The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Mass Effect 3'.
Over the past year or two there's been a trend emerging of penalizing people who buy second hand copies of games. Typically this involves giving people bonus downloadable content if they buy a game new, via redemption of a code. Or - and this is a bit more unethical - withholding the multiplayer portion of a game unless you buy a new copy or spend extra money to buy a multiplayer code.
However, EA - who coincidentally have been nominated for The Consumerist's 'Worst Company' award - have taken things a step further with Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 gave you a bunch of extra bits and bats if you bought the game new or purchased a 'Cerberus Pass'. Mass Effect 3 doesn't have this option - instead, if you buy the game second hand you have to pay extra to get access to the game's online features of the game.
So how is that new? After all, Mass Effect is largely a single player experience. The difference is that to get the best ending in Mass Effect 3 - although I could make a separate post about how poor the endings are - you need to have an in-game military strength of 5000. This means completing a bunch of side quests etc to raise your military strength to this level. But your ending is also affected by the in-game 'galactic readiness' stat. If you don't play the online portion of the game, this is set at 50% which means that your military strength is halved.
What this really means is that if you buy the game second hand, it's twice as hard to get the best ending. Having a new purchase only multiplayer portion isn't all that new, but Mass Effect 3 actively penalizes people who bought the game second hand, making it harder to properly 'win' the game. Which given that, either way, you've paid money for the game, is a hell of a thing to do.
However, EA - who coincidentally have been nominated for The Consumerist's 'Worst Company' award - have taken things a step further with Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 gave you a bunch of extra bits and bats if you bought the game new or purchased a 'Cerberus Pass'. Mass Effect 3 doesn't have this option - instead, if you buy the game second hand you have to pay extra to get access to the game's online features of the game.
So how is that new? After all, Mass Effect is largely a single player experience. The difference is that to get the best ending in Mass Effect 3 - although I could make a separate post about how poor the endings are - you need to have an in-game military strength of 5000. This means completing a bunch of side quests etc to raise your military strength to this level. But your ending is also affected by the in-game 'galactic readiness' stat. If you don't play the online portion of the game, this is set at 50% which means that your military strength is halved.
What this really means is that if you buy the game second hand, it's twice as hard to get the best ending. Having a new purchase only multiplayer portion isn't all that new, but Mass Effect 3 actively penalizes people who bought the game second hand, making it harder to properly 'win' the game. Which given that, either way, you've paid money for the game, is a hell of a thing to do.
Page:
chasfh wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Alfonse wrote:
[i]
And with respect to those commenting on this thread, since when has "value for money" not counted for anything? As far as I'm concerned, if it's worth the money, then it's worth the money, nothing to complain about.
"Buying into a franchise" does not give you right to dictate how the franchise develops, or how it is marketed- unfortunate but true.
Gaming is a business, not a democracy based on who shouts the most- also true (also sad).
I said it before, once you've built consumer expectation you're effectively going damage the value to a consumer of a follow-up product by incorporating day one DLC and many gamers such as myself wouldn't touch those games at all.
It's immaterial how much game time or whatever you're going to get out of a game. I'm a Smash Brothers fiend and have clocked hundreds of hours into the games. Would I have bought the game for anything more than £40 on release despite knowing how much I would play it? No, because once you've given someone something once for a certain price,you're probably not going to want to pay more for a similar product the next time. People obviously agree, I don't think it's a coincidence that EA was voted worst company of the year or whatever and they employ some of the least consumer friendly practices with regard to products
Also, some companies such as Valve do genuinely listen to their consumers. Counterstrike GO isn't being released until the community is largely satisfied with the end product. Valve is also a profitable business so the gaming industry clearly can work without consumers being force fed sewage on a yearly basis
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Alfonse wrote:
[i]
And with respect to those commenting on this thread, since when has "value for money" not counted for anything? As far as I'm concerned, if it's worth the money, then it's worth the money, nothing to complain about.
"Buying into a franchise" does not give you right to dictate how the franchise develops, or how it is marketed- unfortunate but true.
Gaming is a business, not a democracy based on who shouts the most- also true (also sad).
I said it before, once you've built consumer expectation you're effectively going damage the value to a consumer of a follow-up product by incorporating day one DLC and many gamers such as myself wouldn't touch those games at all.
It's immaterial how much game time or whatever you're going to get out of a game. I'm a Smash Brothers fiend and have clocked hundreds of hours into the games. Would I have bought the game for anything more than £40 on release despite knowing how much I would play it? No, because once you've given someone something once for a certain price,you're probably not going to want to pay more for a similar product the next time. People obviously agree, I don't think it's a coincidence that EA was voted worst company of the year or whatever and they employ some of the least consumer friendly practices with regard to products
Also, some companies such as Valve do genuinely listen to their consumers. Counterstrike GO isn't being released until the community is largely satisfied with the end product. Valve is also a profitable business so the gaming industry clearly can work without consumers being force fed sewage on a yearly basis
pete_21 wrote:
The point I was trying to make was although my friend could not possibly have been ripped off as he did not buy any of this content, his initial comment of Shift 2 (which I when I quizzed him further turned out to be a game that he had actually quite enjoyed) seemed to have been something of a negative one. I'm not sure how old the game is (a year or so?) so it could not have been all that fresh in his mind and yet the first thing which he seemed to recall was selecting a car from the games showroom and being asked to part with additional cash to play it. That car may well have been 50P and the best car in the game for all I know and yet he quite clearly recalled being aggrieved at being asked to pay for it. As this feature did not seem to be advertised anywhere on the case of that game he felt as though he was being conned. That was his perception, rightly or wrongly that is how he felt. Perhaps it was an unrealistic expectation to expect to be able to play all the cars in a game that he had just parted with £40 to buy, or maybe he actually did have a point?
Appreciated. However, what I found most interesting about your post was the phrasing that you used when questioning your friend, and I quote;
''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''
This question, phrased this way, leads with the premise that the selection was NOT decent to start with, setting the tone for his response.
Again, a matter of perspective...:-)
The point I was trying to make was although my friend could not possibly have been ripped off as he did not buy any of this content, his initial comment of Shift 2 (which I when I quizzed him further turned out to be a game that he had actually quite enjoyed) seemed to have been something of a negative one. I'm not sure how old the game is (a year or so?) so it could not have been all that fresh in his mind and yet the first thing which he seemed to recall was selecting a car from the games showroom and being asked to part with additional cash to play it. That car may well have been 50P and the best car in the game for all I know and yet he quite clearly recalled being aggrieved at being asked to pay for it. As this feature did not seem to be advertised anywhere on the case of that game he felt as though he was being conned. That was his perception, rightly or wrongly that is how he felt. Perhaps it was an unrealistic expectation to expect to be able to play all the cars in a game that he had just parted with £40 to buy, or maybe he actually did have a point?
Appreciated. However, what I found most interesting about your post was the phrasing that you used when questioning your friend, and I quote;
''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''
This question, phrased this way, leads with the premise that the selection was NOT decent to start with, setting the tone for his response.
Again, a matter of perspective...:-)
The point I was trying to make was although my friend could not possibly have been ripped off as he did not buy any of this content, his initial comment of Shift 2 (which I when I quizzed him further turned out to be a game that he had actually quite enjoyed) seemed to have been something of a negative one. I'm not sure how old the game is (a year or so?) so it could not have been all that fresh in his mind and yet the first thing which he seemed to recall was selecting a car from the games showroom and being asked to part with additional cash to play it. That car may well have been 50P and the best car in the game for all I know and yet he quite clearly recalled being aggrieved at being asked to pay for it. As this feature did not seem to be advertised anywhere on the case of that game he felt as though he was being conned. That was his perception, rightly or wrongly that is how he felt. Perhaps it was an unrealistic expectation to expect to be able to play all the cars in a game that he had just parted with £40 to buy, or maybe he actually did have a point?
I wish I had your patience, chasfh.
pete_21 wrote:
Alfonse wrote:
[i]I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
Absolutely and of course to steer clear of titles where you feel that you are unlikely to get value for your money. Funnily enough I was at my friends house last night and I spotted EA's Shift 2 Unleashed on a shelf in his front room. I asked him what it was like and this was his response ''It's alright but you have to buy some of the cars, they're in the game but it won't let you play them''. I thought what a great opportunity to test out our argument, so I replied ''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''. He looked puzzling at me at said '''what the hell are you talking about?, it wasn't like that in the first game''.
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.[/i]
Equally interesting is the assumption that I believe we don't have the right to complain, yet I've stated several times that I believe we don't complain enough!
Also, in contrast to this, I asked some questions of my son, a 360 gamer who has played all 3 Mass Effect games. I asked how he liked ME3, and if he was disappointed in any way.
"I love it," he replied, "Is it on PC as well? If it is, you should buy it."
I say again; PERSPECTIVE!
And with respect to those commenting on this thread, since when has "value for money" not counted for anything? As far as I'm concerned, if it's worth the money, then it's worth the money, nothing to complain about.
"Buying into a franchise" does not give you right to dictate how the franchise develops, or how it is marketed- unfortunate but true.
Gaming is a business, not a democracy based on who shouts the most- also true (also sad).
DLC is not a problem- poor production values, broken games, 3 hour "mini sequels", repeated titles (COD 75), all of these things are a BIG problem. I would rather complain about those things than whether 38 characters (?!HOW MANY???) is enough for a fighting game.
And that's my perspective.
...AAAAND more flak, no doubt:-)
Alfonse wrote:
[i]I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
Absolutely and of course to steer clear of titles where you feel that you are unlikely to get value for your money. Funnily enough I was at my friends house last night and I spotted EA's Shift 2 Unleashed on a shelf in his front room. I asked him what it was like and this was his response ''It's alright but you have to buy some of the cars, they're in the game but it won't let you play them''. I thought what a great opportunity to test out our argument, so I replied ''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''. He looked puzzling at me at said '''what the hell are you talking about?, it wasn't like that in the first game''.
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.[/i]
Equally interesting is the assumption that I believe we don't have the right to complain, yet I've stated several times that I believe we don't complain enough!
Also, in contrast to this, I asked some questions of my son, a 360 gamer who has played all 3 Mass Effect games. I asked how he liked ME3, and if he was disappointed in any way.
"I love it," he replied, "Is it on PC as well? If it is, you should buy it."
I say again; PERSPECTIVE!
And with respect to those commenting on this thread, since when has "value for money" not counted for anything? As far as I'm concerned, if it's worth the money, then it's worth the money, nothing to complain about.
"Buying into a franchise" does not give you right to dictate how the franchise develops, or how it is marketed- unfortunate but true.
Gaming is a business, not a democracy based on who shouts the most- also true (also sad).
DLC is not a problem- poor production values, broken games, 3 hour "mini sequels", repeated titles (COD 75), all of these things are a BIG problem. I would rather complain about those things than whether 38 characters (?!HOW MANY???) is enough for a fighting game.
And that's my perspective.
...AAAAND more flak, no doubt:-)
pete_21 wrote:
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.
But is it ripping him off? It's not like he has to buy a car for any event, there are still plenty of cars available to choose from without having to use real money. Pretty much all racing games these days has a selection of cars available to buy. Do we know if Shift 2 has less cars available for free than its predecessor?
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.
But is it ripping him off? It's not like he has to buy a car for any event, there are still plenty of cars available to choose from without having to use real money. Pretty much all racing games these days has a selection of cars available to buy. Do we know if Shift 2 has less cars available for free than its predecessor?
Alfonse wrote:
I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
Absolutely and of course to steer clear of titles where you feel that you are unlikely to get value for your money. Funnily enough I was at my friends house last night and I spotted EA's Shift 2 Unleashed on a shelf in his front room. I asked him what it was like and this was his response ''It's alright but you have to buy some of the cars, they're in the game but it won't let you play them''. I thought what a great opportunity to test out our argument, so I replied ''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''. He looked puzzling at me at said '''what the hell are you talking about?, it wasn't like that in the first game''.
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.
I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
Absolutely and of course to steer clear of titles where you feel that you are unlikely to get value for your money. Funnily enough I was at my friends house last night and I spotted EA's Shift 2 Unleashed on a shelf in his front room. I asked him what it was like and this was his response ''It's alright but you have to buy some of the cars, they're in the game but it won't let you play them''. I thought what a great opportunity to test out our argument, so I replied ''Perhaps you are being unrealistic to expect to buy a racing game with a decent selection of cars in it?''. He looked puzzling at me at said '''what the hell are you talking about?, it wasn't like that in the first game''.
The point is he was not at all happy, apparently he bought the game new and was totally unaware that this was going to be the case, he may have thought twice about buying it had he known this? Rightly or wrongly he felt aggrieved and that the company who produced this particular game had (in his view) tried to rip him off. He hadn't actually bought any of these cars so he wasn't financially any worse off but I was genuinely surprised that this was clearly the very first thing to spring into his mind when I asked him about this game.
I don't think the whole "Is it worth the money without the DLC" argument holds any weight at all. Food is at some of the lowest prices it has ever been. If you increased the price of food, people would be dissatisfied with it, not because food isn't worth what you're being charged for it, but because they are used to better value for money
You can't just start taking a videogaming series backwards without expecting people to be dissatisfied. It's called consumer expectation. You can talk about the Sims all you like but charging extra for an extended character roster is essentially taking Capcom backwards in my eyes and in the eyes of many gamers. I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
You can't just start taking a videogaming series backwards without expecting people to be dissatisfied. It's called consumer expectation. You can talk about the Sims all you like but charging extra for an extended character roster is essentially taking Capcom backwards in my eyes and in the eyes of many gamers. I'm sorry but if you've bought into a franchise before then you may not have the right to call the companies immoral or whatever, but you definitely have the right to complain about it
pete_21 wrote:
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
You'll have to change that Tag Line now pete :¬D
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
You'll have to change that Tag Line now pete :¬D
Page: