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.

Hannard wrote:
Oblivion and Fallout did have DLC but it didn't exist on day one. What bugs me more is companies purposely withholding content that they've already got ready or that in some cases is on the disc. Take the new DLC for Saints Row 3 - this gives you some new saints coloured vehicles/planes on the PS3 and 360 and PC. But PC gamers have been able to use them since day one because they were already in there. Beautiful Katamari on the 360's another case in point. As is Streetfighter VS Tekken which has fourteen or so locked fighters which can only be unlocked by buying DLC when it comes out.

but with particular reference to one game I have already mentioned, Shogun 2 actually lists a number of the DLC components in the menu at the start, greyed out if you don't yet own them...
Classic marketing ploy, anyone?

Collectable cards?(look at all the spaces in my album!)
Rumble packs in the N64? (there's a hole in my controller, what's that for?)
Surround sound for your Bluray player?(It's configurable in the menu, what do I need to buy?)
Pokemon??! (Gotta catch 'em all, but only if you buy BOTH VERSIONS!!)

I do understand the frustration, but I also think that perhaps gamers in general have been spoilt over the years and the expectation that a game should be "all inclusive" is unrealistic.

And just to confirm, there's a hole in the dashboard of my car, exactly the shape of an ashtray, it even has a little flip door on it and a twisty doohickey that folds out, just like an ashtray except it's not one... £250 extra if I actually wanted one fitted though!

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.

PS. Oblivion had day 1 DLC.

Oblivion and Fallout did have DLC but it didn't exist on day one. What bugs me more is companies purposely withholding content that they've already got ready or that in some cases is on the disc. Take the new DLC for Saints Row 3 - this gives you some new saints coloured vehicles/planes on the PS3 and 360 and PC. But PC gamers have been able to use them since day one because they were already in there. Beautiful Katamari on the 360's another case in point. As is Streetfighter VS Tekken which has fourteen or so locked fighters which can only be unlocked by buying DLC when it comes out.

Dr. Garin wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]This is something which I touched upon in my recent review of Wrecked: Revenge Revisited, that game came with just 6 tracks although there were an additional 2 tracks available as DLC which were released on the very same day as the game itself. If you want to argue the case for entitlement compare this to the last Mashed title came with 15 tracks. I believe that some of this additional cost DLC is content which really should have been included in the original game and I think that it's a worrying trend TBH.

So you want to compare content in a full price PS2/XBOX game with a 10 pound XBL/PSN game? I dont think I need to argue the case for entitlement, you're doing a superb job of that on your own![/i]

I think a lot of this comes down to perception. For example, I play the total war games. Shogun 2 contains over 200 hours of gameplay (pretty darned good value, whatever the price!), and there are several pieces of DLC that add new factions or new units, each at a small cost. Now, it used to be that the TW games came with everything included, same great value but nothing else to buy...

Is it unfair to start charging for "extras" when they used to be included?

A matter of perception.

BUT....

I do think that, if a company is going to charge for extra content, then the original game SHOULD be of the highest quality possible. However, at this point, "Vote with your wallet" seems like an appropriate statement.

Personally, I don't object to paying for extra content providing I like the game and the DLC maintains the quality (BIIIGGG Fallout 3 fan, Oblivion, Skyrim....)...

Edit: PC gamers have been paying for online play for years, generally a monthly subscription, often for a single game, NEVER transferrable... I can't quite see a single payment for the online portion of a game as evil or unjust, in fact it seems quite reasonable. Again this is a matter of perception.

For example, the new copy costs £40- let's say £20 for THE GAME, £20 for the ONLINE LICENSE.

Now, you buy THE GAME second hand for £10 (the "online license" is non- transferrable, exactly as is the case with many PC games) and an ONLINE LICENSE costs you £20.

The alternative view is that the NEW copy "doesn't require an online license" and the devs are "penalising" second hand purchasers...

Which one is correct?

Not quite sure what your getting at there Garin, the Mashed series have always been budget priced? :S

pete_21 wrote:
This is something which I touched upon in my recent review of Wrecked: Revenge Revisited, that game came with just 6 tracks although there were an additional 2 tracks available as DLC which were released on the very same day as the game itself. If you want to argue the case for entitlement compare this to the last Mashed title came with 15 tracks. I believe that some of this additional cost DLC is content which really should have been included in the original game and I think that it's a worrying trend TBH.

So you want to compare content in a full price PS2/XBOX game with a 10 pound XBL/PSN game? I dont think I need to argue the case for entitlement, you're doing a superb job of that on your own!

You're right to a degree Garin as there is no real black & white rule to determine what content someone should be entitled to in a game. In the case of Dirt 3 the mentioned stages are indeed present in the game but could not be selected unless you had paid extra for them. As that game used a driver point system to level up it meant that it was more difficult to reach the higher levels as you were basically trying to win the desired number of points by competing in a lesser number of events.

This is something which I touched upon in my recent review of Wrecked: Revenge Revisited, that game came with just 6 tracks although there were an additional 2 tracks available as DLC which were released on the very same day as the game itself. If you want to argue the case for entitlement compare this to the last Mashed title came with 15 tracks. I believe that some of this additional cost DLC is content which really should have been included in the original game and I think that it's a worrying trend TBH.

Alfonse wrote:
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.

Dr. Garin wrote:
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

pete_21 wrote:
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?