The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dr. Garin wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i][Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
I cant stand to see you suffer anymore! You keep posting the right question and it gets ignored.
I guess its not a popular question though. I think its harder to maintain the outrage at DLC when the original game can be considered good value.[/i]
At last!
As a PC gamer, I try to keep my second head hidden so that people don't think I'm of a "different breed", but sometimes it's hard.:-)
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?
chasfh wrote:
[i][Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
I cant stand to see you suffer anymore! You keep posting the right question and it gets ignored.
I guess its not a popular question though. I think its harder to maintain the outrage at DLC when the original game can be considered good value.[/i]
At last!
As a PC gamer, I try to keep my second head hidden so that people don't think I'm of a "different breed", but sometimes it's hard.:-)
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?
chasfh wrote:
[Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
I cant stand to see you suffer anymore! You keep posting the right question and it gets ignored.
I guess its not a popular question though. I think its harder to maintain the outrage at DLC when the original game can be considered good value.
[Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
I cant stand to see you suffer anymore! You keep posting the right question and it gets ignored.
I guess its not a popular question though. I think its harder to maintain the outrage at DLC when the original game can be considered good value.
In fact just to be controversial. If DLC is here to stay, I actually think Capcom's approach might be the best way and maybe even beneficial to the consumer in the long run.
Oooh, I'm probably gonna get beasted now for agreeing with you Garin....
Capcom's model is not new. In fact one of the biggest titles of the past decade is THE biggest exponent of this particular tactic.
The Sims, since the first iteration, has involved long strings of "extra" content in one form or another, starting with the (somewhat) old- fashioned approach of proper expansion packs, leading into the later versions where you have the Sims marketplace; an online store where Simmers can buy new items for their virtual families.
And we're not just talking proper, big game changing additions here, you can spend real money on a new hairstyle for your Sim, a pair of trousers, a new sofa...
NONE of which really adds anything to the game. And yet, the game remains one of the biggest successes of the gaming industry. Interestingly, the expenditure does not stop at £120, or even £200. Bottom line is, you can always spend more!
Now, my wife is a great fan of the Sims, and every so often I'll add some Sim Points to her account so that she can get some new stuff. She never tires of it. I've never even thought about how much the whole thing has cost until now, but it's definitely three figures, and certainly above £200.
Does that bother me?
No. Because my wife has had YEARS of entertainment from the games and she still gets excited when a new expansion comes along (bless her!).
Could they have included a lot of this in the original game? Yes.
Was some of it available on release? Yes.
Has this approach been beneficial to the Sims community? Yes- just try looking at the Sims forums if you want to know how.
Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
And, PLEASE don't tell me how this is different from the twelve DLC characters for Streetfighter, its not. Advertisements, box art work, and even loading screens showed content that was only available as a download, so you knew it was there, but you had to buy it. The ONLY question is whether the STAND ALONE GAME is good value or not, and that truly IS a matter of opinion.
Okay... I'll wait for the flak now...:-)
Oooh, I'm probably gonna get beasted now for agreeing with you Garin....
Capcom's model is not new. In fact one of the biggest titles of the past decade is THE biggest exponent of this particular tactic.
The Sims, since the first iteration, has involved long strings of "extra" content in one form or another, starting with the (somewhat) old- fashioned approach of proper expansion packs, leading into the later versions where you have the Sims marketplace; an online store where Simmers can buy new items for their virtual families.
And we're not just talking proper, big game changing additions here, you can spend real money on a new hairstyle for your Sim, a pair of trousers, a new sofa...
NONE of which really adds anything to the game. And yet, the game remains one of the biggest successes of the gaming industry. Interestingly, the expenditure does not stop at £120, or even £200. Bottom line is, you can always spend more!
Now, my wife is a great fan of the Sims, and every so often I'll add some Sim Points to her account so that she can get some new stuff. She never tires of it. I've never even thought about how much the whole thing has cost until now, but it's definitely three figures, and certainly above £200.
Does that bother me?
No. Because my wife has had YEARS of entertainment from the games and she still gets excited when a new expansion comes along (bless her!).
Could they have included a lot of this in the original game? Yes.
Was some of it available on release? Yes.
Has this approach been beneficial to the Sims community? Yes- just try looking at the Sims forums if you want to know how.
Which brings me back to "point one"; Does the game, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, represent good value?
And, PLEASE don't tell me how this is different from the twelve DLC characters for Streetfighter, its not. Advertisements, box art work, and even loading screens showed content that was only available as a download, so you knew it was there, but you had to buy it. The ONLY question is whether the STAND ALONE GAME is good value or not, and that truly IS a matter of opinion.
Okay... I'll wait for the flak now...:-)
Warhunt wrote:
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you Garin, as there has indeed been a lot of that, are you not being rather stubborn yourself?
Not really. I cant honestly say my reaction is too different to the masses about DLC in general. We've only having this discussion because I'm willing to question my attitude.
Any time someone has given a good example or explained their view (or tried) you have either quoted another easier attack point or simply argued your own point without considering fact.
The '12 extra DLC chars' is the primary example I can think of. It really is the extreme and yet you still seem to 'defend' (I know defend isn't really the right word, but it suits as well as any, so pinch of salt) it, seemingly just because... well you haven't actually told us any reason why you beleive it is reasonable.
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.
In fact just to be controversial. If DLC is here to stay, I actually think Capcom's approach might be the best way and maybe even beneficial to the consumer in the long run.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you Garin, as there has indeed been a lot of that, are you not being rather stubborn yourself?
Not really. I cant honestly say my reaction is too different to the masses about DLC in general. We've only having this discussion because I'm willing to question my attitude.
Any time someone has given a good example or explained their view (or tried) you have either quoted another easier attack point or simply argued your own point without considering fact.
The '12 extra DLC chars' is the primary example I can think of. It really is the extreme and yet you still seem to 'defend' (I know defend isn't really the right word, but it suits as well as any, so pinch of salt) it, seemingly just because... well you haven't actually told us any reason why you beleive it is reasonable.
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.
In fact just to be controversial. If DLC is here to stay, I actually think Capcom's approach might be the best way and maybe even beneficial to the consumer in the long run.
Warhunt wrote:
Any time someone has given a good example or explained their view (or tried) you have either quoted another easier attack point or simply argued your own point without considering fact.
Bottom line, it really is opinion based issues being discussed here. You have extremes in for and against arguments.
And WH has it:¬) Now, please send in the lap dancers!
Any time someone has given a good example or explained their view (or tried) you have either quoted another easier attack point or simply argued your own point without considering fact.
Bottom line, it really is opinion based issues being discussed here. You have extremes in for and against arguments.
And WH has it:¬) Now, please send in the lap dancers!
A worldwide recession which effects companies too you mean? I'm not defending them, or their prices (as you know) but just giving a counter argument. It can't really be used on this side of the fence to much...
Also I don't think he was saying 12 characters isn't substantial, but rather you said "vital". If they were vital to the story or such then ... well you get the point.
Extra characters are not really vital. 12 extra = Heavy chunk yes. If they had better 'stats' and gave others unfair advantage I would say 'vital' isn't too far off though.
Also I don't think he was saying 12 characters isn't substantial, but rather you said "vital". If they were vital to the story or such then ... well you get the point.
Extra characters are not really vital. 12 extra = Heavy chunk yes. If they had better 'stats' and gave others unfair advantage I would say 'vital' isn't too far off though.
Dr. Garin wrote:
12 vital characters eh? I didnt know the game was totally useless without those characters. And we dont even know how much they'll cost yet.
Oh come on Garin, are you honestly going to try and say that 12 characters is not a substantial part that makes up the roster of any fighting game?, some beat em ups don't have much more characters than that. Its a fair part of the game and you know it. Other beat em ups such as the last couple of Namco's Soul Calibur games have had 1 additional character available by DLC not 12!
You are perfectly entitled to object to the points made in this thread if you do not agree with them but unfortunately I think that you will find that they are currently the feelings of the vast majority of video game consumers. If you do not believe me then please go and have a look at discussions on other forums. Just as you are free to object if you feel that members on here have 'unrealistic expectations' of what to expect in a £40 video game, I too am free to voice my opinions and not to buy this title if I feel that it is unlikely to give me value for my hard earned cash.
Oh, and I don't know if the likes of EA & Capcom had noticed but we are currently in the middle of a worldwide recession with consumers generally having less spare cash available to spend on non essential items. I'm not really sure if this has been factored into their new trading strategy at all?
12 vital characters eh? I didnt know the game was totally useless without those characters. And we dont even know how much they'll cost yet.
Oh come on Garin, are you honestly going to try and say that 12 characters is not a substantial part that makes up the roster of any fighting game?, some beat em ups don't have much more characters than that. Its a fair part of the game and you know it. Other beat em ups such as the last couple of Namco's Soul Calibur games have had 1 additional character available by DLC not 12!
You are perfectly entitled to object to the points made in this thread if you do not agree with them but unfortunately I think that you will find that they are currently the feelings of the vast majority of video game consumers. If you do not believe me then please go and have a look at discussions on other forums. Just as you are free to object if you feel that members on here have 'unrealistic expectations' of what to expect in a £40 video game, I too am free to voice my opinions and not to buy this title if I feel that it is unlikely to give me value for my hard earned cash.
Oh, and I don't know if the likes of EA & Capcom had noticed but we are currently in the middle of a worldwide recession with consumers generally having less spare cash available to spend on non essential items. I'm not really sure if this has been factored into their new trading strategy at all?
I used to know the answer to that, then unicorn stole it.
When does the narwhal bacon?
Page: