The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dr. Garin wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Your journey is nearly complete....[/i]
Very good :)
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!
pete_21 wrote:
[i]Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Your journey is nearly complete....[/i]
Very good :)
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!
pete_21 wrote:
Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Your journey is nearly complete....
Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Your journey is nearly complete....
:¬)
pete_21 wrote:
127 posts in this thread and so far all that we have really seemed to agree on is that we all sometimes contradict ourselves, probably been guilty of that myself at some point.
Heh:-)
Slow progress, but there you go...
127 posts in this thread and so far all that we have really seemed to agree on is that we all sometimes contradict ourselves, probably been guilty of that myself at some point.
Heh:-)
Slow progress, but there you go...
127 posts in this thread and so far all that we have really seemed to agree on is that we all sometimes contradict ourselves, probably been guilty of that myself at some point.
Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Borrowed EA's Shift 2: Unleashed from my mate but I'm afraid that I'm currently having to play it in tight-assed mode, I'm over 10% into the games career campaign and still using the same car. The game itself is alright though and it's cheap enough these days, might actually buy it.
Alfonse wrote:
I guess it's my turn to apologize then, when a discussion goes on for this long, I'm prone to contradicting myself
We're all prone to that, and it gets worse with age...
Trust me I know!:-)
I guess it's my turn to apologize then, when a discussion goes on for this long, I'm prone to contradicting myself
We're all prone to that, and it gets worse with age...
Trust me I know!:-)
I guess it's my turn to apologize then, when a discussion goes on for this long, I'm prone to contradicting myself
Alfonse wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]
I'm not sure, no matter how many sites/ forums/ comments you link to, that it is in any way viable to argue that day one DLC is "ripping people off" or in any way immoral if "Value for money" doesn't come into it.
That's a bit like stating that cheddar is your favourite food but anything cheese based makes you puke, it's a contradiction.
BTW, "endorse"?!
Not sure I've ever done that. If what I have said is endorsement, then to state that I'm not afraid of horses indicates that I want to be a jockey in the next Grand National. I did state that I saw a bright future for gaming, but that was in general, and not specifically related to DLC.
I don't say any of this to be contentious, just merely to point out that, in actual fact, the only contradictions in this entire thread are relative to the argument that DLC is a problem or in some way unjust.
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I probably should stop repeating myself now...
Except I never stated DLC was ripping people off or immoral. That's just putting words in my mouth. I just think it's poor that gamers would willingly go out and pay for both a game and DLC that ten years ago , had the game been developed, they could have bought as one package. That's all.
It's like in 1984 when the government announces that they've always been at war with a region and the public blindly believes them, or when McDonalds raised the prices of their double cheeseburgers then put them on the "saver" menu as though no-one would remember they were paying less for them a week prior. Day One unlocks and DLC developed parallel to a game are good for business if retards pay for them, but I can't just sit here smiling while companies reduce games to a husk and then expect me to pay more to flesh them out. But I guess now I'm the one repeating myself
I don't want to pay extra to play as Blanka
PS. The first definition I pulled from google supports my usage of the word[/i]
Qouted from your earlier posts;
"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"
I believe not "morally acceptable" is pretty much equivalent to immoral? (give or take some pedantics, that is).
"Or they could stop charging for worthless garbage altogether. Now that's an unrealistic expectation"
Charging for worthless garbage would be the same as ripping people off perhaps?
If I've misunderstood I apologise, but generally my reply was in relation to the overall argument presented by those attacking the idea of DLC, and not aimed directly at you....
And, no offense intended here, by the way, I'm just intrigued by the whole conversation to be honest.:-)
chasfh wrote:
[i]
I'm not sure, no matter how many sites/ forums/ comments you link to, that it is in any way viable to argue that day one DLC is "ripping people off" or in any way immoral if "Value for money" doesn't come into it.
That's a bit like stating that cheddar is your favourite food but anything cheese based makes you puke, it's a contradiction.
BTW, "endorse"?!
Not sure I've ever done that. If what I have said is endorsement, then to state that I'm not afraid of horses indicates that I want to be a jockey in the next Grand National. I did state that I saw a bright future for gaming, but that was in general, and not specifically related to DLC.
I don't say any of this to be contentious, just merely to point out that, in actual fact, the only contradictions in this entire thread are relative to the argument that DLC is a problem or in some way unjust.
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I probably should stop repeating myself now...
Except I never stated DLC was ripping people off or immoral. That's just putting words in my mouth. I just think it's poor that gamers would willingly go out and pay for both a game and DLC that ten years ago , had the game been developed, they could have bought as one package. That's all.
It's like in 1984 when the government announces that they've always been at war with a region and the public blindly believes them, or when McDonalds raised the prices of their double cheeseburgers then put them on the "saver" menu as though no-one would remember they were paying less for them a week prior. Day One unlocks and DLC developed parallel to a game are good for business if retards pay for them, but I can't just sit here smiling while companies reduce games to a husk and then expect me to pay more to flesh them out. But I guess now I'm the one repeating myself
I don't want to pay extra to play as Blanka
PS. The first definition I pulled from google supports my usage of the word[/i]
Qouted from your earlier posts;
"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"
I believe not "morally acceptable" is pretty much equivalent to immoral? (give or take some pedantics, that is).
"Or they could stop charging for worthless garbage altogether. Now that's an unrealistic expectation"
Charging for worthless garbage would be the same as ripping people off perhaps?
If I've misunderstood I apologise, but generally my reply was in relation to the overall argument presented by those attacking the idea of DLC, and not aimed directly at you....
And, no offense intended here, by the way, I'm just intrigued by the whole conversation to be honest.:-)
chasfh wrote:
I'm not sure, no matter how many sites/ forums/ comments you link to, that it is in any way viable to argue that day one DLC is "ripping people off" or in any way immoral if "Value for money" doesn't come into it.
That's a bit like stating that cheddar is your favourite food but anything cheese based makes you puke, it's a contradiction.
BTW, "endorse"?!
Not sure I've ever done that. If what I have said is endorsement, then to state that I'm not afraid of horses indicates that I want to be a jockey in the next Grand National. I did state that I saw a bright future for gaming, but that was in general, and not specifically related to DLC.
I don't say any of this to be contentious, just merely to point out that, in actual fact, the only contradictions in this entire thread are relative to the argument that DLC is a problem or in some way unjust.
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I probably should stop repeating myself now...
Except I never stated DLC was ripping people off or immoral. That's just putting words in my mouth. I just think it's poor that gamers would willingly go out and pay for both a game and DLC that ten years ago , had the game been developed, they could have bought as one package. That's all.
It's like in 1984 when the government announces that they've always been at war with a region and the public blindly believes them, or when McDonalds raised the prices of their double cheeseburgers then put them on the "saver" menu as though no-one would remember they were paying less for them a week prior. Day One unlocks and DLC developed parallel to a game are good for business if retards pay for them, but I can't just sit here smiling while companies reduce games to a husk and then expect me to pay more to flesh them out. But I guess now I'm the one repeating myself
I don't want to pay extra to play as Blanka
PS. The first definition I pulled from google supports my usage of the word
I'm not sure, no matter how many sites/ forums/ comments you link to, that it is in any way viable to argue that day one DLC is "ripping people off" or in any way immoral if "Value for money" doesn't come into it.
That's a bit like stating that cheddar is your favourite food but anything cheese based makes you puke, it's a contradiction.
BTW, "endorse"?!
Not sure I've ever done that. If what I have said is endorsement, then to state that I'm not afraid of horses indicates that I want to be a jockey in the next Grand National. I did state that I saw a bright future for gaming, but that was in general, and not specifically related to DLC.
I don't say any of this to be contentious, just merely to point out that, in actual fact, the only contradictions in this entire thread are relative to the argument that DLC is a problem or in some way unjust.
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I probably should stop repeating myself now...
Except I never stated DLC was ripping people off or immoral. That's just putting words in my mouth. I just think it's poor that gamers would willingly go out and pay for both a game and DLC that ten years ago , had the game been developed, they could have bought as one package. That's all.
It's like in 1984 when the government announces that they've always been at war with a region and the public blindly believes them, or when McDonalds raised the prices of their double cheeseburgers then put them on the "saver" menu as though no-one would remember they were paying less for them a week prior. Day One unlocks and DLC developed parallel to a game are good for business if retards pay for them, but I can't just sit here smiling while companies reduce games to a husk and then expect me to pay more to flesh them out. But I guess now I'm the one repeating myself
I don't want to pay extra to play as Blanka
PS. The first definition I pulled from google supports my usage of the word
dav2612 wrote:
Like chasfh, my lack of opposition to day one DLC is not an endorsement, I just simply do not have an issue with it.
I seldom buy DLC for a couple of reasons, I tend to move games on when I'm finished or the DLC is overpriced e.g 800 points for 4 maps. But the fact remains, I have no issue with DLC being there from day one or on the disc as I have never felt I have been "ripped off" or missing something that should have been included with my initial purchase. I'll admit I've not bought any of the titles in question in this thread but I don't think my opinion would alter.
Perhaps gamers have been spoiled recently but there does seem to be an expectancy among us to have everything at no extra cost. You only have to look at the Playstation Blog each Wednesday to see how worked up people get over a selection of content which has no interest to them. And the reaction to the PS Plus content gets particularly heated.
It is possible that some publishers have been guilty over spoiling us in the past and are now trying to recoup some money. But on the other hand games still tend to retail for the same £40 they have done for years despite the development costs soaring. It could be argued the market is now much bigger but then so is the competition and the people that can buy all the games they want must be far outnumbered by those that can't. In most cases we are getting more for our £40 than we ever have done.
Development studios seem to fold regularly these days. I'm pretty sure that number would increase if we got everything for free.
Couldn't have put it better!
@Garin; perhaps we now have a few more "members"...
All of a sudden, it doesn't feel quite as lonely!:-)
Like chasfh, my lack of opposition to day one DLC is not an endorsement, I just simply do not have an issue with it.
I seldom buy DLC for a couple of reasons, I tend to move games on when I'm finished or the DLC is overpriced e.g 800 points for 4 maps. But the fact remains, I have no issue with DLC being there from day one or on the disc as I have never felt I have been "ripped off" or missing something that should have been included with my initial purchase. I'll admit I've not bought any of the titles in question in this thread but I don't think my opinion would alter.
Perhaps gamers have been spoiled recently but there does seem to be an expectancy among us to have everything at no extra cost. You only have to look at the Playstation Blog each Wednesday to see how worked up people get over a selection of content which has no interest to them. And the reaction to the PS Plus content gets particularly heated.
It is possible that some publishers have been guilty over spoiling us in the past and are now trying to recoup some money. But on the other hand games still tend to retail for the same £40 they have done for years despite the development costs soaring. It could be argued the market is now much bigger but then so is the competition and the people that can buy all the games they want must be far outnumbered by those that can't. In most cases we are getting more for our £40 than we ever have done.
Development studios seem to fold regularly these days. I'm pretty sure that number would increase if we got everything for free.
Couldn't have put it better!
@Garin; perhaps we now have a few more "members"...
All of a sudden, it doesn't feel quite as lonely!:-)
Page: