The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Far too easy to make sweeping generalisations. Some of you act as though all publishers finish the game and then start stripping it away to sell as DLC.
In some cases like the already mentioned Streetfighter X Tekken I would say that is exactly what they have done. As with other titles apparently these 'bonus' characters are indeed already on the disc.
That article states:
''So, according to the number crunchers out there, in addition to the $60 it costs to actually buy the disc, if players want to be able to access everything that comes on it, they'll need to pay an additional $120.''
So that is like paying for the game three times over then, I wonder just how many copies of Streetfighter X Tekken would have been sold if it came with all characters fully unlocked but was treble the price of other new releases?[/i]
The reason they're on the disc is due to issues with downloading patches on earlier titles when you wanted to play against someone who didn't have those characters but who wanted to play against someone who did.
We could always go back to an arcade model where you have to insert £1 in to the console every time you wanted to play...
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.
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Far too easy to make sweeping generalisations. Some of you act as though all publishers finish the game and then start stripping it away to sell as DLC.
In some cases like the already mentioned Streetfighter X Tekken I would say that is exactly what they have done. As with other titles apparently these 'bonus' characters are indeed already on the disc.
That article states:
''So, according to the number crunchers out there, in addition to the $60 it costs to actually buy the disc, if players want to be able to access everything that comes on it, they'll need to pay an additional $120.''
So that is like paying for the game three times over then, I wonder just how many copies of Streetfighter X Tekken would have been sold if it came with all characters fully unlocked but was treble the price of other new releases?[/i]
The reason they're on the disc is due to issues with downloading patches on earlier titles when you wanted to play against someone who didn't have those characters but who wanted to play against someone who did.
We could always go back to an arcade model where you have to insert £1 in to the console every time you wanted to play...
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.
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)
Yes some of the developers put out DLC and additional content that is decent and worth the value, but there are others who are blatantly using this as a ploy to pinch the last penny from the consumer. I really can't defend that or those companies.
EA have taken a lot of rap for ME3, and I think rightly so. There product was hardly 100% and let's not even start with the DLC fiasco.
I could give a few examples of "DLC done right", but I'll give my strongest one.
Borderlands. The game itself was massive, and had a lot of replay value (4 characters etc), it was enjoyable and I bought it fairly early with no major update and didn't find any major bugs (there were a few minor ones mentioned online). It was full price when it came out.
After that they released 4 DLS packs. 1 was pretty poor (Moxie) as it didn't do much just added a 4 player 'wave' battle mode. The other 3 were huge and added a lot for the price (new enemies, level caps, new items, dozens of quests and achievements).
Whilst we can't expect all games to do it like this (as it was a huge success and above the average) we can expect something without being overly 'expectant'.
Vote with your wallet would be great to follow, but when companies do it for later games in massively popular series (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc etc) you have got to stop and think.... 'yeah that's pretty harsh' at some point.
Yes some of the developers put out DLC and additional content that is decent and worth the value, but there are others who are blatantly using this as a ploy to pinch the last penny from the consumer. I really can't defend that or those companies.
EA have taken a lot of rap for ME3, and I think rightly so. There product was hardly 100% and let's not even start with the DLC fiasco.
I could give a few examples of "DLC done right", but I'll give my strongest one.
Borderlands. The game itself was massive, and had a lot of replay value (4 characters etc), it was enjoyable and I bought it fairly early with no major update and didn't find any major bugs (there were a few minor ones mentioned online). It was full price when it came out.
After that they released 4 DLS packs. 1 was pretty poor (Moxie) as it didn't do much just added a 4 player 'wave' battle mode. The other 3 were huge and added a lot for the price (new enemies, level caps, new items, dozens of quests and achievements).
Whilst we can't expect all games to do it like this (as it was a huge success and above the average) we can expect something without being overly 'expectant'.
Vote with your wallet would be great to follow, but when companies do it for later games in massively popular series (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc etc) you have got to stop and think.... 'yeah that's pretty harsh' at some point.
Dr. Garin wrote:
Pete compared multiplayer access to car manufacturer warranty in another thread. If you need a car analogy, I think hes your man!
I believe that I mentioned that car manufacturer warranties were time restricted and not owner restricted. Therefore, whoever owns the vehicle within that allocated time period is covered by that warranty. In recent times we have seen certain companies move away from this by introducing what is effectively a pay per owner system. Many feel that this is not really fair as the original purchaser of the item could not possibly be accessing this content. Seems like a fair enough comment to me?
Pete compared multiplayer access to car manufacturer warranty in another thread. If you need a car analogy, I think hes your man!
I believe that I mentioned that car manufacturer warranties were time restricted and not owner restricted. Therefore, whoever owns the vehicle within that allocated time period is covered by that warranty. In recent times we have seen certain companies move away from this by introducing what is effectively a pay per owner system. Many feel that this is not really fair as the original purchaser of the item could not possibly be accessing this content. Seems like a fair enough comment to me?
Pete compared multiplayer access to car manufacturer warranty in another thread. If you need a car analogy, I think hes your man!
DL wrote:
This thread is becoming interesting ... games, houses and now lap dancers! ;¬)
All we need now is guns, cars and speedboats, and we got "Grand Theft Auto", Freeola style...
This thread is becoming interesting ... games, houses and now lap dancers! ;¬)
All we need now is guns, cars and speedboats, and we got "Grand Theft Auto", Freeola style...
This thread is becoming interesting ... games, houses and now lap dancers! ;¬)
Dr. Garin wrote:
The analogies get ever more bizarre...
In that case I would say that all games publishers have really done is decide to mirror the business model used by many lap dancers. They supposedly have 'additional content available' but if the customer wishes to access it then they have to be prepared to get their wallets out! :)
The analogies get ever more bizarre...
In that case I would say that all games publishers have really done is decide to mirror the business model used by many lap dancers. They supposedly have 'additional content available' but if the customer wishes to access it then they have to be prepared to get their wallets out! :)
Games and houses eh? The analogies get ever more bizarre...
Dr. Garin wrote:
Alfonse wrote:
[i]Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]pete_21 wrote:
[i]One thing which I really don't agree with is distributors adding extra cost DLC so you can access items that should really have been included in their £40 game.
I'll bite, whats the magic formula for determining what really should be included in a game?[/i]
I thought he was referring to unlock codes for stuff that's on the disc already[/i]
Maybe. If so, it just leads to a further question, why does something being on the disc mean you're entitled to it.[/i]
I'm going to sell you a house, and withhold the key to the living room. Then I'm going to charge you 1/8th of the house price for the key
Alfonse wrote:
[i]Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]pete_21 wrote:
[i]One thing which I really don't agree with is distributors adding extra cost DLC so you can access items that should really have been included in their £40 game.
I'll bite, whats the magic formula for determining what really should be included in a game?[/i]
I thought he was referring to unlock codes for stuff that's on the disc already[/i]
Maybe. If so, it just leads to a further question, why does something being on the disc mean you're entitled to it.[/i]
I'm going to sell you a house, and withhold the key to the living room. Then I'm going to charge you 1/8th of the house price for the key
Dr. Garin wrote:
Far too easy to make sweeping generalisations. Some of you act as though all publishers finish the game and then start stripping it away to sell as DLC.
In some cases like the already mentioned Streetfighter X Tekken I would say that is exactly what they have done. As with other titles apparently these 'bonus' characters are indeed already on the disc.
That article states:
''So, according to the number crunchers out there, in addition to the $60 it costs to actually buy the disc, if players want to be able to access everything that comes on it, they'll need to pay an additional $120.''
So that is like paying for the game three times over then, I wonder just how many copies of Streetfighter X Tekken would have been sold if it came with all characters fully unlocked but was treble the price of other new releases?
Far too easy to make sweeping generalisations. Some of you act as though all publishers finish the game and then start stripping it away to sell as DLC.
In some cases like the already mentioned Streetfighter X Tekken I would say that is exactly what they have done. As with other titles apparently these 'bonus' characters are indeed already on the disc.
That article states:
''So, according to the number crunchers out there, in addition to the $60 it costs to actually buy the disc, if players want to be able to access everything that comes on it, they'll need to pay an additional $120.''
So that is like paying for the game three times over then, I wonder just how many copies of Streetfighter X Tekken would have been sold if it came with all characters fully unlocked but was treble the price of other new releases?
Page: