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.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you Garin, as there has indeed been a lot of that, are you not being rather stubborn yourself?

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.

It's easy to be on the side that doesn't need factual data to back the point up.

Bottom line, it really is opinion based issues being discussed here. You have extremes in for and against arguments.

pete_21 wrote:
You could always argue that no one is forcing the customer to buy the additional content but in the case of Streetfighter X Tekken the customer has 2 choices, buy the game missing 12 vital characters or end up paying absolutely stupid money for the 'full game'.

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.

This is what I've objected to in this thread really. Blatant mispresentation so people can affect some moral outrage about not having something. And sadly its just pointless trying to discuss things when people are doing that.

First time I've actually had the misfortune of gamers defending Day One "DLC"

pb wrote:
The reason for having the DLC on disc in the first place is explained earlier and judging by the issues from earlier fighters where DLC characters weren't included, is fully justified.

So why are Capcom spending time and money to actually remove this content from the forthcoming PC version then? Other than the obvious fear that this content will be hacked and distributed for free, that argument makes little sense.

Also, Lord Dampierre was a downloadable character in the recent Soul Calibur V and he works fine online.

DL wrote:
For goodness sake ... just take a breath all of you and lets have the lap dancers ;¬)

I suspect that if it was those who were screwing us there would a tad less resentment! :P

@Garin so you're a developer? That actually makes your stance on this matter quite baffling to me. Surely if enough customers avoid titles where they feel that the cost of the required 'add ons' is so ridiculously expensive that they do not buy the title, then how is that going to work for people like you? However you might like to defend the actions of certain games publishers there are some examples which are clearly a blatant rip off if the game & DLC is bought. You could always argue that no one is forcing the customer to buy the additional content but in the case of Streetfighter X Tekken the customer has 2 choices, buy the game missing 12 vital characters or end up paying absolutely stupid money for the 'full game'. As mentioned previously I will now not be buying this title, I do not even consider that it's not even worth picking up a cheap second hand copy as the DLC cost so much. In cases like this it would appear to me as though everyone is set to lose out?

Machie wrote:
Sorry to interrupt the conversation. I haven't really read everything but I just wanted to comment on DLC.

I'm not a fan. In fact I dont like achievements or any involvement with social sites like Facebook.

This would have ruined my childhood.

I don't mind losing the ability to sell off my old games, just as long as they don't cost an arm and a leg. I know people like pb have done very well trading in old games.

The rumoured plans for the next Xbox and Playstation to only support new games are a far worse prospect than EA making a little money back on people who buy second hand games and want the extra content.

However, I'm pretty sure the consoles won't have this restriction by the time they arrive.

As for the Facebook thing, Nintendo just don't work like that, even now.

Alfonse wrote:
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Alfonse wrote:
[i]Nothing's been developed as DLC except the unlock key. A game has been built and they've sectioned off part of it. I don't know what further evidence you require

Now you're just arguing over semantics I think. We know the content is already there so if you wanted to be facetious you could say its not DLC. But that misses the point of your original statement. You're trying to claim its content that at some point was intended to be sold as part of the main game and not an optional extra. Those characters may have been intended as optional extras from day one. In which case nothing has been cut from the game because it was never in it in the first place.[/i]

No. You're wrong, I never said anything was intended to be sold as part of the main game. I'm arguing games are being developed as a whole and are then being cut up and having parts sold off as DLC. The fact that Streetfighter X Tekken is being sold as a whole game on one system and then has part locked on another supports this. You're being purposefully obtuse and you know it.[/i]

Really. This has been done since the days of the C64 and Spectrum. If one system gets a game much later than another there is nearly always extra content included as standard in the later game as a sweetner. It's nothing new and certainly nothing sinister.

The Vita version is out much later than the other versions and so needs something extra to sell it. This, to me, is fair enough. The reason for having the DLC on disc in the first place is explained earlier and judging by the issues from earlier fighters where DLC characters weren't included, is fully justified.

Full disclosure here. Garin is an app developer. Although he probably wishes he had made a photo app with crappy filters.

DL wrote:
For goodness sake ... just take a breath all of you and lets have the lap dancers ;¬)

Someone's in a party mood!:-)

For goodness sake ... just take a breath all of you and lets have the lap dancers ;¬)