Viewing Thread:
"EA further penalizing people who buy Mass Effect 3 second hand."

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.

Unless you turn your head 45 degrees when you're out buying the game and purchase the Vita version

pete_21 wrote:
I'm not sure if the 'ugly truth' that is on disc DLC really is some kind of necessary evil which needs to exist in order to prevent this but holding back content which REALLY SHOULD have been the main game surely cannot be in anyone's benefit as it is bound to cost sales. Before the 'how do you know it should have been included in the game?' brigade turn out, in the case of the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken one of these 'additional' characters is Blanka, one the best known and most long standing characters in Capcom's Streetfighter series, does anyone really believe that he was never intended to be included that game?

Yes. The converse of what you're saying is that if they intended the DLC right from the start, they'd fill it with a fringe characters nobody cares about . No matter when the DLC is decided upon, they are going to want to create incentive for people to buy it. And the best way to do that is to include characters people might want and/or identify with. You can call it cynical if you like. It doesnt alter the fact that either way, they'd probably want to include established characters in DLC.

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.

Machie wrote:
How cool can it be when he's the only one? We should start our own club. The No Garins Club. Just us lot and Garin Veris, former player for the New England Patriots.

Haha ... no chance ;¬)

Its a testament to to the awesomeness of my side, that you need a club to counter it.

How cool can it be when he's the only one? We should start our own club. The No Garins Club. Just us lot and Garin Veris, former player for the New England Patriots.

Of course at the other end of the argument we have recently seen Epic Games cancel the proposed development of Bulletstorm 2, the original was the most fun game of last year IMO, but it was strangely missing any kind of versus multiplayer mode which it really should have had in my view. I suspect that the planned sequel would have had this feature but it doesn't look like we'll get to find out now? Also in recent times we have sadly seen the demise of one of my favourite developers, the Liverpool based Bizarre Creations. Their games were generally a refreshing change from much of the usual run of the mill garbage. Not all of their ideas worked (The Club is one which springs to mind) but at least they were never afraid of trying something a little bit different.

So what have these 2 things got in common?, sadly it's that these games generally did not sell. In the case of Bizarre Creations I'm not referring to their PGR titles but Blur bombed (and that was great) and even 007 Bloodstone had it's good points although there were elements of that game which appeared a tad unfinished. (which is something that could possibly have been put down to Activision enforced time restraints?)

Suppose I did my bit as I bought all of the above mentioned titles? But as developers like these disappear (or stop producing these titles) then what is going to be left in the video games marketplace?, rehashes of the same old sports games EA have been churning out since the Mega Drive days?, Call Of Duty 37 etc.? I'm not sure if the 'ugly truth' that is on disc DLC really is some kind of necessary evil which needs to exist in order to prevent this but holding back content which REALLY SHOULD have been the main game surely cannot be in anyone's benefit as it is bound to cost sales. Before the 'how do you know it should have been included in the game?' brigade turn out, in the case of the much discussed Streetfighter X Tekken one of these 'additional' characters is Blanka, one the best known and most long standing characters in Capcom's Streetfighter series, does anyone really believe that he was never intended to be included that game?










I really wanted to be in Garin's 'cool kids' club as well, it's not going to happen is it? :(

From what I understand of your "view", Warhunt, I dont think you agree with me at all. Thats ok though, only the cool kids are allowed on my side anyway. :P

Dr. Garin wrote:
Its not my job to explain why its reasonable. Its you people making the declarations about how wrong & evil this all is.
In the end, I'm simply asking for people to quantify that.

Their job to explain their declarations as to why it is unfair, but not your job to explain your declarations that it IS fair (which you seemto have indicated multiple times)... Something is amiss!

Also... You people? 0_o Seems I've been tarred with the same brush despite stating in pretty much every single post of mine that I agree with you. And there I was trying to say you are not really listening to poeple you are countering... Thanks heavens you have proved me wrong eh? :P

My view (to clear things up):
I develop a game for £2,000,000
Estimates show the game will gather £4.9 million from initial sales.
I have developed one additional DLC and 20 extra 'Items' that you unlock online. No cost as it was done within the game budget.
The online mode is unlockable online with a code.

Now:
Done right-
-I attach a code to each new game that allows free online unlock. One time only. Available to buy online seperately.
-The DLC also comes free with new purchase of the game. One time code only again. Available to buy online seperately.
-The 'items' can be earned through ingame achievments/rewards, or purchased online if chosen.

Done wrong-
-DLC is £10 on release day.
-Each item costs money and only achievable through purchase, making roughly 10000% profit per item
-No online code in first purchase, online mode released as a 'DLC' mode for £15

What I think is the key point is that at some point during development someone has said "Right we have developed all this stuff already. It's ready to be released. We have two options, put it all on the disc, or section off some stuff and pretend that it has not been developed with the game"

Although the 2nd option is not 'wrong' to some people, the majority of people would agree it is not very 'good'. Justify it however you want "Other companies do it, I'd do it, my deceased pony would do it!", it doesn't make it any less greedy.

There are right ways of doing it (Borderlands) and wrong ways of doing it (EA etc). <- Bottom line

chasfh wrote:
Seriously though, wouldn't it be much more beneficial to reserve the outrage for devs that have the nerve to release broken and glitchy games, or those farcical, sub standard 3 hour long pieces of garbage that tend to be more common than ever these days?

Maybe so, I have been playing Goldeneye Reloaded recently and it's one of the most half baked games that I have ever had the misfortune to play. It's plagued with slowdown, screen tearing issues, poor AI and is basically just not a lot of fun at all. That game cost £40 when it was released last November and I have to say that I would have been far from thrilled had I paid that for it.

Regarding the question of whether or not games are worth their asking price in their current form I would say that like most arguments their are cases where they are and cases where they are not. I can think of quite a few examples of each.

Interesting interview with Cliff Blezinski on the this matter where he states:

''It's an ugly truth of the gaming industry. I'm not the biggest fan of having to do it, but it is one of the unfortunate realities."

Also his company has just pulled the plug on the development of Bulletstorm 2 :(