MS at the moment. I'd assume Sony does the same with their PS Plus accounts.

[Dudebro]

I read your post. Yes it is much easier to make an account but people generally aren't trying to make fake xbox accounts with stolen identities. I see the issue as people trying to tamper with existing accounts to get control of the CC or more personal info. It's actually happened before to a few high profile xbox members. I forget the term but the people who did it called support with basic info and gained control of the accounts. If people are willing to go that far to compromise an account I can understand the extra layer of protection.

Btw the people who got compromised revealed too much personal info on twitter or facebook I think. This was also over a year ago so things have only become more strict since then.

Also I'm really not just trying to defend MS because I use their service. They've pissed me off a lot recently and I have no fanboy love to get past that. I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is nothing.

[Slime Slayer]

I read your post. Yes it is much easier to make an account but people generally aren't trying to make fake xbox accounts with stolen identities. I see the issue as people trying to tamper with existing accounts to get control of the CC or more personal info. It's actually happened before to a few high profile xbox members. I forget the term but the people who did it called support with basic info and gained control of the accounts. If people are willing to go that far to compromise an account I can understand the extra layer of protection.

Btw the people who got compromised revealed too much personal info on twitter or facebook I think. This was also over a year ago so things have only become more strict since then.

Also I'm really not just trying to defend MS because I use their service. They've pissed me off a lot recently and I have no fanboy love to get past that. I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is nothing.
Actually, I emphasised the fact that it was a "small example" an 2 seperate occassions, any mountain you are detecting was not my doing.

And did you just notice that the security breaches you mentioned were through calling the support line? This was supposed to be more secure I thought.

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

This is not meant to be a crap on MS thread, these are just the links I'm comming accross:
Windows 8 will allow for Xbox 360 games to be played on PC's | Entertainment | Metrowny.com (http://www.metrowny.com/news-entertainment/archives/589-Windows_8_will_allow_for_Xbox_360_games_to_be_play ed_on_PCs.html)
I predicted this when MS first entered the market, took a lot longer than I expected but it is upon us none the less. This also solidifies my prediction that we wont see another MS console.
This is still technically in rumor phase as of now though.

[Dudebro]

It's funny this came up now. I just read on the xbox forums that this is changed and you can turn off auto renewal via the website. No mention of canceling subscription though. Either way I still wouldn't trust their site, I'd call tech support if my console wouldn't let me.

Do you think MS turning to PC is part of this so called death of gaming? Personally I think it'd be awesome and smart of them. We all know PCs are better than any consoles so this is just the next logical step. I wonder how this hypothetical move would effect the other two.

[Kong]

Windows 8 will allow for Xbox 360 games to be played on PC's | Entertainment | Metrowny.com (http://www.metrowny.com/news-entertainment/archives/589-Windows_8_will_allow_for_Xbox_360_games_to_be_play ed_on_PCs.html)
I predicted this when MS first entered the market, took a lot longer than I expected but it is upon us none the less. This also solidifies my prediction that we wont see another MS console.
This is still technically in rumor phase as of now though.
Why is this bad? Sounds good to me.

[Slime Slayer]

I figured 360 users would concider it a slap in the face.

[Dudebro]

Some probably will but who cares about them. Either get with the times or be left behind, right?

[Kugyince]

Moving consoles over to the PC is a horrible idea for me personally.

It's a lot cheaper, easier, and more compact to have a current console than it is to have a current PC. I don't want to drag around a tower, monitor, mouse, keyboard, all-in-one, all the cables, speakers, etc... if I want to play a few games in the bedroom instead of the living room.

Plus if you get a virus all of your gaming is shut down.

[Dudebro]

That's why I doubt this rumor is true. Most console gamers have a PC of some kind but I'm willing to bet most only use it for the internet and they either can't or won't use it for gaming. MS is not stupid and they know their fanbase. Maybe this rumor is only part of the truth, maybe the missing part is just seamless cross platform between PC and their console. Consolidate their whole gaming market into one service, along with Zune and other crap of course. It's already kinda like that anyways with some games being cross platform between vista and xbox. They combined the Games for windows Live forum into the console one too.

[Kugyince]

It would be a rather stupid move to move it all into "PC or nothing."

[Dudebro]

They really don't need to do that. Just have the option for both and have both buy games/extras through Live. I really doubt MS would gamble with it's fans and restrict them to one platform. Their whole recent movement has been towards a social media style network. If anything they'd give more gateways to buy their stuff.

[Kugyince]

They really don't need to do that. Just have the option for both and have both buy games/extras through Live. I really doubt MS would gamble with it's fans and restrict them to one platform. Their whole recent movement has been towards a social media style network. If anything they'd give more gateways to buy their stuff.

I was agreeing with your previous post. No need to repeat yourself.

[Kong]

I don't want to drag around a tower
You can easily get a PC that is the same size as a console or smaller.

monitor
Most modern TVs have VGA hook ups now. And if not then for about 50 extra bucks you can get a pc that will connect to any tv. So you can just use your existing TVs the same as you would with a console.

mouse, keyboard
Not needed if all you are going to do is play games. Just plug in your controller.

all-in-one
I don't know what that is

all the cables
You only need a power cable, tv cable, and controller. Same as with a console.

speakers
Use the same speakers you would have used with your console. If you have to move them for the PC you would have to move them for a console.

Plus if you get a virus all of your gaming is shut down.
I have commented on this before, there are easy ways around this. Just have an option to boot into console mode or into PC mode. If it is console mode then it boots into the same type of system as a console making it no different than an XBOX, except it also has an option to boot into PC mode. Some old computers in the 80s had this option too.

Think of it as an XBOX that you can customize and use as a PC instead of a PC that plays XBOX games. I am not saying that is the way they will do it, but I think they would be stupid to do it any other way.

[Dudebro]

@Tenser- sorry I was trying to expand on what I said not repeat myself.

@Kong- people are already speculating that if they did it soon it would most likely just be like having the xbox OS on your system and not some emulator that would have tons of issues. I assume that would be similar to what you mean about booting into console mode.

[Slime Slayer]

I just prefer a console, this may be hard for some people to understand but that's the way it is.

[Kugyince]

@Kong:

So I should toss out my current $1000 computer so I can get one that's smaller. I feel like I'd have to ask a buddy to help carry the computer desk upstairs so I can play in the bedroom.

The whole idea of mixing a console with a PC just seems too "hall of the future" gimmicky right next to video phones and TVs with e-nets that 99% of the people don't use that way anyways. I don't mind online gaming but I don't want to primarily surf the net with a controller/phone/remote/handheld.

Actually, I really don't care as long as they leave my handhelds alone.

[Dudebro]

Tenser you could also just get really long PC/TV cords. Granted that might not be too cheap but it's cheaper than a console and you'd have access to your PC on your TV.

Steven I do understand you. I like having a console too but I wouldn't be bothered if they stopped making them. I guess I'm neutral about it.

[Kugyince]

Sorry. I'd much rather buy a new console for $300 than pay $200 for Windows 8. Not including any upgrades I may need.

Maybe it's me but I don't want a PC in my console or a console in my PC. I highly doubt I'm alone though.

[Slime Slayer]

I'm starting to think I don't want a pc at all, I'm seriously addicted to the internet lately.

[Kong]

@Kong- people are already speculating that if they did it soon it would most likely just be like having the xbox OS on your system and not some emulator that would have tons of issues. I assume that would be similar to what you mean about booting into console mode.
Yes.

I feel like I'd have to ask a buddy to help carry the computer desk upstairs so I can play in the bedroom. Why would you need your desk?

Assuming they give you a choice, buy a new console or use your existing PC/laptop or buy a new computer, then where is the harm. Everyone can choose what works for them.

If I upgraded my video card then my laptop would be faster and more portable than an xbox and a new video card would be cheaper than an xbox and then I would only have one device. Several people already have computers that are better than an xbox. Why not give them a choice of using better hardware that they already own then forcing them to buy something new that is less capable?


I don't want to primarily surf the net with a controller/phone/remote/handheld. The PC would continue to have the option of using any input device including keyboard, mouse or controller.

Actually, I really don't care as long as they leave my handhelds alone.The article made it sound that the plan might be to make xbox games play on smart phones instead of making a MS branded handheld. I don't see that happening soon though. Smart phones that run MS use Windows CE, not Win7 and very few handhelds use Windows at all and that is not likely to swing in MS's favor anytime soon and smart phones aren't powerful enough for xbox games.

---------- Post added at 12:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 AM ----------

I think the opinions here, right or wrong, prove that if they did do this they would have an uphill marketing battle than they would probably lose even if it was a good idea.

[Kugyince]

Sorry guys, can't finish our Halo game. Wife wants to do some online banking so I have to lug my tower downstairs and plug in the keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers, and printer.

@Kong: Don't forget the cosy of purchasing the next version of Windows into your figures. That's $200 + the video card. Remember, it's also a scam to get people to buy a newer version of Windows.

[Kong]

Assuming they give you a choice, buy a new console or use your existing PC/laptop or buy a new computer, then where is the harm. Everyone can choose what works for them.What's wrong with this?

Are you afraid they wont give you a choice to buy a console, because I doubt that would happen.

[Kugyince]

I'm saying there's a chance they wont give you a choice.

I refuse to make assumptions based off of assumptions.

[Slime Slayer]

I'm not going to explain this, it took me about a minute to figure out.http://i.imgur.com/F9KwJ.jpg

[Demon-Mask]

I don't understand. Not one bit.
It's Driver, an established franchise of games, the relevance to the death of gaming is what?
If anything, this is proof that gaming is not dieing, as games are still being produced, released, sold and played.

[DrunkN]

I hate to ruin it, but of the letters in "DRIVER", "IVI" together look like an M, thus the red letters create "DRM".

DRM is an anti piracy thing, which will require people who want to play DRIVER to have internet access. I'm sure Steven will get his issue with this out of the way better than I can for him.

[Demon-Mask]

I understand the concept of DRM, and it is the reason I hate Steam.
I didn't see the "DRM" in the title, it's something you may not see without knowing in advance that it exists.
It's like the arrow in the Fed-EX logo.
http://blog.crowdspring.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/FedExLogo.jpg

[DrunkN]

I think that the arrow in Fed Ex may actually be a coincidence, but yeah, I couldn't figure out the DRM without Steven's help.

[Demon-Mask]

I don't know if the arrow was intentional or not, but I can never unsee it.
It may be intentional, it would make sense in a way.

[Dudebro]

I could be wrong but I thought I heard that the DRM issue with steam was just specific games that already build that in? I know some games work offline so it can't be all of them.

[Demon-Mask]

To play any Steam game, you must log in to Steam. To log in to Steam, you must connect to the internet. Therefore, you must connect to the internet to play any Steam game.
It would suck if you lost internet connection and still wanted to play Portal or something.

[DrunkN]

To play any Steam game, you must log in to Steam. To log in to Steam, you must connect to the internet. Therefore, you must connect to the internet to play any Steam game.
It would suck if you lost internet connection and still wanted to play Portal or something.
You can be in offline mode for Steam, can't you?

[bearhawk72]

You can be in offline mode for Steam, can't you?
Yeah, but I think you need to go online to set it up to play games offline.

I'm not really sure as I haven't used it

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

I believe I've been playing single player games on steam when my connection crapped out and I kept right on playing with no issues

[Dudebro]

I don't know about Portal but I've been able to play the free version of Peggle offline. But it is basically a demo so maybe it doesn't count.

I did notice that some games have a specific thing called SteamPlay listed on their profiles, maybe it's just those?

[Demon-Mask]

I believe I've been playing single player games on steam when my connection crapped out and I kept right on playing with no issues
For single player, you just have to authenticate upon booting the game, after that the internet itself could disappear, and you'd be able to continue playing.

[Dudebro]

Well this is not exclusive to Steam and since Steam is an awesome service I can accept it. Blizzard did it with Starcraft 2 too and I swallowed my anger then too, but it was hard.

[Demon-Mask]

If I liked Steam as a whole, I wouldn't mind that authentification, but since I don't like Steam all that much, I am less than satisfied with it.

[Dudebro]

Hard to beat a game service that's free, has TONS of games and constantly has huge sales on them as low as 80% off sometimes. Plus they do cross promotions like the From Dust mask in TF2. Those features make Live look lame imo. But Live has it's advantages like a much better friends system and party feature. I don't even know if the steam one works besides being able to manually click on your friend and join their game.

[Demon-Mask]

Steam has its good moments, I've just had my issues with it.
Oh, and I prefer paying cash to using paypal and whatnot.

[Dudebro]

Have fun trying to use cash for everything. Gaming is heading towards digital download across all platforms. I just use a CC for it.

[Demon-Mask]

I've been considering getting myself a debit card or something like that. No credit cards, I don't like the interest rates.

[Dudebro]

Whatever works really. But you don't really need anything if you just wanna play TF2.

[Demon-Mask]

I know, but having a debit card would be wise anyway. And besides, there are some other games that look interesting to me. That new god-sim that I can't remember the title of and Recettear are both games I'd like to play.

[Dudebro]

From Dust right? I just bought it last night on Steam but I gotta wait two weeks to play it. :(

[Demon-Mask]

Yeah, From Dust was the one.
Damn, I hate Steam's preordering system.

[Dudebro]

Why? I think it's cool that when it releases it'll download. Better than preordering at Gamestop and having to wait around with a bunch of weirdos and some condescending employees.

[Demon-Mask]

Better than preordering at Gamestop and having to wait around with a bunch of weirdos and some condescending employees.
Condenscending is right. "You do know that they rereleased that on the PS3, and it is so much better, right?" "Do you really want that game, it got crap reviews."

If I went through the disorganized section of PS2 games specifically to find one game, I think I want it. Seriously, it's like they don't want my money or something.

[Kugyince]

Guess I'm lucky. Employees at my GameStop are more friendly to the point of them being a bit too outgoing.

[Dudebro]

They're friendly in the way all retail clerks are friendly, because they have to be. But the ones I've encountered like to act pretentious like they know everything there is to know about games.

Btw I called them the other day to see if they carried Jaws for original Xbox and after they told me no he just hung up. I assume it's because I know what I wanted and it wasn't anything he cared about. Douche.

[Demon-Mask]

They're friendly in the way all retail clerks are friendly, because they have to be. But the ones I've encountered like to act pretentious like they know everything there is to know about games.
Friendly, but not always pleasant. There are some clerks that are pretty cool, the ones who just say things like "Oh, that's a good choice" or "I wasn't aware we had that one used, that's pretty lucky"
Basically, the ones who accept your taste, and don't try and say something is better than that, and don't think they know everything are the clerks that I don't mind.


Btw I called them the other day to see if they carried Jaws for original Xbox and after they told me no he just hung up. I assume it's because I know what I wanted and it wasn't anything he cared about. Douche.

Part of it may be the whole "Do you have Battletoads?" thing.
Or, they simply didn't have it, and he couldn't be bothered to tell you.

One time, I went into a Gamestop and asked if they had The World Ends With You in stock, the clerk said something to the effect of "Sorry, we don't" and then looked it up in some database to see if any of the local stores had it. They then told me what store had it.
I wonder why the clerks can't be helpful like that all the time.

[Slime Slayer]

I watched so many mom's getting suckered into extended warrenties, addittional stylus's, screen protecters, all in one peripheral kits, and so on while I waited in line for my 3ds. When I got to the line all they asked me was if I wanted a bag, I asked them if every bag said Kinect on them and they said yes, I declined a bag.

Point is they will take you for all your worth if they think they can.

[Kugyince]

They're friendly in the way all retail clerks are friendly, because they have to be. But the ones I've encountered like to act pretentious like they know everything there is to know about games.

Yep, there are none like that in my store. Glad I don't have to go all aggro at a local GS.

[Seahawk]

I watched so many mom's getting suckered into extended warrenties, addittional stylus's, screen protecters, all in one peripheral kits, and so on while I waited in line for my 3ds. When I got to the line all they asked me was if I wanted a bag, I asked them if every bag said Kinect on them and they said yes, I declined a bag.

Point is they will take you for all your worth if they think they can.

True story.

At a local GS, I've watched the manager/owner play so many non-gamer customers into buying so many extra things over the past 4 years since I started going there. It is a spectacle to behold every time I see that. He has never tried that on me. They definitely recognize know their audience, lol.

[Slime Slayer]

I have a good experience or 2 also. When I went in to pick up OOT for 3DS, he saw me look at the display cases, and then begin to peruse the store a bit before I brought one up. He said to me "Hey buddy if your planning on buying that then buy it now because we only got one left." As I left the store I held it up to some chinese man and his kid who were entering the strore and announced with a big grin "This is the last one!" he was like "well good for you!" or something, and seemed a bit stunned, lol I don't think he was there to pick up OOT.

[Kugyince]

Iwata announced that even though the 3DS and eventually the Wii-U will be capable of paid DLC that Nintendo will not be doing this themselves as they see it as harmful to their relationship with their customers.

At least they're doing something right. Now bring me some damn games to play!

Sauce: DLC System Coming to Both 3DS & Wii U - News - Nintendo World Report (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/27316)

[DrunkN]

When I got to the line all they asked me was if I wanted a bag, I asked them if every bag said Kinect on them and they said yes, I declined a bag.
God forbid your fellow Nintendoers see you strolling with a Kinnect bag in your hand.
http://www.mdaniels.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/nintendo_fan.jpg

About Game Stop, I actually like my local clerks quite a bit. One guy in particular tends to be there a lot, and we get along pretty well. Either that, or he's just good at his job. As far as mothers go, I always figured they get shnicked when it comes to games anyway, but maybe it's just my sexist views blocking out the sympathy I should probably have...

[Kugyince]

You know DN, I have never seen that image before. Good for you for being original!

[DrunkN]

You know DN, I have never seen that image before. Good for you for being original!
Well I do appreciate it, but there may be plenty of images you have never seen before.
I find it a little unusual that you would go out of your way to voice your appreciation of it, but I am flattered by the gesture.

[Slime Slayer]

God forbid your fellow Nintendoers see you strolling with a Kinnect bag in your hand.
This goes beyond fanboyism, I would not be comfortable wrapping up "product a", with an advertisment for "product b" in any circumstance. (save for perhaps items of a sexual nature)

[DrunkN]

This goes beyond fanboyism, I would not be comfortable wrapping up "product a", with an advertisment for "product b" in any circumstance. (save for perhaps items of a sexual nature)
Fair enough, I thought that it might have been born out of your dislike of what Microsoft has done for/to gaming in the past.

[Demon-Mask]

This goes beyond fanboyism, I would not be comfortable wrapping up "product a", with an advertisment for "product b" in any circumstance. (save for perhaps items of a sexual nature)
Yeah, it just feels awkward. I'd rather not advertise a product when I intentionally chose to get a different product.

[samejamesbond]

This goes beyond fanboyism, I would not be comfortable wrapping up "product a", with an advertisment for "product b" in any circumstance. (save for perhaps items of a sexual nature)

It wouldn't bother me, I mean they're just games, nothing too
serious to worry about. But the guys at my GS seem pretty chill,
I've never seen them pull anything you guys talk about and
they're very honest and knowledgeable about the games in store.

I guess it's because they're a bunch of college students. But
that's my experience with these guys.

Recently I've stopped going to GS, this new company called Play N
Trade has been popping up all over the place, and they have
better deals.

[Seahawk]

But the guys at my GS seem pretty chill,
I've never seen them pull anything you guys talk about and
they're very honest and knowledgeable about the games in store.

I guess it's because they're a bunch of college students. But
that's my experience with these guys.

With Gamestop it really varies. Some locations are as you described with people who really do know about games. Others, you can tell the employees have no clue what they are talking about.

What we're talking about though (and I'm sure steven is too) goes way beyond the usual "Would you like to reserve a game today". The person I meant specifically targeted non-gamers (usually moms) and got them to buy extras with targeted arguments. For example buying a disk game, getting them to buy a protection plan because 'the kids will probably break it'.

Btw I called them the other day to see if they carried Jaws for original Xbox and after they told me no he just hung up. I assume it's because I know what I wanted and it wasn't anything he cared about. Douche.

It is a common /b prank to mass call a GS store and ask if they have the first Battletoads game for the NES in stock. They don't sell original Xbox games anymore (not even used) so he probably assumed you were doing something like that.

[samejamesbond]

Still, about those bags, what harm are they going to do?

[Demon-Mask]

Some people are uncomfortable placing one product in a bag that is advertising a product of the competitor. Some people don't like carrying around an advertisement for all to see, so everyone will look at them and say "Hey, I should totally go to Gamestop and buy a Kinect." especially when what is in the box is the 3DS or whatever.

I am simply uncomfortable with the inconsistency. If there is something on a bag, I like the thing in the bag to be the same as the thing on the bag. Unless it is something I'd rather not have someone see me carrying home from a store. A bag simply stating the name of the store I came from is fine, as I did buy the product at the store on the bag.

[Dudebro]

It is a common /b prank to mass call a GS store and ask if they have the first Battletoads game for the NES in stock. They don't sell original Xbox games anymore (not even used) so he probably assumed you were doing something like that.
I've heard of the battletoads thing, don't know why but it still makes me smile thinking about it. I remember seeing a few youtube videos of people calling different locations and the reactions were great. I do feel bad for the poor schmuck dealing with the calls but it's still funny.
Do you think people just prank them about old obscure games like that? If so that's amusing too. But I was serious and gave him no reason to just hang up, the douche. Besides all that Jaws was an awesome game. You just went around killing people and even jumping onto the beach to do it. My wife wanted to play again.

Then I read that I'd basically have to get an old xbox to play it. No emulation for it on the 360 and no xbox emulator that works.:(

‪Jaws Unleashed Gameplay (PC HD)‬‏ - YouTube

[Demon-Mask]

That does look like an awesome game.
Apparently, there is a PC version, I bet you could find that.

[Dudebro]

Rage new purchase incentive detailed - News at GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6328508/rage-new-purchase-incentive-detailed?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B6)

The gist of this is this new game Rage is making it so anyone who buys the game used will have to pay 10 bucks on the marketplace to get the full single player game. You don't need the locked out content but it's on the disc and restricted unless you buy it new. So that means if you wanna let a friend borrow it, they're out of luck unless they borrow your harddrive.

This is not really new but most times they just restrict the multiplayer aspect, which is fine for most single player fans. Now they're crossing a new line in the pursuit of even more profits. And on top of that they keep saying it's because they don't get all the money they deserve because of used sales. Sure, that's the reason.

[Mareeps]

That sounds extremely ridiculous, but how does the disc know its a new PS3 even if both of them have never been online? Does it get saved into the disc?

Also, I don't see what the big deal is with selling and buying used games. I'm allowed to buy and sell stuff like books and game systems, so what makes the games so much different? And what happens if you rent the game? Mostly if I rent a game it's to see if it's worth buying. A game like this, which would lock me out of most of the game, would be a game I return to the video store, and never even think of buying it.

[Dudebro]

All versions of the game will require a code to unlock the content. It comes packaged with a new game.

They're greedy. If they made consistently better games then people wouldn't mind paying full price. But instead of worrying about that they'll just make used sales not worth it, limit demos and just force people to buy full price and become jaded.

[Kugyince]

Every day piracy looks better and better.

[Dudebro]

I know right? It's like the game industry is taking a firm stance and daring people to resort to piracy.

In the meantime I'll just stick to Steam. If one of these online passcode games goes on sale like 80% off I'll get it. Otherwise I'm not giving them any money.

[Slime Slayer]

The amount of greed in this industry is abysmal. Could you imagine the uproar if other industries tried this stuff?

Why can't they learn from others mistakes? The music industry tried this kinda thing before and look where it got them.

[Dudebro]

Sadly I think the entire industry is due for a crash and this kind of thing is just more fuel for the fire. Also sadly I've seen plenty of people defending this practice because they always buy games new. So basically they're saying "it doesn't effect me so I don't care".

[RU Joe]

So they're still trying to get a piece of the pie after it's already been sold, on the resale?
There is no end to Corporate GR$$D.

Did I ever tell you that the character Dracula was actually the personification of a Corporation?

* Lives forever
* Has super powers
* Transforms others to think and act as it does
* Slowly drains the lives of its victims

Think about it.

[Demon-Mask]

Every day piracy looks better and better.
It's generally worth it.
Think about it, if a game is never released in the U.S., why should I buy it.
I'd gladly have paid for a good portion of the PSP games I've pirated, had they been given a release in the U.S., not just Japan and Europe.
Furthermore, DRM only effects people with legitimate copies of the game, pirates find ways around it. I'll admit it isn't nice to pirate games but, the games I've pirated have all been either PSP games {generally ones without U.S. releases} or PC games that were never released in western markets and have been English patched. If I walked into a store and saw Embodiment of the Scarlet Devil, of course I'd buy it.


Also, I don't see what the big deal is with selling and buying used games

The company only makes money off of the original sale. Any time it is resold, there is no money for the company but, someone else is making money off of it.

Basically, Gamestop is getting money that game developers/publishers feel entitled to, even though it isn't fair to make money off of the same copy multiple times.

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

@JG, awesome Dracula analogy.

[Slime Slayer]

Copy/paste from Reddit:

As many of you already know (http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/jrk3o/eas_origin_is_creepy_and_watches_you_sleep/), EA's Origin digital distribution system will be doing such nasty invasion-of-privacy things as snooping around your hard drive and observing what you do on your computer all day. EA Origin is required in all copies (even hard copies) of games such as Battlefield 3.
From those of you who are aware of this and don't like it, I've seen mentions of "voting with your wallet" or "boycotting".
Even if our numbers are in the thousands, or even tens of thousands, a boycott will most likely be all but unnoticeable to EA (and DICE in the case of BF3). I've committed in boycotts of highly anticipated games before, and to this day, years after, I still have not bought these games. Did it work? Not even slightly. The games sold better than ever.
If you really want to make a difference and protest EA Origin's blatant invasion of privacy, voting with your wallet will only prove to EA that they can still take advantage of the remaining 90% of uninformed consumers who don't know the first thing of Origin's privacy issues.
So what's the solution, then?
Raise awareness of Origin's privacy violation. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. Raising awareness of this issue would be 1000x more effective than a silent 10% "voting with their wallets".
Contact EA. Send them an email. Contact gaming sites, tell them about your concerns and that you extremely disapprove of this privacy violation. With enough flow of such emails, we might be able to make a change.
P.S. Let's try not to use cookie-cutter copy'n'paste emails. Even a one-liner email would be great, certainly better than spamming them with the same thing over and over. It's the thought that counts anyway :)
This is not a link post, because I don't want karma. I want people to understand how important it is to communicate your dissatisfaction of EA's Origin privacy violation to people who matter (Gaming sites, etc.) Also, if I left out any important credit or links on this issue, let me know and I will add them.
Edit: Here are some EA public relations email addresses, courtesy of an anonymous redditor:
UK:
General enquires Chloe Lara PR Co-Ordinator contactUKPR@ea.com 01483 463352
EA SPORTS Keith Hennessey Publicist khennessey@ea.com 01483 463783
The Sims Gem Woolnough Publicist gwoolnough@ea.com 01483 463925
Games Tom Goldberger Publicist tgoldberger@ea.com 01483 463485
Bryony Benoy Publicist bbenoy@ea.com 014834 63271
Sophie Orlando PR Manager sorlando@ea.com 01483 463342
Shaun White Head of PR swhite@europe.ea.com
US:
Lauren Svensson PR Coordinator, EA Play lsvensson@ea.com
Melissa Ojeda Coordinator, EA Games mojeda@ea.com
Honey Hamilton Publicist, Pogo.com hhamilton@ea.com
Angie Newman Manager, The Sims anewman@ea.com
Jen Riley PR Manager, EA SPORTS: Fight Night, NHL, NBA LIVE, FIFA Soccer, Tennis, EA SPORTS Active, NCAA Basketball jriley@ea.com
Rob Semsey Sr. PR Manager, EA SPORTS: Madden, Tiger Woods PGA Tour, NCAA Football, Nascar rsemsey@ea.com
Wendy Spander Sr. PR Manager, Events and Media, Corporate Communications wspander@ea.com
Greg Gervin PR Coordinator, Corporate Communications ggervin@ea.com
Cyndi Lum Senior Publicist clum@ea.com
Audra McIver Publicist w/ Bender / Helper Impact, MySims audra_mciver@bhimpact.com
Nicole Morrison PR Coordinator nmorrison@ea.com

[Dudebro]

Pointless. The issue is very well known amongst gamers who keep up with current events and still people buy their games. Hell I'm playing Fight Night right now.

[Slime Slayer]

Pointless. The issue is very well known amongst gamers who keep up with current events and still people buy their games. Hell I'm playing Fight Night right now.
If this becomes standard in gaming, I will hang up my crontroller permanently.

[Demon-Mask]

That sure as hell constitutes an invasion of privacy in my eyes.

[Dudebro]

It might become the mainstream way of doing things but that just means the good developers will know to avoid it. These kind of things always seem to backlash so it'd be smart to not get involved with it.

[Demon-Mask]

Yes, good developers will ikely avoid it. So long as they have the common sense to realize that it isn't okay.
Just because something is the most common practice doesn't mean it's the right practice. Intrusive DRM and on-disk DLC are common but, aren't generally viewed as right.

[Slime Slayer]

Sony's next system update takes away your rights:

"Sony has been hit with a number of class-action lawsuits (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/02/otheros-class-action-lawsuit-geohot-sony-now-share-same-charge.ars) since the launch of the PlayStation 3, mostly due to the decision to retroactively remove Linux support from the console and losing the data of users due to questionable security practices (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/lawsuit-sony-laid-off-security-staff-was-unprepared-for-ps3-hacks.ars). Sony has another solution to this problem beyond beefing up security (and it's not retaining the features you paid for): if you accept the next mandatory system update, you sign away your ability to take part in a class-action lawsuit. The only option left for consumers if they agree is binding individual arbitration."

Mandatory PS3 update removes right to join in a class-action lawsuit (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/09/mandatory-ps3-update-removes-right-to-join-in-a-class-action-lawsuit.ars?comments=1#comments-bar)

[Tails]

How awesome. -.-

[Dudebro]

Not surprised at all. Sony has always acted shady and had their own corporate interests in mind.

[Slime Slayer]

Lol watch this turn into a class action lawsuit, seriously is this even legal for them to do?

[Dudebro]

I bet it's technically legal or else their lawyers would've told them to drop it. But they probably just figured this would slip under the radar and keep them from getting sued for their own screw ups yet again. Maybe now people will realize how shady and selfish this company is.

[Slime Slayer]

My issue is that you can't just sell someone a product, and then 6 months later tell them they can't use it anymore unless they agree to a new stipulation. That can't be legal.

[Dudebro]

It's legal if people agree to the terms. They have the option to not update. I agree it's wrong and messed up but legally I think they can do it.

[Mareeps]

Well I guess its a good thing I didn't buy my ps3. I'm pretty sure license agreements are null and void if you have to buy the item and then they tell you about the agreement.

[Slime Slayer]

The problem is that a lot of gamers bought the product to play online, if they don't agree to the terms then they can no longer use the product. I can't see how consumer protection laws wouldn't cover this.

---------- Post added at 02:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 AM ----------

I don't really get it but I'm sure some of you do:
http://i.imgur.com/up8aj.jpg

[Dudebro]

That's the problem SC, when you connect to their online service it's like private property. You don't own anything besides your console. It's like how MS can ban your system for life if you alter it, but only from their online service. They can't just brick the system since you own it.

I know it's devious and shady business tactics but like I said before this is not a surprise from Sony, they are like the poster child for soulless corporations. But if there's a backlash from customers they'll cave and spin some apology and most of their fans will eat it up and forget about it. Kinda like how most did after that giant case of compromised personal info. I know some crappy free games and a insulting free month of their premium service wouldn't make me forget.

[Demon-Mask]

Corporations are corporations, what do you expect. Nintendo is no better, Microsoft is no better. People just need to accept that corporations tend to not care about their consumers in the least bit.

[Dudebro]

It's not that black and white imo. The other two haven't done something this devious that I know of. I doubt they'd consider an option like this because they know the backlash isn't worth it. Sony just doesn't care, they've demonstrated that clearly many times. They'll just brute force their way back into peoples favor with money, or so they think.

[Demon-Mask]

Okay, that's true enough.
Forcing someone to surrender the right to a class-action lawsuit is a bit extreme, even for a corporation.

[Dudebro]

Well they're probably desperate to avoid more legal action because they know it's inevitable considering their shady business practices. Their covering their asses at the expense of their customers. I hope all you PS3 owners remember this.

[Demon-Mask]

Yup, people are going to remember this one thing of everything to do with the PS3. They aren't going to remember the games they loved or the fun they had playing them.

[Slime Slayer]

Corporations are corporations, what do you expect. Nintendo is no better, Microsoft is no better. People just need to accept that corporations tend to not care about their consumers in the least bit.
Please provide examples of Nintendo being "no better". Don't try to weasel out of it and give me some write up about how evil all corporations are, I want specific examples.

[Demon-Mask]

I was pretty much saying that corporations as a whole are no good. I don't think Nintendo has done anything quite this bad. I can't think of any examples at this moment.

"But, it's unfair to assume that Nintendo has ever done anything bad/shady/greedy if you can't think of any examples"
And it's just as unfair to assume Nintendo is spotless.

---------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Please provide examples of Nintendo being "no better". Don't try to weasel out of it and give me some write up about how evil all corporations are, I want specific examples.
Also, why are you getting so irate? I feel you do this every single time Nintendo is mentioned in a negative way.

[Slime Slayer]

Why would you assume I was irate? I was actually pleased that I was calling you out, when I knew you had no recourse.

[Demon-Mask]

Okay, I'm glad you weren't irate.
I admit I had no defense, I was just making a point. The point is that corporations are hardly ever absolutely in the clear when it comes to how they treat their customers. Nintendo is the better of the three when it comes to this.

[Slime Slayer]

I beleive that Ninendo is the only company left that cares about games.

[Tails]

I beleive that Ninendo is the only company left that cares about games.
Dunno steve, as much as I liked Nintendo in the past. I think they've begun to shoot their foots now and not care about them as much.

[Seahawk]

I beleive that Ninendo is the only company left that cares about games.

Only when they want to nowdays, the rest of the time seems to be spent on coming up with new pieces of worthless plastic (AKA peripherals) that they stop supporting a week after it comes out.

Beyond that, they simply don't support third parties, no matter how they try to spin it. Their systems are for their games, and screw everyone else.

[Kong]

I think all corporations are evil, but Sony really does play at a different level.

[Kugyince]

I beleive that Ninendo is the only company first party developer left that cares about games.

Fixed that for you as I'm pretty sure that's what you were intending to say. I think there's plenty of 2nd and 3rd party devs and producers that appear to really care about games.

[Slime Slayer]

Fixed that for you as I'm pretty sure that's what you were intending to say. I think there's plenty of 2nd and 3rd party devs and producers that appear to really care about games.
Actually I was just refering to the big 3, I'd say that the vast majority of developpers still care. To them it's not only their art form, but they also need to produce quality if they want to continue to pay the bills.

---------- Post added 09-23-2011 at 11:19 PM ---------- Previous post was 09-18-2011 at 09:37 PM ----------

Yes, we can now buy season passes:
http://i.imgur.com/ZINyG.jpg

[samejamesbond]

Well if you do want all of them, you would save money.

[Dudebro]

Yeah really I don't get your point. It's an early sale on the DLC they're gonna release anyways. For die hard fans it's a great deal. For those of us who may not get all the DLC, or any, it doesn't matter. If you wanna give them crap about something you should've brought up how they're offering tons of skins for guns for sale on day 1. I think the total would be around 40 bucks if you bought them all. Still optional but that's more ridiculous than a sale on DLC.

Btw is that pic from Epic games or someone making fun of them? If it's legit that's hilarious.

[samejamesbond]

I don't follow DB...

[Seahawk]

He's got quite the beard in that picture, is that your side job DB?

[Slime Slayer]

I can't beleive you guys think this is acceptable, and SJB actually thinks it's a good thing.
Why is it that this is acceptable in video games, but not in any other industry?

---------- Post added at 02:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ----------

It wouldn't be fair of me to not post the reply image, regardless of how much of it I agree with :
http://i.imgur.com/DAmsp.jpg

[Kugyince]

It's cool SC. Some of us get it.

Paid DLC is a joke and a scam.

Pay us to unlock content on your disc. Pay us to get content we already had planned. Pay us extra for the game that should have been released in the first place. Pay us to fix things that should have been fixed before launch.

Paid DLC is just a back end Pay-To-Play for a retail copy you've already purchased.

Got to love it when people are so willing to shrug their shoulders, bend over and accept it. It is a great deal though. A great deal for Sony.

[Seahawk]

I can't beleive you guys think this is acceptable, and SJB actually thinks it's a good thing.
Why is it that this is acceptable in video games, but not in any other industry?

Where do you get the idea that video games are different in charging for content?

Movie theater: Want to watch the 3D version? Pay extra money.
TV: Want more channels? Pay money for more from your cable provider.
Radio/Music: Normal FM radio is free. Want satellite? Pay money for it.
Movies on DVD: Get the basic movie. Want special edition, developers commentary, 3D, etc.? Pay money for special edition.

At the end of the day, you still have a choice as to whether you think it's worth your money or not. No one is forcing you to get it, quit feeling so abused and entitled.

[bearhawk72]

I've only ever bought 1 item of DLC. The Island for Burnout Paradise. And it came out a year and a half after the game was released.

At least Burnout added a bunch of stuff for free before they started offering paid DLC.

[Kong]

To add to Seahawk's post.
New Car: Do you want sun roof, mp3 player, heated leather, gps, etc. Routine maintenance and gas and insurance are a lot like DLC and subscription services.

I think the problem is game companies insist that players want multimillion dollar games with cutting edge tech and gimmics and care nothing about gameplay or simple fun factor. This leads to multiple problems. 1. If you make a huge upfront investment then you want a huge payout therefore you want to nickle and dime people. 2. If you make a game on a huge scale like that then it is no longer a passion or an art. It is a job. A corporate impersonal job. That leads to a crappy product and to wanting to nickle and dime the customer. 3. They have done this so many times without any failure. That causes them to want to see how far they can take it. How little can they give and how much can they take.

Hopefully games like Angry Birds and Mine Craft, some of the most profitable and popular games today and each created by 1 person in short time with no marketing strategy or budget or grand expectations, will be a wake up call.

I do think without a drastic change the industry is pretty much doomed to stagnation. And I think they are aware that there is a problem, they just don't know how to fix it or think there is more easy money to be made in their cesspool.

[Seahawk]

To add to Seahawk's post.
New Car: Do you want sun roof, mp3 player, heated leather, gps, etc. Routine maintenance and gas and insurance are a lot like DLC and subscription services.

I think the problem is game companies insist that players want multimillion dollar games with cutting edge tech and gimmics and care nothing about gameplay or simple fun factor. This leads to multiple problems. 1. If you make a huge upfront investment then you want a huge payout therefore you want to nickle and dime people. 2. If you make a game on a huge scale like that then it is no longer a passion or an art. It is a job. A corporate impersonal job. That leads to a crappy product and to wanting to nickle and dime the customer. 3. They have done this so many times without any failure. That causes them to want to see how far they can take it. How little can they give and how much can they take.

Hopefully games like Angry Birds and Mine Craft, some of the most profitable and popular games today and each created by 1 person in short time with no marketing strategy or budget or grand expectations, will be a wake up call.

I do think without a drastic change the industry is pretty much doomed to stagnation. And I think they are aware that there is a problem, they just don't know how to fix it or think there is more easy money to be made in their cesspool.

This is exactly the way I see it.

The reason indie games have become popular is because all mainstream game developers and hardware manufacturers are clinging on to absolutely outdated pricing models. 60$ for the most high tech console game of the moment. That is outrageous, and the only reason that continues, is because the big budget culture is now mainstream in gaming. People want the absolute very best, and studios have responded. They have no choice- charge high price for games that cost tens of millions of dollars to create (when did these costs become acceptable to companies?!) and get it back, or take a loss and fold. Business is all about making money.

Meanwhile on portables, both Sony and Nintendo have doomed themselves to inferiority to smartphones. Devices that have batteries that last only 3 hours. Devices that require phone data plans (wtf?!) for internet. Devices that are based on gimmicks that are shoehorned into games for extra cost. Devices on which almost all games are watered down console wannabe games. Devices that run on closed networks and getting your game released depends on retarded policies of manufacturers. Devices on which games cost 40$.

On any phone, batteries can last for days, and good games can be gotten for cheap or free. A few clicks on your screen and you are playing the game instantly. On game machines, you wait for machine to boot up, load up game, title screen, etc, i.e. waiting. Both Sony and Nintendo could compete, but they choose not to, instead adhering to outdated thinking. Time have changed, and they are paying the price as the portable market slips away from both of them.

[Slime Slayer]

Your examples above are not equvalent to DLC. Obviously products have always come at varying quality for varying prices. I can get a litre of milk for 2 bucks or 2 litres for 3 bucks.

The difference is that they are not providing you with new product, they are making you pay extra for the rest of the game. Absolutly no different then buying Super Mario Bros. levels 1-6 at full price, and then paying for levels 7 and 8 a few months down the road, it is greed pure and simple.

[Demon-Mask]

I agree with you, SC. I feel like DLC is stupid, if I pay good money for a game, I'd rather have the whole game than have to pay a few more dollars every three months to get the last few maps, missions, levels, characters or whatever else people use to measure content in a game.

[Seahawk]

Your examples above are not equvalent to DLC. Obviously products have always come at varying quality for varying prices. I can get a litre of milk for 2 bucks or 2 litres for 3 bucks.

Just like you can get a basic game for 20$ or the same game with all extras for 30$ (Prices are examples). Varying quality for varying prices. The most important part is in the end you still have a choice.

The difference is that they are not providing you with new product, they are making you pay extra for the rest of the game. Absolutly no different then buying Super Mario Bros. levels 1-6 at full price, and then paying for levels 7 and 8 a few months down the road, it is greed pure and simple.

Name a game where you are not allowed to get to the ending without buying extras.

[Slime Slayer]

You do realise that they would take away your right to choose in a heartbeat if they could right? In fact if they could they would sell you brick with "call of duty" written on it with a sharpie -don't give them credit for offering you a right to choose please.

Regading the levels in Mario, levels 2 and 5 then, the point still stands.

[Seahawk]

You do realise that they would take away your right to choose in a heartbeat if they could right? In fact if they could they would sell you brick with "call of duty" written on it with a sharpie -don't give them credit for offering you a right to choose please.

You do realize that if any business could do that they would?

Also you do realize that Nintendo already took away your right to choose? It's called region locking. Oh, you want to play Xenoblade, Last Story? Too bad, NoA decides what you get to play.
3DS is region locked too, who knows how many games you'll miss out on because of a few bytes in the game header. Guess you'll miss out on that 3DS soccer game from TGS huh?

Regading the levels in Mario, levels 2 and 5 then, the point still stands.

Name a game where you are not allowed to get to the ending without buying extras. You still haven't.

[Slime Slayer]

You do realize that if any business could do that they would?
Wrong, some people take pride in what they do, it's sad you don't recognize this.

I'm not going to name a game that you need the DLC to complete because that was never my intention. My point was that you are not getting the full game, I know your not an idiot and understand my point so I don't know why you keep asking me to name one.

Region locking has been around just about as long as games have so it's not really fair to contribute it to "the death of gaming". I am not happy about it, but I've never imported a game in my entire life anyway.

[samejamesbond]

Where do you get the idea that video games are different in charging for content?

Movie theater: Want to watch the 3D version? Pay extra money.
TV: Want more channels? Pay money for more from your cable provider.
Radio/Music: Normal FM radio is free. Want satellite? Pay money for it.
Movies on DVD: Get the basic movie. Want special edition, developers commentary, 3D, etc.? Pay money for special edition.

At the end of the day, you still have a choice as to whether you think it's worth your money or not. No one is forcing you to get it, quit feeling so abused and entitled.

Thanks Seahawk, that was exactly what I was thinking.

I mean, you have the option to not buy it, so stop whining,
at least it's not on another CD you have to buy at partial
retail like UMvC3, but even then, I don't have to buy it.

[Slime Slayer]

Whatever, if you guys like DLC that's your own business, but remember that it is a slippery slope, and I hope it doesnt spread too far before the consumer puts their foot down.

[Kugyince]

Movie theater: Want to watch the 3D version? Pay extra money.


I've never, never even heard of a theatre asking for extra for a 3D version.

Routine maintenance and gas and insurance are a lot like DLC and subscription services.

No, no they're not. They're absolutely nothing alike.

Meanwhile on portables, both Sony and Nintendo have doomed themselves to inferiority to smartphones. Devices that have batteries that last only 3 hours. Devices that require phone data plans (wtf?!) for internet. Devices that are based on gimmicks that are shoehorned into games for extra cost. Devices on which almost all games are watered down console wannabe games. Devices that run on closed networks and getting your game released depends on retarded policies of manufacturers. Devices on which games cost 40$.

On any phone, batteries can last for days, and good games can be gotten for cheap or free. A few clicks on your screen and you are playing the game instantly. On game machines, you wait for machine to boot up, load up game, title screen, etc, i.e. waiting. Both Sony and Nintendo could compete, but they choose not to, instead adhering to outdated thinking. Time have changed, and they are paying the price as the portable market slips away from both of them.

This makes me think that you don't play iOS/Droid games. Also define a console wannabe game. I don't get what a "console experience" is and why it should be left on a specific device.

Name a game where you are not allowed to get to the ending without buying extras.

"Ending" is subjective. If levels 7 and 8 are DLC in SMB, you could say that level 6 is the normal ending and 8 is the DLC ending. Going by that:

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood
Mass Effect 2
Fallout New Vegas
Prince of Persia
Fable II
God of War III

Want me to go on?

[Seahawk]

I'm not going to name a game that you need the DLC to complete because that was never my intention. My point was that you are not getting the full game, I know your not an idiot and understand my point so I don't know why you keep asking me to name one.

Worrying about it is pointless then if it hasn't happened.
Right now, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft could all send out system updates that brick every sold console on the market. Am I worried about that happening? Not really.

Region locking has been around just about as long as games have so it's not really fair to contribute it to "the death of gaming". I am not happy about it, but I've never imported a game in my entire life anyway.

Region locking has always been around, and it has always been stupid. The old reason was incompatible displays (50Hz vs. 60Hz, semi-valid reason) but now that limitation has been removed, and there is no point, no point at all for region locking, and it is finally going away. Vita is going to be region free. All of Nintendo's portables up to the 3DS were region-free. The 3DS is the same hardware in all regions, there is no point for it. Way to break the trend Nintendo.

Stupid self imposed limitations like that are what is handing over the portable market to phones.

[Squall]

SH, you just totally ignored Tenser's post. Which I agree with.

I hate the idea of DLC. To put it into context in a film, it feels like going to the theatre and them stopping the movie partway through and saying 'cough up if you want to see the rest of the film'. How in any way is that fair? I'm sure if that happened there would be an uproar - why not with games?

And if it's already on the disc that I paid upwards of $60 for, why do I need to pay more half a year later to access it? It should be available from the moment you buy the disc. If it's not on the disc then it's acceptable. Until you consider that your paying half the price of the game for a handful of new maps, which should really be referred to as 'a nice little change of scenery'. It doesn't add much to the game - it takes some of the parts on the disc and rearranges them. Not worth paying another half of what you paid for four 'nice little changes of scenery'.

There's my two cents.

[Kong]

I mean, you have the option to not buy it, so stop whining,
That reasoning doesn't work because of this.... (look in Steven's spoiler)


http://wedonetwork.co.uk/wedotech/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/abXW9.png

The game studios know they have us by our balls. We will buy it even if we are not happy about it. We will bitch and moan but we wont stick with an actual boycott of a mediocre product.

The old reason was incompatible displays (50Hz vs. 60Hz, semi-valid reason) but now that limitation has been removed, and there is no point, no point at all for region locking, and it is finally going away.
The modern reason is to reduce piracy (in theory at least). Games and other media released in China are much more likely to be pirated. If the China pirate games easily played in North America then more games would be pirated so they add region lock. However that is outdated reasoning now because the pirates can get around region locks if they want. So if you want a game that does not play in your region then your only option is to buy a foreign console + foreign game or just buy a pirate version of the game which makes you more comfortable with buying pirate products in the future which defeats the entire purpose of region lock. Region lock is a horrible business plan.

[samejamesbond]

Now that you say that I completely agree, Capcom is reselling us Marvel vs.
Capcom 3 with stuff they could have done through DLC. You just have to find
those A Level games made by small companies, but the odds of that changing
the industry are slim to none.

[Slime Slayer]

Another reason for region locking is to not upset the markets for the various countries because of different dollar values.

[Kugyince]

Wanted to get back to this:

Paid DLC for a software purchase is not like:

FM/XM radio. This is a hardware option. Much like buying either the Wii or the 360.
DVD/ SE DVD. This is a retail purchase option much like buying New Vegas or New Vegas Limited Edition.
Cable/DirectTV. Again, a hardware option.
Movie/3D movie. Upfront decision with no future ramifications.
Gas, car insurance, maintenance. More akin to electricity, extended warranties, and peripherals. This is a hardware issue.

What paid DLC is like:
Buying Windows 7 and then having to pay for windows updates.
Buying a music CD and then having to pay to unlock a "secret song."
Buying a DVD and then having to subscribe to their release schedule of DVD extras.

See the difference?

[Dudebro]

The difference is that they are not providing you with new product, they are making you pay extra for the rest of the game. Absolutly no different then buying Super Mario Bros. levels 1-6 at full price, and then paying for levels 7 and 8 a few months down the road, it is greed pure and simple.
This is not accurate. Maybe a select few games do cut the core game and market it as DLC(if you know let's hear some actual names) but mainly DLC is additional content that is completely optional and not part of the core game.

Wrong, some people take pride in what they do, it's sad you don't recognize this.It's sad that you think Nintendo is the only one that does. The truth is none of them really take that much pride in their games. It's about money.

I'm not going to name a game that you need the DLC to complete because that was never my intention.And because you can't. It hurts your sensationalizing if you are honest about it.


I agree with you, SC. I feel like DLC is stupid, if I pay good money for a game, I'd rather have the whole game than have to pay a few more dollars every three months to get the last few maps, missions, levels, characters or whatever else people use to measure content in a game.
So what you're saying is you'd want games to be released and no new content added at all until a sequel. What everyone is failing to realize is that DLC keeps the devs working on that game. If hardly anyone buys the DLC they won't waste time and money making more content. Simple as that.

I've never, never even heard of a theatre asking for extra for a 3D version.
Well you must live in Mayberry or something because I've never heard of them not charging for it. Some places even charge as much as ten bucks more.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood
Mass Effect 2
Fallout New Vegas
Prince of Persia
Fable II
God of War IIII haven't played all of these but I wanna comment on the ones I have experience with.

ME2- All side content that is not even close to the actual ending. I've played all the DLC and it's literally side quests. The end part of the core game is very obviously the ending. It's all tied into the plot, it has big beautiful cutscenes, you fight a couple bosses and you get a very obvious ending with credits. Those DLC options can either be played before or after the ending. Btw wasn't that nice of Bioware? You don't have to start a new game to play if you've beaten the game already or you can do them way before the end. I guess they do care about their customers huh?

FO:NV- Some of them are stand alone quests(like with FO3) and the others are additional parts of the story. I beat NV recently and I know the game is complete without the DLC.

Fable2- Not sure why you mentioned this one. I'm not a fan really but I've played all three and I don't remember any of the content being part of the main game. I guess if you keep moving the goal posts around anything extra could fit your description.

I hate the idea of DLC. To put it into context in a film, it feels like going to the theatre and them stopping the movie partway through and saying 'cough up if you want to see the rest of the film'. How in any way is that fair? I'm sure if that happened there would be an uproar - why not with games?
So you're also with DM on the whole "no extra content at all ever" thing huh? Btw your movie analogy is flawed. It's more like you go see a movie and then they release expanded material, like books or comics, and you're expecting those for free because you paid 10 bucks to see the movie. Doesn't work that way. If they aren't getting paid they aren't gonna make the extras.

And if it's already on the disc that I paid upwards of $60 for, why do I need to pay more half a year later to access it?That is the exception not the rule. How many games can you name that definitely had DLC already on the disc at release? Those game companies are tarnishing their reputations when they pull stuff like that, gamers notice and don't forget so easily.


That reasoning doesn't work because of this.... (look in Steven's spoiler)
And his reasoning doesn't work because that example is too specific. I hate generalizing but in this case I will, the majority of COD fans are very casual gamers. They don't care how COD compares to other games and they don't care how much the DLC costs. Obviously not all of them but this is the impression I get from playing the game with the community and reading/talking to these people on the forums. I can safely say I understand this group of people better than pretty much any of you.



So to sum up my side of this- DLC is nothing new. It's just like expansions for PC games but now it's more frequent and with less content(partially because of those time constraints). PC games charge for this content too, the ones that don't are an exception and they're only doing that to win over more potential customers(not because they just care so much about us). If we did away with DLC we'd be taking step backwards by limiting the options for the devs. I know I'd rather have the option to buy DLC than have that very same content show up in the sequel as the main selling point of the game, for full price.

[Slime Slayer]

I know I'd rather have the option to buy DLC than have that very same content show up in the sequel as the main selling point of the game, for full price.

Wouldnt you rather just buy complete games?

[Dudebro]

I always do. The only game I've purchased that had DLC on the disc was Soul Caliber and that was just one character that was exclusive to the other system. Guess what I did? I didn't buy Darth Vader.

I know you wanna cling to this incomplete game nonsense but it's just not true. Optional content is just that, optional. Like I said a couple times before if we did away with DLC/expansions that cost money we'd only be limiting ourselves. If companies don't make money off it or it doesn't lead to more profits they aren't gonna bother.

[Slime Slayer]

I know you wanna cling to this incomplete game nonsense but it's just not true.
So you think it's acceptable that a company take some arbitrary pecentage of the entire game (game+all dlc) and then proclaim that this is now the new complete game, and the dlc is extra? Even when you know the additional dlc is entirly pre-determined?

Regardless, though you are defending it, I'm glad to hear you don't support it with your wallet.

[Kugyince]

How do I live in Mayberry?

Most 3D movies I've seen (probably about 10, mostly kids movies) have been in a near metropolis (800k + population). Again, I've never even heard of a theater asking more for a 3D movie let alone giving an option.

[Dudebro]

But you're working with the assumption that all DLC is cut from the core game which is just not true. Yes they plan out the DLC way before launch and it ties into the core game(usually) but that does not mean it could've come out with the full game, on deadline and at the same price point. Have you ever played a PC game that had expansions? Were you also equally outraged that they didn't delay the game until every single idea and concept was released at launch? Did you refuse to buy any expansions on principal? This is the same idea.


Most 3D movies I've seen (probably about 10, mostly kids movies) have been in a near metropolis (800k + population). Again, I've never even heard of a theater asking more for a 3D movie let alone giving an option.
Well consider yourself blessed then because everyone I talked to has never heard of them not charging.

[Kong]

And his reasoning doesn't work because that example is too specific.It was meant to just be a generalized example. The point is people say they will vote with with their wallet, but they rarely do. This goes for everything, not just games. People are lazy and want quick fixes. They will take what they can get now even if they know it will mean they will be worse off later.

[Demon-Mask]

Again, I've never even heard of a theater asking more for a 3D movie let alone giving an option.
I've never heard of a theater not asking for at least two extra dollars for a 3D movie.

So what you're saying is you'd want games to be released and no new content added at all until a sequel. What everyone is failing to realize is that DLC keeps the devs working on that game. If hardly anyone buys the DLC they won't waste time and money making more content. Simple as that.

Yes and no. I want all of the content that is on the disk to be, well, included with the orginal purchase. I do not want to have to pay an extra two dollars for half of that content in four months, and the next month another two dollars for the rest of it. If I bought a game for sixty dollars, it stands to reason that I bought all of the game that exists on the disk, an extra map here, or an extra character there is okay, unless it is done to the point where it becomes ridiculous. That is, assuming said maps/characters were not present on the disk in the first place.
Furthermore, all of the time the devs put into the DLC is time they are not putting into making the sequel, if a sequel is planned.

[Kugyince]

If a game has a major online component and has DLC maps doesn't that practically force you to buy the maps if you want to keep playing online?

@DB & DM: Boy, you guys are getting screwed.

[ZedIsDead]

I don't have any of the Halo Reach DLC maps and I can play online just fine.

[bearhawk72]

Here is an example of what annoys me about DLC.

I get Assassin's Creed 2. I'm rolling along through the game then all of a sudden the game skips a few of Ezio's DNA sequences, saying they are "corrupted" and can't be accessed(in the games plot, not a fault of the system). So when we pick up the story again Ezio is now several years older. Doesn't really affect the story that much so I just keep going.

Low and behold a couple months later here comes the "new" DLC that fills in the data sequences the game skipped.

So in essence I bet they were done and pulled those sequences out of the game so they could make more money off of people. BS.

[Slime Slayer]

If a game has a major online component and has DLC maps doesn't that practically force you to buy the maps if you want to keep playing online?
I thinks it's only gone so far yet, at this point I think it's just if you want to play with your friends who have the DLC, then you need it too. So it basically just divides the community into groups based on who has what DLC. Cutting off the online component entirely without the DLC hasnt arrived yet I don't think, but I could be wrong.

[Dudebro]

Yes and no. I want all of the content that is on the disk to be, well, included with the orginal purchase. I do not want to have to pay an extra two dollars for half of that content in four months, and the next month another two dollars for the rest of it. If I bought a game for sixty dollars, it stands to reason that I bought all of the game that exists on the disk, an extra map here, or an extra character there is okay, unless it is done to the point where it becomes ridiculous. That is, assuming said maps/characters were not present on the disk in the first place.
Furthermore, all of the time the devs put into the DLC is time they are not putting into making the sequel, if a sequel is planned.
Well you can't have it both ways. If you want additional content after release you'll have to pay for it. That also means they'll plan out the DLC before release and start working on it early. But that doesn't mean that every DLC is gonna be chopped up stuff from the core game. If you don't want that then you have to go with no additional content ever until the sequel.


@DB & DM: Boy, you guys are getting screwed.
Enjoy your luck while it lasts. Make sure to let us know when your regional theater catches up with the rest of the country and starts charging extra. I'm willing to bet it will happen, unless the 3D fad dies off soon.

@BH- That sounds like one of those exception to the rule games. Good thing I never bought any of those games.

I thinks it's only gone so far yet, at this point I think it's just if you want to play with your friends who have the DLC, then you need it too.
No it has gone further. I forget which games exactly(I think MW2 and Halo3 are examples) but some do require the DLC maps to play most game modes online. I know that happened to me once but instead of caving to that I just sold the game.

[Demon-Mask]

@DB & DM: Boy, you guys are getting screwed.
Yeah, kind of. It's more of you being lucky than us being screwed, though.
Well you can't have it both ways. If you want additional content after release you'll have to pay for it. That also means they'll plan out the DLC before release and start working on it early. But that doesn't mean that every DLC is gonna be chopped up stuff from the core game. If you don't want that then you have to go with no additional content ever until the sequel.

So, I cannot have all of the content on the disk and get new DLC that isn't included on the disk? I never imagined the two as mutually exclusive.

[Dudebro]

No you cannot have it your way because your way implies that the current DLC is all on the disc and ripping you off. My point is they all decide what the DLCs are gonna be before they release the game(except for DLC that comes out like six months or more later). They actively work on the DLC before and after release so it can come out while people are still interested in the game. Obviously some content will be held back for a DLC but isn't that better than tacking it on before release and never touching it again? At least with DLC the devs have time to see how people react to the game and they can adjust content accordingly.

From my point of view you're being too black and white about this. No company(including nintendo) is altruistic, they all care about making money and how they can continue to make more money. So the bottomline is if you want DLC or expansions you have to accept that it's not a gonna be a fair deal for you, the customer. You just have to be wary of when companies try to push too far.

[Slime Slayer]

No it has gone further. I forget which games exactly(I think MW2 and Halo3 are examples) but some do require the DLC maps to play most game modes online. I know that happened to me once but instead of caving to that I just sold the game.
So much for SH's argument of "the right to choose".

---------- Post added at 05:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 AM ----------

At least with DLC the devs have time to see how people react to the game and they can adjust content accordingly.

You mean fix the bugs that should have been fixed pre-release?

[Dudebro]

So much for SH's argument of "the right to choose".Because two big brands decided to be shady? Not that you really care but the next halo game didn't do that, they learned their lesson. COD is about as soulless and greedy as series can be so they should not be used to judge the rest of the industry. You've heard the saying about a few bad apples right?

You mean fix the bugs that should have been fixed pre-release?Sure that too if it comes up. Are you saying you'd rather go back to the days when a game was released with problems and you had no hope of it being fixed?

Btw it's becoming more and more obvious that you're pretty out of touch with the modern gaming industry. PC games have been doing this since forever.


Actually I was wrong. Bugs are usually fixed with a title update(free and automatic when you go to play the game). Only major bugs are fixed with DLC and even then it's pretty rare from what I know of it.

[Slime Slayer]

Btw it's becoming more and more obvious that you're pretty out of touch with the modern gaming industry.
You don't have any clue as to how in, or out of touch I am, so please keep the personal attacks to yourself.

I just want to point out that this topic wasnt put here so people could debate weither or not DLC is a good or bad thing. The point of this topic was to keep track of and raise awareness of the fact the industry, for the most part, has lost/is loosing it's way. We were all supposed to gather here as like minded people and do our small part to help get it on a better path, by spreading the word, and not support the greed.

I'm not saying that if people don't agree with what is going on in the topic to keep their mouth shut, but I'd like for people to keep the point of the topic in mind, otherwise the purpose is defeated.

[Seahawk]

I just want to point out that this topic wasnt put here so people could debate weither or not DLC is a good or bad thing. The point of this topic was to keep track of and raise awareness of the fact the industry, for the most part, has lost/is loosing it's way. We were all supposed to gather here as like minded people and do our small part to help get it on a better path, by spreading the word, and not support the greed.

I'm not saying that if people don't agree with what is going on in the topic to keep their mouth shut, but I'd like for people to keep the point of the topic in mind, otherwise the purpose is defeated.

Your intentions are good, but your chosen target (the concept of DLC) is the wrong guy. It's only a symptom of the real problem: that is the big budget culture that has entrenched itself in the industry.

Games have always been increasing in complexity, but before the current generation, costs have always remained manageable, or at least tolerable to game studios, enough at least so that if you make a single bomb, it does not sink your studio. This is a large reason that the PS1 succeeded against the N64: pressing a CD for 700MB of storage costs pennies, compared to putting all of your efforts to optimize your N64 game to fit in a 32MB (usually less) cartridge, which costs way more to manufacture (Nintendo's requirement of upfront payment for manufacture didn't help).

Somewhere within the past 5 years the costs of developing a game have risen way too high. This comes from lots of things: signing on top talent voice actors (compared to Saturday morning cartoon quality VO of most PS1 games), massive ad blitzes, maintaining online services (if you want an example of this, notice the new ad movies right here on RU), and probably the two big ones, graphics, and the fact that so many different companies are involved in the production of a single game. Notice all those logos when you turn your game on. Those are all companies that employ people that want to get paid, or who hold properties (graphics libraries, development tools, whatever) that require a licensing fee to use.

All that adds up and astoundingly it is now acceptable for a game to cost tens of millions of dollars to create. And a lot of that 'gameplay' is pure cinematic. Unbelievable.

DLC is a response to make some of that money back. Of course some will take advantage of their customers (i.e. buying Protoman for Megaman 9?!?) but that happens in every business. By and large most DLC is just that, extra content, and not necessary for the game if you don't want it. Don't want it? Don't buy it. You have a choice.

But the fact that DLC exists is not "the death of gaming" as you claim.

[Kong]

I just want to point out that this topic wasnt put here so people could debate weither or not DLC is a good or bad thing. I was going to say the same thing. That is enough discussion about DLC, there is plenty of other stuff to talk about in this topic.

[Dudebro]

You don't have any clue as to how in, or out of touch I am, so please keep the personal attacks to yourself.I was just calling it how I see it. You really seem out of touch because this kind of thing is nothing new. I don't know when they first started making expansions but it was at least as early as 96 for Warcraft. So now since the industry is more streamlined and digital the content is usually smaller, cheaper and more frequent.

The point of this topic was to keep track of and raise awareness of the fact the industry, for the most part, has lost/is loosing it's way. We were all supposed to gather here as like minded people and do our small part to help get it on a better path, by spreading the word, and not support the greed. Like SH said DLC is not the death of gaming. That's the point of a discussion, we're exchanging ideas and explaining why we think you're wrong.

So yeah I think the DLC topic is totally on topic but if you guys wanna drop it I won't stomp my feet and pout about it.



If you want a real death of gaming tangent to move away from this one how about how MS forces developers to charge for DLC? From everything I hear it's a strict rule and some companies don't like it. It also prevents the 360 from getting any more MMOs because of stuff like cash shops and all the ways to pay for the subscription.

[Slime Slayer]

The DLC thing is just one of many topics that are to be covered here, I'm not targeting it whatsoever, I just post things I feel contribute to the topic as I hear about them.
I will continue to post things about DLC as they develop, (regardless of the fact that weither or not DLC is a bad thing is clearly debatable) because I feel it belongs here.

That's nasty about MS forcing the companies to charge for them if it's true.

[Dudebro]

I'm fine with you reporting on whatever you think is hurting the industry, as long as you can accept that you could be wrong about it.

From what I've heard it is true. But in their defense they do host all this content on their servers along with linking it all to peoples accounts. Other places do that for free, like Steam, but I have no idea if they get a bigger cut than MS does from what they sell. Either way it does not bode well for digital download services.

[Tails]

PS3 offers free DLC, and often it's good ones too.

[Dudebro]

Yeah but you also have to play those DLC on an inferior online service from a company who only cares about security when they have a major embarrassment that forces them to put in some effort. Who would want to attach a CC to their system?

[ZedIsDead]

Our hobby isn't going anywhere for a long time. Yes, some companies do have questionable business practices(Sony and Ubisoft come to mind), but we don't have to support them. Pointless DLC? You don't have to buy it. I'm not advocating piracy, but the more they push gamers, the more tempted they are to go in that direction. Eventually, the smarter companies will realize this. Let's keep in mind that Nintendo was greedy and monopolistic during its heyday.

[bearhawk72]

PS3 offers free DLC, and often it's good ones too.
It's only "free" when you pay the optional monthly fee.

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

Yeah but you also have to play those DLC on an inferior online service from a company who only cares about security when they have a major embarrassment that forces them to put in some effort. Who would want to attach a CC to their system?
To be fair, you don't have to attach a CC to your system. You can go buy cards like you can for the 360.

[Seahawk]

Who would want to attach a CC to their system?

You shouldn't attach your credit cards to anything in the first place. Buy prepaid cards. Secure and no renewal BS.

[Tails]

It's only "free" when you pay the optional monthly fee.
Nope. Example Hyperdimension Neptunia had free DLC without premium.

[Dudebro]

You shouldn't attach your credit cards to anything in the first place. Buy prepaid cards. Secure and no renewal BS.
I have a CC just for Live with auto renewal. The statement gets checked frequently so I'm not concerned.

Nope. Example Hyperdimension Neptunia had free DLC without premium.
Yeah but how many games are like that on PS3, the majority or is that an exception? I got free DLC on Live a few times but it's rare.

[GamingWolf]

Our hobby isn't going anywhere for a long time. Yes, some companies do have questionable business practices(Sony and Ubisoft come to mind), but we don't have to support them. Pointless DLC? You don't have to buy it. I'm not advocating piracy, but the more they push gamers, the more tempted they are to go in that direction. Eventually, the smarter companies will realize this. Let's keep in mind that Nintendo was greedy and monopolistic during its heyday.

Nintendo might be sort of now but it's tempered. They were always about the peripherals.

[Seahawk]

Nintendo might be sort of now but it's tempered. They were always about the peripherals.

I think he's talking about old Nintendo policies such as censoring content, being the sole manufacturer of cartridges, and fabricating chip shortages to manipulate prices. This is more of an issue with Nintendo of America though, they have always been ultra paternalistic about things.

[Demon-Mask]

No you cannot have it your way because your way implies that the current DLC is all on the disc and ripping you off. My point is they all decide what the DLCs are gonna be before they release the game(except for DLC that comes out like six months or more later). They actively work on the DLC before and after release so it can come out while people are still interested in the game. Obviously some content will be held back for a DLC but isn't that better than tacking it on before release and never touching it again? At least with DLC the devs have time to see how people react to the game and they can adjust content accordingly.

From my point of view you're being too black and white about this. No company(including nintendo) is altruistic, they all care about making money and how they can continue to make more money. So the bottomline is if you want DLC or expansions you have to accept that it's not a gonna be a fair deal for you, the customer. You just have to be wary of when companies try to push too far.
I am not implying that paying for on-disk DLC is a rip-off. I am outright stating that it is a rip-off to force me to pay a second time to access content on the disk I already bought. That one is pretty damn simple.
I understand and encourage off-disk DLC to be produced and require an extra charge.
Let me put it this way:
When I buy a book, I don't want a random, non-critical page somehow locked from my access unless I pay more money. I would gladly pay for an extra chapter that covers more in-depth a portion of the book that is non-critical.

Sometimes, DLC is on disk, sometimes it isn't. I don't know when it is and when it isn't. Basically, if it is on-disk, I shouldn't have to pay again to access it, but if it isn't on-disk I should have to pay to access it.
Is my point any clearer now?
How is it not black and white in this case? It is ridiculous to force me to pay extra for content that is already on the disk I already bought, there really are no exceptions to that. It is also ridiculous for me to expect to get extra content to be produced and given to me free of charge.

[Slime Slayer]

I don't really see what the difference is, they could just as easily take the locked on disk content and release it as downloadable content instead. Basically they are going to charge you for the dlc either way, so why does it matter? Yes I do understand how it's more so a slap in the face when it's on the disk you payed for, but it's still the same content for the same price.

[Kugyince]

Right.

Charging you to unlock content on your disc is fundamentally the same as charging you for content purposefully left off of the disc.

[Kong]

Except you are fully aware that the content was available at launch. Other DLC content is often assumed to have been created after you bought the game. It is a small difference but a still a difference worth noting.