The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Obviously the PC version would be prone to having the initial 12 characters hacked and distributed illegally but it does seem that Capcom's reasoning for their decision to have 'on disc' DLC on this title could be the biggest contradiction in this discussion so far?
I agree with Garin on this point, PC and console behaviours are different, requiring differing approaches with the systems used, and this may or may not account for the change across formats.
In terms of your questioning this, I feel that this brings us back to a point I might have suggested earlier, which is that it's "method" rather than "practice" that's causing the issues here. I begin to understand how the methods used can indeed be causing some people to adopt the perception that they are being cheated, even though this is not the case.
Reading back through the posts, I found some interesting comparisons between houses and games, (i.e "I'm keeping the key to the living room"), and, well, this set me thinking of a similar analogy.
Company says, "Last year I offered you a 20 bed mansion for £XX, and you loved it. This year, I'm offering you a 38 bed sprawling estate for the same price!
"And, as a little bonus, I've even arranged planning permission for a further 12 beds if 38 is not enough for you..."
Buyer replies, "So, explain to me why I have to buy the bricks?"
I include this because it's possibly the best explanation I can think of as to my perception of the whole thing.
I agree with Garin on this point, PC and console behaviours are different, requiring differing approaches with the systems used, and this may or may not account for the change across formats.
In terms of your questioning this, I feel that this brings us back to a point I might have suggested earlier, which is that it's "method" rather than "practice" that's causing the issues here. I begin to understand how the methods used can indeed be causing some people to adopt the perception that they are being cheated, even though this is not the case.
Reading back through the posts, I found some interesting comparisons between houses and games, (i.e "I'm keeping the key to the living room"), and, well, this set me thinking of a similar analogy.
Company says, "Last year I offered you a 20 bed mansion for £XX, and you loved it. This year, I'm offering you a 38 bed sprawling estate for the same price!
"And, as a little bonus, I've even arranged planning permission for a further 12 beds if 38 is not enough for you..."
Buyer replies, "So, explain to me why I have to buy the bricks?"
I include this because it's possibly the best explanation I can think of as to my perception of the whole thing.
I think you need intimate knowledge of the console's online eco systems and of capcom's design to know for sure. I think their official reason was to keep version numbers the game? Which is perfectly plausible. Although to me it does suggest that theres been some strange design decisions along the way or that the 12 character DLC will offer more than just characters. Where the 6 additional characters fit into that, who knows. Most likely just a change of direction on their part as supposedly theres still quite a long time before the characters on the disc can be made available for sale.
Having said that, I doubt its the only reason to do it. I seem to recall reading that publishers are charged for delivering content via Live/PSN. So it could simply be a money saver as well if you reduce what you have to deliver to an unlock code of a few bytes.
As for the PC version it has no such restrictions as theres no single eco system or half the jumping through hoops thats required to get content onto Live/PSN. Yes fear of piracy probably plays a role but also they dont have to care about how much content they're delivering via downloads either. So what they do with the PC version isnt a useful indicator of what they could (or could not) do with the consoles.
So no contradiction as far as I can see because we dont have the answers to so many questions about it all.
Having said that, I doubt its the only reason to do it. I seem to recall reading that publishers are charged for delivering content via Live/PSN. So it could simply be a money saver as well if you reduce what you have to deliver to an unlock code of a few bytes.
As for the PC version it has no such restrictions as theres no single eco system or half the jumping through hoops thats required to get content onto Live/PSN. Yes fear of piracy probably plays a role but also they dont have to care about how much content they're delivering via downloads either. So what they do with the PC version isnt a useful indicator of what they could (or could not) do with the consoles.
So no contradiction as far as I can see because we dont have the answers to so many questions about it all.
If as Capcom have stated that these much discussed additional Streetfighter X Tekken characters had to be 'on disc' due to online compatibility issues then:
A) Why are they being physically removed from the disc of the forthcoming PC version?
B) Will the 6 newly announced additional characters (Cody, Guy, Christie, Leo, Akuma & Ogre) which are not on the disc not work correctly online then?
EDIT: I'm not trying to be pedantic or claim that I should also have these further 6 extra characters for free but I was genuinely curious if anyone knew the answers to the above points? Obviously the PC version would be prone to having the initial 12 characters hacked and distributed illegally but it does seem that Capcom's reasoning for their decision to have 'on disc' DLC on this title could be the biggest contradiction in this discussion so far?
A) Why are they being physically removed from the disc of the forthcoming PC version?
B) Will the 6 newly announced additional characters (Cody, Guy, Christie, Leo, Akuma & Ogre) which are not on the disc not work correctly online then?
EDIT: I'm not trying to be pedantic or claim that I should also have these further 6 extra characters for free but I was genuinely curious if anyone knew the answers to the above points? Obviously the PC version would be prone to having the initial 12 characters hacked and distributed illegally but it does seem that Capcom's reasoning for their decision to have 'on disc' DLC on this title could be the biggest contradiction in this discussion so far?
Oh pete ... and your mother had such high hopes for you .... ;¬D
Davidm4 wrote:
Soul Calibur V has 28 characters and Street Fighter X Tekken has 38. If you spent £3 on 10 characters to make up the difference then you would have spent more than the cost of Street Fighter + DLC :p
Soul Calibur V only has 1 additional character available by DLC (Lord Dampierre) and he was very much an 'add on' not a main character. Other additional characters like Tekken's Devil Jin were hidden within the games character creation mode and did not cost any extra.
On the other hand Streetfighter X Tekken has 12 additional characters available initially with apparently another 6 to follow (Cody, Guy, Christie, Leo, Akuma & Ogre). The first add on pack has been confirmed to cost 1600 M$ points (around £12) with prices for the further packs to be confirmed, some reports are stating that the cost for the entire DLC could be as much as $100 (around £65). Some of these 'additional' characters (Blanka, Sakura & now Akuma) are not really what most beat em up fans would class as 'add on' but actually main characters that they would really have expected to be included in that game.
As ever though the choice is ultimately down to the customer, it will be very interesting to see what Capcom will do if customers decide in numbers not to buy, especially as Namco's Tekken X Streetfighter is due out next year.....
Soul Calibur V has 28 characters and Street Fighter X Tekken has 38. If you spent £3 on 10 characters to make up the difference then you would have spent more than the cost of Street Fighter + DLC :p
Soul Calibur V only has 1 additional character available by DLC (Lord Dampierre) and he was very much an 'add on' not a main character. Other additional characters like Tekken's Devil Jin were hidden within the games character creation mode and did not cost any extra.
On the other hand Streetfighter X Tekken has 12 additional characters available initially with apparently another 6 to follow (Cody, Guy, Christie, Leo, Akuma & Ogre). The first add on pack has been confirmed to cost 1600 M$ points (around £12) with prices for the further packs to be confirmed, some reports are stating that the cost for the entire DLC could be as much as $100 (around £65). Some of these 'additional' characters (Blanka, Sakura & now Akuma) are not really what most beat em up fans would class as 'add on' but actually main characters that they would really have expected to be included in that game.
As ever though the choice is ultimately down to the customer, it will be very interesting to see what Capcom will do if customers decide in numbers not to buy, especially as Namco's Tekken X Streetfighter is due out next year.....
Soul Calibur V has 28 characters and Street Fighter X Tekken has 38. If you spent £3 on 10 characters to make up the difference then you would have spent more than the cost of Street Fighter + DLC :p
Dr. Garin wrote:
Just like Anakin, you've crossed over and you dont even realise it.
Welcome.... ;)
Ha ha, feared that I might regret starting the whole Dark Side thing! :)
Still not sure that I've crossed over though? Shift 2 is £11.50 new and that price is inclusive of an online pass, so even with a little bit of DLC (if bought) it's still going to be under £20 and IMO a good value purchase, so I've ordered it. At £40 it would have been an entirely different proposition and one that I would not have bought as I perceive that there are better options out there. Streetfighter X Tekken (if bought with the DLC) appeared to give poor value for my money so I bought Namco's Soul Calibur V instead. That game had 1 additional character available via download, I bought a code for him for £3 which didn't break the bank and the game was pretty complete without him TBH, especially as that game has a very good character design feature which allows you to build your own extra playable characters (some of these are actually based on characters not included in the game). So there you have it, I will buy titles where I perceive that I am likely to get value for my money and avoid those where I feel I might not.
Have I failed you master.......? ;)
Just like Anakin, you've crossed over and you dont even realise it.
Welcome.... ;)
Ha ha, feared that I might regret starting the whole Dark Side thing! :)
Still not sure that I've crossed over though? Shift 2 is £11.50 new and that price is inclusive of an online pass, so even with a little bit of DLC (if bought) it's still going to be under £20 and IMO a good value purchase, so I've ordered it. At £40 it would have been an entirely different proposition and one that I would not have bought as I perceive that there are better options out there. Streetfighter X Tekken (if bought with the DLC) appeared to give poor value for my money so I bought Namco's Soul Calibur V instead. That game had 1 additional character available via download, I bought a code for him for £3 which didn't break the bank and the game was pretty complete without him TBH, especially as that game has a very good character design feature which allows you to build your own extra playable characters (some of these are actually based on characters not included in the game). So there you have it, I will buy titles where I perceive that I am likely to get value for my money and avoid those where I feel I might not.
Have I failed you master.......? ;)
pete_21 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you Darth Garin but I did spot this game new from a company on Play Trade for £11.50 delivered and having played it I think that it represents superb value for money at that price. I can see why my friend was peeved after paying £40 for it though and was then expected to part with extra cash to unlock certain cars contained in the game, especially as he was not expecting that to be the case. At £11.50 I actually would be quite happy to pay for a bit of DLC if I had to as the game still wouldn't be breaking the bank and would still be giving me (what I perceive to be) good value for my money. That doesn't mean that I'll be buying the next FIFA game for £40 and then paying another £8 to get a ball though!
So basically, you're buying a game with day one DLC from The Empire (EA) so any refusal to purchase on a matter of principle has evaporated. You then go on to make a value judgement about the content the game has for the price you'll pay. That sounds like a familiar argument. ;)
Just like Anakin, you've crossed over and you dont even realise it.
Welcome.... ;)
Sorry to disappoint you Darth Garin but I did spot this game new from a company on Play Trade for £11.50 delivered and having played it I think that it represents superb value for money at that price. I can see why my friend was peeved after paying £40 for it though and was then expected to part with extra cash to unlock certain cars contained in the game, especially as he was not expecting that to be the case. At £11.50 I actually would be quite happy to pay for a bit of DLC if I had to as the game still wouldn't be breaking the bank and would still be giving me (what I perceive to be) good value for my money. That doesn't mean that I'll be buying the next FIFA game for £40 and then paying another £8 to get a ball though!
So basically, you're buying a game with day one DLC from The Empire (EA) so any refusal to purchase on a matter of principle has evaporated. You then go on to make a value judgement about the content the game has for the price you'll pay. That sounds like a familiar argument. ;)
Just like Anakin, you've crossed over and you dont even realise it.
Welcome.... ;)
Dav, I found that tinkering about with the car seemed to make a fair bit of difference in Shift 2 (more so than in other racing games). Perhaps sticking with the one car and constantly upgrading it was actually not such a daft thing to do in this game? Can't upgrade the model I'm using much more so I will have to pick a new model for the next section of the career mode. But you're right, it did initially seem to handle like a blancmange on wheels!
I'm 11% into my career in Shift 2 but my copy seems to come with blocks of ice on the cars instead of tyres. I'd happily pay for some rubber DLC... I just can't get on with the handling in this game but I persevere all the same.
Page: