The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
pete_21 wrote:
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]pete_21 wrote:
[i]Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.[/i]
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
I can live with that :)[/i]
HAMsters...
Running eternally on the wheel of discontent, perhaps?
Sorry.. couldn't resist!:-)
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]pete_21 wrote:
[i]Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.[/i]
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
I can live with that :)[/i]
HAMsters...
Running eternally on the wheel of discontent, perhaps?
Sorry.. couldn't resist!:-)
Dr. Garin wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.[/i]
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
I can live with that :)
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.[/i]
Griefer: Lord of the HAMsters it is then.
I can live with that :)
pete_21 wrote:
Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.
Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
Fine, henceforth you shall be known as the HAMsters.
Dr. Garin wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
Bit of an amusing tag really as you can reduce this to something quite simple, "glass half full" vs "glass half empty".
Essentially we've got people complaining about what they dont have (DLC they think should be included in the game). Clearly their glasses are half empty.
And then you have the people with glasses half full. Dashing, handsome individuals who suggest you measure a game by what it contains. Clearly the optimists of the story.
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population![/i]
It MUST be the dark side...
Only in the dark could I be described as "dashing and handsome"...
pete_21 wrote:
[i]BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
Bit of an amusing tag really as you can reduce this to something quite simple, "glass half full" vs "glass half empty".
Essentially we've got people complaining about what they dont have (DLC they think should be included in the game). Clearly their glasses are half empty.
And then you have the people with glasses half full. Dashing, handsome individuals who suggest you measure a game by what it contains. Clearly the optimists of the story.
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population![/i]
It MUST be the dark side...
Only in the dark could I be described as "dashing and handsome"...
Dr. Garin wrote:
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population!
Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
named after those pigs at EA & Capcom! :P
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population!
Hate, anger and mistrust just sounds so unpleasant Garin, we prefer to call if 'HAM' if you don't mind.
named after those pigs at EA & Capcom! :P
pete_21 wrote:
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
Bit of an amusing tag really as you can reduce this to something quite simple, "glass half full" vs "glass half empty".
Essentially we've got people complaining about what they dont have (DLC they think should be included in the game). Clearly their glasses are half empty.
And then you have the people with glasses half full. Dashing, handsome individuals who suggest you measure a game by what it contains. Clearly the optimists of the story.
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population!
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
Bit of an amusing tag really as you can reduce this to something quite simple, "glass half full" vs "glass half empty".
Essentially we've got people complaining about what they dont have (DLC they think should be included in the game). Clearly their glasses are half empty.
And then you have the people with glasses half full. Dashing, handsome individuals who suggest you measure a game by what it contains. Clearly the optimists of the story.
So I'm not sure we're the dark side after all. We havent given into hate, anger and mistrust like the rest of the gaming population!
chasfh wrote:
I much preferred RTCW and played that to death.
I did too ... superb :¬)
I much preferred RTCW and played that to death.
I did too ... superb :¬)
chasfh wrote:
However, I could give you a list of games that are "worth every penny" and then some.
Then again, that's all down to opinion too, isn't it?
Yep. I'm not a fan of the Sims as I feel like Im simulating the work/eat/sleep routine of life. I usually get bored and start fires for excitement and move the shower when it's in use :p
I haven't played the Sims 3 so maybe they've added a lot more to it since the original, but I'd be surprised if it got me hooked. To me the base value of the game wouldn't be worth it, but to someone who can enjoy it for months or years then it would be excellent value for money.
Street Fighter x Tekken has a default roster of 38 fighters, so I'm sure there are those who feel that is a reasonable selection. The main thing to be annoyed about is how Xbox users can't play Online Tag-Team mode, which sounds like a major part of online play but they can still have standard online matches which makes it worth it if you never get bored of it.
However, I could give you a list of games that are "worth every penny" and then some.
Then again, that's all down to opinion too, isn't it?
Yep. I'm not a fan of the Sims as I feel like Im simulating the work/eat/sleep routine of life. I usually get bored and start fires for excitement and move the shower when it's in use :p
I haven't played the Sims 3 so maybe they've added a lot more to it since the original, but I'd be surprised if it got me hooked. To me the base value of the game wouldn't be worth it, but to someone who can enjoy it for months or years then it would be excellent value for money.
Street Fighter x Tekken has a default roster of 38 fighters, so I'm sure there are those who feel that is a reasonable selection. The main thing to be annoyed about is how Xbox users can't play Online Tag-Team mode, which sounds like a major part of online play but they can still have standard online matches which makes it worth it if you never get bored of it.
DL wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]My question, perhaps then, is WHY do gamers feel so aggrieved by something that IS accepted elsewhere in retail, and WHY the only consideration ISN'T whether the game is worth the asking price without the DLC?
TBH what game is actually worth the 'asking price' these days? The price of a 'new release' is astronomical as a pre-order (depending where you shop) but a few days following release it falls dramatically to a 'not stupid price'! MOH Warfighter, release Oct 23rd ... pre-order for PC about £40, oh for that you get Marine Sniper unlock. Your havin a laff ... for a PC game! ;¬)
This is yet another EA gain, sorry game[/i]
A fair point, and one that actually supports what I say (i.e. the nature of the REAL issue). However, I could give you a list of games that are "worth every penny" and then some.
Then again, that's all down to opinion too, isn't it? Personally, the last MOH game I bought was the first one! I much preferred RTCW and played that to death.
chasfh wrote:
[i]My question, perhaps then, is WHY do gamers feel so aggrieved by something that IS accepted elsewhere in retail, and WHY the only consideration ISN'T whether the game is worth the asking price without the DLC?
TBH what game is actually worth the 'asking price' these days? The price of a 'new release' is astronomical as a pre-order (depending where you shop) but a few days following release it falls dramatically to a 'not stupid price'! MOH Warfighter, release Oct 23rd ... pre-order for PC about £40, oh for that you get Marine Sniper unlock. Your havin a laff ... for a PC game! ;¬)
This is yet another EA gain, sorry game[/i]
A fair point, and one that actually supports what I say (i.e. the nature of the REAL issue). However, I could give you a list of games that are "worth every penny" and then some.
Then again, that's all down to opinion too, isn't it? Personally, the last MOH game I bought was the first one! I much preferred RTCW and played that to death.
chasfh wrote:
My question, perhaps then, is WHY do gamers feel so aggrieved by something that IS accepted elsewhere in retail, and WHY the only consideration ISN'T whether the game is worth the asking price without the DLC?
TBH what game is actually worth the 'asking price' these days? The price of a 'new release' is astronomical as a pre-order (depending where you shop) but a few days following release it falls dramatically to a 'not stupid price'! MOH Warfighter, release Oct 23rd ... pre-order for PC about £40, oh for that you get Marine Sniper unlock. Your havin a laff ... for a PC game! ;¬)
This is yet another EA gain, sorry game
My question, perhaps then, is WHY do gamers feel so aggrieved by something that IS accepted elsewhere in retail, and WHY the only consideration ISN'T whether the game is worth the asking price without the DLC?
TBH what game is actually worth the 'asking price' these days? The price of a 'new release' is astronomical as a pre-order (depending where you shop) but a few days following release it falls dramatically to a 'not stupid price'! MOH Warfighter, release Oct 23rd ... pre-order for PC about £40, oh for that you get Marine Sniper unlock. Your havin a laff ... for a PC game! ;¬)
This is yet another EA gain, sorry game
Page: