The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
That may well be the case but while some games publishers are choosing to trade in this way and others are not who can blame consumers for deciding to buy products where these restrictions are not in place?
Remember the upset aimed at Microsoft when it was alleged that they wanted to charge for the BBC iPlayer app via Xbox Live Gold subscription? That app is free and available to use without restriction on every other format out there, hence Xbox 360 users felt aggrieved.
Whilst there are viable options available from other games publishers in the marketplace which do not enforce these much discussed features then what is so wrong about people deciding to purchase those titles instead?[/i]
Ahh, you misunderstand me.
I have repeatedly said "Vote with your Wallet", and "If you don't like it, don't buy it" in various forms. Not once have I suggested that people should accept what they don't like.
My point is, and has always been, that I fail to see how this is new, unethical or otherwise immoral. I have also pointed out repeatedly, and with what I'd consider good examples, where this "process", "Policy", "marketing tactic", call it what you will, has and continues to be used without question.
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?
chasfh wrote:
[i]Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
That may well be the case but while some games publishers are choosing to trade in this way and others are not who can blame consumers for deciding to buy products where these restrictions are not in place?
Remember the upset aimed at Microsoft when it was alleged that they wanted to charge for the BBC iPlayer app via Xbox Live Gold subscription? That app is free and available to use without restriction on every other format out there, hence Xbox 360 users felt aggrieved.
Whilst there are viable options available from other games publishers in the marketplace which do not enforce these much discussed features then what is so wrong about people deciding to purchase those titles instead?[/i]
Ahh, you misunderstand me.
I have repeatedly said "Vote with your Wallet", and "If you don't like it, don't buy it" in various forms. Not once have I suggested that people should accept what they don't like.
My point is, and has always been, that I fail to see how this is new, unethical or otherwise immoral. I have also pointed out repeatedly, and with what I'd consider good examples, where this "process", "Policy", "marketing tactic", call it what you will, has and continues to be used without question.
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?
chasfh wrote:
Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
That may well be the case but while some games publishers are choosing to trade in this way and others are not who can blame consumers for deciding to buy products where these restrictions are not in place?
Remember the upset aimed at Microsoft when it was alleged that they wanted to charge for the BBC iPlayer app via Xbox Live Gold subscription? That app is free and available to use without restriction on every other format out there, hence Xbox 360 users felt aggrieved.
Whilst there are viable options available from other games publishers in the marketplace which do not enforce these much discussed features then what is so wrong about people deciding to purchase those titles instead?
Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
That may well be the case but while some games publishers are choosing to trade in this way and others are not who can blame consumers for deciding to buy products where these restrictions are not in place?
Remember the upset aimed at Microsoft when it was alleged that they wanted to charge for the BBC iPlayer app via Xbox Live Gold subscription? That app is free and available to use without restriction on every other format out there, hence Xbox 360 users felt aggrieved.
Whilst there are viable options available from other games publishers in the marketplace which do not enforce these much discussed features then what is so wrong about people deciding to purchase those titles instead?
pete_21 wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Having read all the responses, comments and opinion about what should/ shouldn't be included in a game, and how a game company should/ shouldn't go about providing extra content, I am still somewhat confused over exactly what the problem is.
I would say that it basically boils down to certain games publishers recently changing their trading platforms and by and large these changes have not gone down at all well with consumers. It began with the odd different coloured gun in Gears Of War and it's grown to publishers restricting access to (what many feel is) certain key parts of a game. Add to this that it is currently only a select few publishers who seem to be doing this and it has unsurprisingly led to huge resentment. As a consumer I (like many others) feel that in certain cases (the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken for example) the publishers have gone a step too far. Luckily as there are currently plenty of other similar titles available I can choose to buy one of those instead and I have done exactly that. If all publishers move to this new trading platform and it becomes the 'new reality' then it will surely become less of an issue but at the moment I would say that is the main cause of the 'problem' Chas.
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P[/i]
See, I don't think this is at all new, I think it has gone on for as long as gaming has been an industry in the truest sense, and I think that most of it is just a matter of perception.
Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
Does anyone remember the Mortal Kombat games on the SNES and N64? Very cut down, very diluted compared to other formats, and NO option to add the rest of that "missing" gameplay. You got what you got, and that was it.
Nobody really complained. It still sold relatively well. Probably because even in its cut down form, it still warranted the price tag.
Perhaps "perspective" is a better word than perception.
I think in general, many gamer's "perspective" is a little skewed due to the "availability factor" involved.
In other words, if it was NEVER to be available, you'd lament the omission, but still play the game.
Because it's AVAILABLE, it "should be included".
I still maintain that if the game is worth the asking price in it's original form, then any further content can be legitimately charged for. I don't see this as immoral, unjust or unfair. I don't believe it matters one jot what that content might be. I don't perceive this as damaging.
I DO see an incredible scope for developers to produce "organic" gaming experiences that can be adapted to a user's preference.
I Do see the possibilities for replayability that extends beyond the accepted norm.
I Do see a future where gaming devs have basically pushed themselves into a position of extended support for their titles.
Maybe I am an idiot, maybe I am short sighted.
Maybe I'm right. It's a matter of opinion.
chasfh wrote:
[i]Having read all the responses, comments and opinion about what should/ shouldn't be included in a game, and how a game company should/ shouldn't go about providing extra content, I am still somewhat confused over exactly what the problem is.
I would say that it basically boils down to certain games publishers recently changing their trading platforms and by and large these changes have not gone down at all well with consumers. It began with the odd different coloured gun in Gears Of War and it's grown to publishers restricting access to (what many feel is) certain key parts of a game. Add to this that it is currently only a select few publishers who seem to be doing this and it has unsurprisingly led to huge resentment. As a consumer I (like many others) feel that in certain cases (the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken for example) the publishers have gone a step too far. Luckily as there are currently plenty of other similar titles available I can choose to buy one of those instead and I have done exactly that. If all publishers move to this new trading platform and it becomes the 'new reality' then it will surely become less of an issue but at the moment I would say that is the main cause of the 'problem' Chas.
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P[/i]
See, I don't think this is at all new, I think it has gone on for as long as gaming has been an industry in the truest sense, and I think that most of it is just a matter of perception.
Whilst I agree that perception is a powerful thing and that companies need to take that into consideration, I also think that much of what ends up being shouted about begins as a few disgruntled users and ends up blown out of all proportion.
Does anyone remember the Mortal Kombat games on the SNES and N64? Very cut down, very diluted compared to other formats, and NO option to add the rest of that "missing" gameplay. You got what you got, and that was it.
Nobody really complained. It still sold relatively well. Probably because even in its cut down form, it still warranted the price tag.
Perhaps "perspective" is a better word than perception.
I think in general, many gamer's "perspective" is a little skewed due to the "availability factor" involved.
In other words, if it was NEVER to be available, you'd lament the omission, but still play the game.
Because it's AVAILABLE, it "should be included".
I still maintain that if the game is worth the asking price in it's original form, then any further content can be legitimately charged for. I don't see this as immoral, unjust or unfair. I don't believe it matters one jot what that content might be. I don't perceive this as damaging.
I DO see an incredible scope for developers to produce "organic" gaming experiences that can be adapted to a user's preference.
I Do see the possibilities for replayability that extends beyond the accepted norm.
I Do see a future where gaming devs have basically pushed themselves into a position of extended support for their titles.
Maybe I am an idiot, maybe I am short sighted.
Maybe I'm right. It's a matter of opinion.
dav2612 wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
Joining the party a bit late, are there any of those lap dancers still about?
I can understand why people feel the one they do over day 1 DLC and on-disc DLC but the above paragraph is one that reflects my opinion. The content and DLC will all have been agreed at planning stage and depending on timelines and scope, some or all of that extra will be ready at the same time as the main game. I certainly prefer the speed of downloading an unlock code over the full content.
It's not unthinkable to believe that further down the development lifecycle that some portions that were to be included become paid DLC but provided we are not left with a skeleton of a game, I see no issue with this either.
I work for a software organisation. It is not gaming but the principles are the same. At times the software we write is deemed sufficient enough to charge extra for even if that was not the original intention.[/i]
Glad I'm not entirely alone in this...
As I said previously, I'll reserve my indignation for those devs who have the cheek to release broken, sub-standard or incredibly short games.
chasfh wrote:
[i]It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
Joining the party a bit late, are there any of those lap dancers still about?
I can understand why people feel the one they do over day 1 DLC and on-disc DLC but the above paragraph is one that reflects my opinion. The content and DLC will all have been agreed at planning stage and depending on timelines and scope, some or all of that extra will be ready at the same time as the main game. I certainly prefer the speed of downloading an unlock code over the full content.
It's not unthinkable to believe that further down the development lifecycle that some portions that were to be included become paid DLC but provided we are not left with a skeleton of a game, I see no issue with this either.
I work for a software organisation. It is not gaming but the principles are the same. At times the software we write is deemed sufficient enough to charge extra for even if that was not the original intention.[/i]
Glad I'm not entirely alone in this...
As I said previously, I'll reserve my indignation for those devs who have the cheek to release broken, sub-standard or incredibly short games.
chasfh wrote:
Having read all the responses, comments and opinion about what should/ shouldn't be included in a game, and how a game company should/ shouldn't go about providing extra content, I am still somewhat confused over exactly what the problem is.
I would say that it basically boils down to certain games publishers recently changing their trading platforms and by and large these changes have not gone down at all well with consumers. It began with the odd different coloured gun in Gears Of War and it's grown to publishers restricting access to (what many feel is) certain key parts of a game. Add to this that it is currently only a select few publishers who seem to be doing this and it has unsurprisingly led to huge resentment. As a consumer I (like many others) feel that in certain cases (the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken for example) the publishers have gone a step too far. Luckily as there are currently plenty of other similar titles available I can choose to buy one of those instead and I have done exactly that. If all publishers move to this new trading platform and it becomes the 'new reality' then it will surely become less of an issue but at the moment I would say that is the main cause of the 'problem' Chas.
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
Having read all the responses, comments and opinion about what should/ shouldn't be included in a game, and how a game company should/ shouldn't go about providing extra content, I am still somewhat confused over exactly what the problem is.
I would say that it basically boils down to certain games publishers recently changing their trading platforms and by and large these changes have not gone down at all well with consumers. It began with the odd different coloured gun in Gears Of War and it's grown to publishers restricting access to (what many feel is) certain key parts of a game. Add to this that it is currently only a select few publishers who seem to be doing this and it has unsurprisingly led to huge resentment. As a consumer I (like many others) feel that in certain cases (the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken for example) the publishers have gone a step too far. Luckily as there are currently plenty of other similar titles available I can choose to buy one of those instead and I have done exactly that. If all publishers move to this new trading platform and it becomes the 'new reality' then it will surely become less of an issue but at the moment I would say that is the main cause of the 'problem' Chas.
BTW by stating that you are joining Garin's club (The Dark Side) I suspect that you have indeed just doubled its membership! :P
chasfh wrote:
It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
Joining the party a bit late, are there any of those lap dancers still about?
I can understand why people feel the one they do over day 1 DLC and on-disc DLC but the above paragraph is one that reflects my opinion. The content and DLC will all have been agreed at planning stage and depending on timelines and scope, some or all of that extra will be ready at the same time as the main game. I certainly prefer the speed of downloading an unlock code over the full content.
It's not unthinkable to believe that further down the development lifecycle that some portions that were to be included become paid DLC but provided we are not left with a skeleton of a game, I see no issue with this either.
I work for a software organisation. It is not gaming but the principles are the same. At times the software we write is deemed sufficient enough to charge extra for even if that was not the original intention.
It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
Joining the party a bit late, are there any of those lap dancers still about?
I can understand why people feel the one they do over day 1 DLC and on-disc DLC but the above paragraph is one that reflects my opinion. The content and DLC will all have been agreed at planning stage and depending on timelines and scope, some or all of that extra will be ready at the same time as the main game. I certainly prefer the speed of downloading an unlock code over the full content.
It's not unthinkable to believe that further down the development lifecycle that some portions that were to be included become paid DLC but provided we are not left with a skeleton of a game, I see no issue with this either.
I work for a software organisation. It is not gaming but the principles are the same. At times the software we write is deemed sufficient enough to charge extra for even if that was not the original intention.
Having read all the responses, comments and opinion about what should/ shouldn't be included in a game, and how a game company should/ shouldn't go about providing extra content, I am still somewhat confused over exactly what the problem is.
It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
This understanding has then been "turned" by one or two comments relating to "good" or "bad" practice with regard to release of the content. Most of the comments relating to this seem to be directed at determining "acceptable levels of profit".
So, my question now is, since when did the consumer gain the RIGHT to determine how much profit a company should make on an item?
...oh, wait, that's right, we choose to buy or not to buy.
Just as an aside, would everyone be happier if the gaming industry adopted the (not in my opinion) dubious practices taken up by the film industry, whereby there's an initial release, a "directors cut", an "extended edition"....
After all, isn't an "extended edition" just a film with all the bits that were filmed AT THE SAME TIME put back in? In which case, going by the arguments presented for games, why should I be required to pay extra for an "extended edition"? Surely I have a RIGHT to that content? And if this is acceptable for films, perhaps we should have four different versions of the game, priced accordingly so that those who WANT the extra content pay for it and those that DON'T, don't. Or is that just less flexible?
Garin, we might just be a club with two members, who knows?:-)
It seems that the issue comes down to one of perceived "entitlement" to the content, or the belief that the company "makes a £40 game and then takes some of it away". My understanding would be that the game AND extra content are developed side by side, and then released accordingly.
This understanding has then been "turned" by one or two comments relating to "good" or "bad" practice with regard to release of the content. Most of the comments relating to this seem to be directed at determining "acceptable levels of profit".
So, my question now is, since when did the consumer gain the RIGHT to determine how much profit a company should make on an item?
...oh, wait, that's right, we choose to buy or not to buy.
Just as an aside, would everyone be happier if the gaming industry adopted the (not in my opinion) dubious practices taken up by the film industry, whereby there's an initial release, a "directors cut", an "extended edition"....
After all, isn't an "extended edition" just a film with all the bits that were filmed AT THE SAME TIME put back in? In which case, going by the arguments presented for games, why should I be required to pay extra for an "extended edition"? Surely I have a RIGHT to that content? And if this is acceptable for films, perhaps we should have four different versions of the game, priced accordingly so that those who WANT the extra content pay for it and those that DON'T, don't. Or is that just less flexible?
Garin, we might just be a club with two members, who knows?:-)
Dr. Garin wrote:
The simple truth is Pete, that content has always been lost to you. There is no realistic scenario under which you're going to get it as part of the main game.
Even if that is indeed the case it's not hard to see why Capcom appear to have a hell of job on their hands trying to convince customers that have already bought Streetfighter IV, Super Streetfighter IV & Super Streetfighter IV: Arcade Edition that well known, long standing characters from the series (Blanka & Sakura) equate to 'additional bonus characters' in the new game. Customer perception is a very powerful thing, if they perceive that they are getting ripped off then as far as they are concerned they are getting ripped off.
The simple truth is Pete, that content has always been lost to you. There is no realistic scenario under which you're going to get it as part of the main game.
Even if that is indeed the case it's not hard to see why Capcom appear to have a hell of job on their hands trying to convince customers that have already bought Streetfighter IV, Super Streetfighter IV & Super Streetfighter IV: Arcade Edition that well known, long standing characters from the series (Blanka & Sakura) equate to 'additional bonus characters' in the new game. Customer perception is a very powerful thing, if they perceive that they are getting ripped off then as far as they are concerned they are getting ripped off.
Alfonse wrote:
Unless you turn your head 45 degrees when you're out buying the game and purchase the Vita version
Well, no, you'd be looking at an empty shelf. The Vita version isn't out and the only reason the DLC is included when it does arrive is that it's an incentive to encourage those who may have already played it on other consoles and because it's out far later.
Games like Ninja Gaiden 2 on PS3, which included all the extras and more from the 360 version because it came out later.
Unless you turn your head 45 degrees when you're out buying the game and purchase the Vita version
Well, no, you'd be looking at an empty shelf. The Vita version isn't out and the only reason the DLC is included when it does arrive is that it's an incentive to encourage those who may have already played it on other consoles and because it's out far later.
Games like Ninja Gaiden 2 on PS3, which included all the extras and more from the 360 version because it came out later.
Alfonse wrote:
Unless you turn your head 45 degrees when you're out buying the game and purchase the Vita version
You little scamp haha :¬D
Unless you turn your head 45 degrees when you're out buying the game and purchase the Vita version
You little scamp haha :¬D
Page: