The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
In those games we know DLC was developed along side the main game. That isnt the claim you're making though. You're saying content is being cut out of games. That implies the DLC was originally intended to be part of the main game.
Are you joking? Streetfighter X Tekken? Mass Effect 3? How many examples would you like because I have more
Alfonse wrote:
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost.
Fact or opinion?
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost.
Fact or opinion?
Or they could stop charging for worthless garbage altogether. Now that's an unrealistic expectation
Horse armour anyone?
Horse armour anyone?
Alfonse wrote:
Alright then, try this on for size. Expansion packs used to be developed by companies as way for players who have played through a game to have more fun with it, and encourage more people to buy the game. They weren't developed parallel to the game. They were a continuation of the games, but they were also different in their own way.
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost. To add insult to injury, they're including this content on the disk and then charging you to access it.
It's bad for gaming, and though I said earlier that you can vote with your wallet, it's still a kick in the teeth to fans who have stuck with a series from its inception. Nobody's entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable for developers and publishers to treat their fans in this manner
It's not unrealistic to want something that people were receiving in the past.
Sounds like its the method, not the practice that's at fault then...
If the companies in question REMOVED that "bonus" content entirely from the initial release, sat on it for three months and then made a big hoo-hah about "NEW CHARACTERS/ MISSIONS/ ONLINE MODES/ ETC...", we'd be none the wiser and we'd probably all accept it as normal.
Perhaps we'd even praise some of these companies for "Adding to an already fine title".
It still brings it all back to whether the stand alone item represents value, but maybe, just maybe, it would be easier to see if things weren't confused and buried under a slew of greyed out boxes inviting you to "download".
Alright then, try this on for size. Expansion packs used to be developed by companies as way for players who have played through a game to have more fun with it, and encourage more people to buy the game. They weren't developed parallel to the game. They were a continuation of the games, but they were also different in their own way.
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost. To add insult to injury, they're including this content on the disk and then charging you to access it.
It's bad for gaming, and though I said earlier that you can vote with your wallet, it's still a kick in the teeth to fans who have stuck with a series from its inception. Nobody's entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable for developers and publishers to treat their fans in this manner
It's not unrealistic to want something that people were receiving in the past.
Sounds like its the method, not the practice that's at fault then...
If the companies in question REMOVED that "bonus" content entirely from the initial release, sat on it for three months and then made a big hoo-hah about "NEW CHARACTERS/ MISSIONS/ ONLINE MODES/ ETC...", we'd be none the wiser and we'd probably all accept it as normal.
Perhaps we'd even praise some of these companies for "Adding to an already fine title".
It still brings it all back to whether the stand alone item represents value, but maybe, just maybe, it would be easier to see if things weren't confused and buried under a slew of greyed out boxes inviting you to "download".
Dr. Garin wrote:
Warhunt wrote:
[i]Appreciate the differing views in this thread, but I personally can not see how people are defending every game developer in a 'blanket' sense (Garin - no names mentioned - Garin)
I havent defended anything. However I do believe that if you're going to "attack" it should be based upon sound thinking and correct information. I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.[/i]
Alright then, try this on for size. Expansion packs used to be developed by companies as way for players who have played through a game to have more fun with it, and encourage more people to buy the game. They weren't developed parallel to the game. They were a continuation of the games, but they were also different in their own way.
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost. To add insult to injury, they're including this content on the disk and then charging you to access it.
It's bad for gaming, and though I said earlier that you can vote with your wallet, it's still a kick in the teeth to fans who have stuck with a series from its inception. Nobody's entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable for developers and publishers to treat their fans in this manner
There's a reason for things like this happening
This picture sums it up pretty well
It's not unrealistic to want something that people were receiving in the past.
Warhunt wrote:
[i]Appreciate the differing views in this thread, but I personally can not see how people are defending every game developer in a 'blanket' sense (Garin - no names mentioned - Garin)
I havent defended anything. However I do believe that if you're going to "attack" it should be based upon sound thinking and correct information. I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.[/i]
Alright then, try this on for size. Expansion packs used to be developed by companies as way for players who have played through a game to have more fun with it, and encourage more people to buy the game. They weren't developed parallel to the game. They were a continuation of the games, but they were also different in their own way.
Nowadays, companies are basically cutting parts out of a game that they have already developed, and selling it to you at an additional cost. To add insult to injury, they're including this content on the disk and then charging you to access it.
It's bad for gaming, and though I said earlier that you can vote with your wallet, it's still a kick in the teeth to fans who have stuck with a series from its inception. Nobody's entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean it's morally acceptable for developers and publishers to treat their fans in this manner
There's a reason for things like this happening
This picture sums it up pretty well
It's not unrealistic to want something that people were receiving in the past.
pete_21 wrote:
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
I would say that Capcom expecting customers to part with $180 (£120 ish) for Streetfighter X Tekken and all its playable characters is a highly unrealistic expectation.[/i]
...And yet it happens...
See, I'd be inclined not to buy it at all, no matter how much I might like to play it. Kind of a protest.
I would imagine that Capcom's marketing department are highly amused by the fact that people actually took them up on this undoubtedly poor offer.
...and yet they did, and continue to do so...
But then I may be speaking out of turn. After all, the IMPORTANT question as I see it is does the game on its own represent good value?
Don't even think about the additional content/ unlockable characters, ignore them, pretend they don't exist.
Great.
Now, the game as it stands, is it worth the money you pay?
If the answer is "No", well, don't buy.
If the answer is "Yes", then I think its fair that anything above and beyond be charged for separately.
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
I would say that Capcom expecting customers to part with $180 (£120 ish) for Streetfighter X Tekken and all its playable characters is a highly unrealistic expectation.[/i]
...And yet it happens...
See, I'd be inclined not to buy it at all, no matter how much I might like to play it. Kind of a protest.
I would imagine that Capcom's marketing department are highly amused by the fact that people actually took them up on this undoubtedly poor offer.
...and yet they did, and continue to do so...
But then I may be speaking out of turn. After all, the IMPORTANT question as I see it is does the game on its own represent good value?
Don't even think about the additional content/ unlockable characters, ignore them, pretend they don't exist.
Great.
Now, the game as it stands, is it worth the money you pay?
If the answer is "No", well, don't buy.
If the answer is "Yes", then I think its fair that anything above and beyond be charged for separately.
Dr. Garin wrote:
I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
I would say that Capcom expecting customers to part with $180 (£120 ish) for Streetfighter X Tekken and all its playable characters is a highly unrealistic expectation.
I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
I would say that Capcom expecting customers to part with $180 (£120 ish) for Streetfighter X Tekken and all its playable characters is a highly unrealistic expectation.
Warhunt wrote:
Appreciate the differing views in this thread, but I personally can not see how people are defending every game developer in a 'blanket' sense (Garin - no names mentioned - Garin)
I havent defended anything. However I do believe that if you're going to "attack" it should be based upon sound thinking and correct information. I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
Appreciate the differing views in this thread, but I personally can not see how people are defending every game developer in a 'blanket' sense (Garin - no names mentioned - Garin)
I havent defended anything. However I do believe that if you're going to "attack" it should be based upon sound thinking and correct information. I've yet to be convinced theres any argument out there thats not rooted in a sense of entitlement & unrealistic expectations.
DLC is pretty much here to stay and it's nigh on impossible to argue whether the content should have been included in the original release or was always destined for DLC anyway.
Surely the only question that's important is,
"Does the game represent good value AS IT STANDS?"
I'm not sure that there's really any argument to be had. Myself and several others have mentioned "vote with your wallet" and whilst i appreciate that this is sometimes hard when you don't know precisely what IS included in a game or how much of what you've seen is hype, I still think that, generally speaking, there are developers that you can trust and others that you clearly can't...
I'd throw my money at a Bethesda game any day of the week, chances are it's gonna be great.
I wouldn't buy an EA game until I'd seen a review or six...
As far as I'm concerned, if the game includes replayability, longevity, great production values, excellent community/ company support and a bit of originality WITHOUT using DLC, then anything else released after (or even at the same time) to go with it is a bonus, any unlockables a gift.
As I said previously, the belief that games should be "all inclusive" is entirely unrealistic. Having not played any of the Mass Effect games (they're EA after all, and as I've already said, I'm wary of them!) I can't comment directly on the content released for them, or the omissions made in the original release. But the principal remains...
And let's face it, if EA sell a few million copies, regardless of the feedback the model will be adopted for future releases. It's a pity people don't "vote with their wallet" a little more frequently.
Surely the only question that's important is,
"Does the game represent good value AS IT STANDS?"
I'm not sure that there's really any argument to be had. Myself and several others have mentioned "vote with your wallet" and whilst i appreciate that this is sometimes hard when you don't know precisely what IS included in a game or how much of what you've seen is hype, I still think that, generally speaking, there are developers that you can trust and others that you clearly can't...
I'd throw my money at a Bethesda game any day of the week, chances are it's gonna be great.
I wouldn't buy an EA game until I'd seen a review or six...
As far as I'm concerned, if the game includes replayability, longevity, great production values, excellent community/ company support and a bit of originality WITHOUT using DLC, then anything else released after (or even at the same time) to go with it is a bonus, any unlockables a gift.
As I said previously, the belief that games should be "all inclusive" is entirely unrealistic. Having not played any of the Mass Effect games (they're EA after all, and as I've already said, I'm wary of them!) I can't comment directly on the content released for them, or the omissions made in the original release. But the principal remains...
And let's face it, if EA sell a few million copies, regardless of the feedback the model will be adopted for future releases. It's a pity people don't "vote with their wallet" a little more frequently.
Page: