The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
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.
Dr. Garin wrote:
I think Pete has almost been turned to the dark side.
:P
I think Pete has almost been turned to the dark side.
:P
I think Pete has almost been turned.
chasfh wrote:
And, really, you cannot "rip someone off" by supplying a good value product.
When I have mentioned customers being ''ripped off'' what I meant was their belief that this was the case. I appreciate that the reality may well be something very different indeed but if 'perception is greater than reality' applies here, then I suspect that the likes of EA & Capcom are going to have a very difficult task convincing the majority of customers to adapt and play by these new rules, especially while most other publishers currently do not seem to be following their lead.
That's my spin on it anyway.
And, really, you cannot "rip someone off" by supplying a good value product.
When I have mentioned customers being ''ripped off'' what I meant was their belief that this was the case. I appreciate that the reality may well be something very different indeed but if 'perception is greater than reality' applies here, then I suspect that the likes of EA & Capcom are going to have a very difficult task convincing the majority of customers to adapt and play by these new rules, especially while most other publishers currently do not seem to be following their lead.
That's my spin on it anyway.
pete_21 wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I agree that this argument is totally perspective-relative but then again I would say that most arguments are.
The thing I have found most interesting in this thread is the variation of opinion on this matter. I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?[/i]
To clarify, when I say "argument", I mean in its most literal sense, i.e. the collective proposal that DLC is a problem. You are, of course, absolutely correct with your observation about the breadth of opinion on the matter, and it is exactly that variation that I have repeatedly stated as fact.
However, my issue with all of this is the persistent assumption that the "opposition" in this debate are endorsing or somehow encouraging a "problem".
To clarify, I'm pretty sure anyone arguing my position is, much like myself, stating that it's "not an issue", in other words, inconsequential, as opposed to a good thing.
In addition, because of its inconsequential nature, there are in fact better things to complain about.
And, really, you cannot "rip someone off" by supplying a good value product.
chasfh wrote:
[i]And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I agree that this argument is totally perspective-relative but then again I would say that most arguments are.
The thing I have found most interesting in this thread is the variation of opinion on this matter. I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?[/i]
To clarify, when I say "argument", I mean in its most literal sense, i.e. the collective proposal that DLC is a problem. You are, of course, absolutely correct with your observation about the breadth of opinion on the matter, and it is exactly that variation that I have repeatedly stated as fact.
However, my issue with all of this is the persistent assumption that the "opposition" in this debate are endorsing or somehow encouraging a "problem".
To clarify, I'm pretty sure anyone arguing my position is, much like myself, stating that it's "not an issue", in other words, inconsequential, as opposed to a good thing.
In addition, because of its inconsequential nature, there are in fact better things to complain about.
And, really, you cannot "rip someone off" by supplying a good value product.
pete_21 wrote:
I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?
If BF3 and its continuing 'problems' are anything to go by and EA's continuing indifference to released games but 'we're' (EA) focused on new releases ... then probably forever :¬(
I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?
If BF3 and its continuing 'problems' are anything to go by and EA's continuing indifference to released games but 'we're' (EA) focused on new releases ... then probably forever :¬(
chasfh wrote:
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I agree that this argument is totally perspective-relative but then again I would say that most arguments are.
The thing I have found most interesting in this thread is the variation of opinion on this matter. I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?
And the contradictions are the biggest indicator of all that the entire argument is perspective- relative.
I agree that this argument is totally perspective-relative but then again I would say that most arguments are.
The thing I have found most interesting in this thread is the variation of opinion on this matter. I'll be interested to see how the likes of EA are going to manage to win over disgruntled consumers or if their actions will really lead to a noticeable drop in sales?
I'm just saying, this is the first time I've come across gamers endorsing Day One DLC. Indifferent? Yeah sure loads, but when I say "many gamers such as myself" that is a broad sweeping statement to hundreds of forum arguments and comment sections focused on Day One DLC and unlocks. I'm more than happy to link you some if you want to see them
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...
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...
chasfh wrote:
[i]I said it before, once you've built consumer expectation you're effectively going damage the value to a consumer of a follow-up product by incorporating day one DLC and many gamers such as myself wouldn't touch those games at all.
...and the phrase "many gamers such as myself" indicates what?
...PERSPECTIVE!
As I said, it is a matter of perspective. I have played every Total War game since day 1, and they have gone from "complete" (from your perspective) to "game plus DLC" ON DAY ONE, yet I, "and many gamers such as myself" are perfectly satisfied that we are still getting a great game for our money.[/i]
I'm just saying, this is the first time I've come across gamers endorsing Day One DLC. Indifferent? Yeah sure loads, but when I say "many gamers such as myself" that is a broad sweeping statement to hundreds of forum arguments and comment sections focused on Day One DLC and unlocks. I'm more than happy to link you some if you want to see them
[i]I said it before, once you've built consumer expectation you're effectively going damage the value to a consumer of a follow-up product by incorporating day one DLC and many gamers such as myself wouldn't touch those games at all.
...and the phrase "many gamers such as myself" indicates what?
...PERSPECTIVE!
As I said, it is a matter of perspective. I have played every Total War game since day 1, and they have gone from "complete" (from your perspective) to "game plus DLC" ON DAY ONE, yet I, "and many gamers such as myself" are perfectly satisfied that we are still getting a great game for our money.[/i]
I'm just saying, this is the first time I've come across gamers endorsing Day One DLC. Indifferent? Yeah sure loads, but when I say "many gamers such as myself" that is a broad sweeping statement to hundreds of forum arguments and comment sections focused on Day One DLC and unlocks. I'm more than happy to link you some if you want to see them
I said it before, once you've built consumer expectation you're effectively going damage the value to a consumer of a follow-up product by incorporating day one DLC and many gamers such as myself wouldn't touch those games at all.
...and the phrase "many gamers such as myself" indicates what?
...PERSPECTIVE!
As I said, it is a matter of perspective. I have played every Total War game since day 1, and they have gone from "complete" (from your perspective) to "game plus DLC" ON DAY ONE, yet I, "and many gamers such as myself" are perfectly satisfied that we are still getting a great game for our money.
...and the phrase "many gamers such as myself" indicates what?
...PERSPECTIVE!
As I said, it is a matter of perspective. I have played every Total War game since day 1, and they have gone from "complete" (from your perspective) to "game plus DLC" ON DAY ONE, yet I, "and many gamers such as myself" are perfectly satisfied that we are still getting a great game for our money.
Page: