Home
CRAIG DOLPHIN
XBL -NONE-
PSN -NONE-
WII
-NONE-
STEAM -NONE-
CRAIG DOLPHIN'S SPONSOR
POST BY THIS AUTHOR (0)
COMMENTS BY THIS AUTHOR (3)
"t of the issues you bring up I am not worried about personally. For me, the biggest concern is the new art style. Particularly the darkspawn dressed up as 'skeletor', and the overly austere environments that we've seen to date. Hopefully the latter concern will be eliminated when we see some screenshots that are not set in the blightlands. Until then, I am a bit nervous. But the skeletor-inspired darkspawn will always look head-shakingly bad in my eyes. On the flip side, the human/elven and even the revised qunari character models are looking pretty g"
Friday, August 27, 2010
"chael P
Quote" When I buy a game I want to own all of that game. I hate the feeling that I'm missing out on something and as these days I'm either late to the party or strapped for cash I tend to buy games used."
So, what you're saying here is that you expect game publishers to cater to your desires, but you admit you are usually not actually one of their paying customers? ;)
Perhaps you ought to rethink your habitual practice of buying your games from someone else? Otherwise why should they give a rip about your opinion? They never see a dime from you either way.
Don't get me wrong: I absolutely would go to the mat for you to have the option to buy secondhand. But unless you buy the game new, the developers/publishers never got a dime. Which is one reason I am not opposed to this DLC model: perhaps now they'll see a little bit more cash from folks like you.
But you're not without power here: you can use this 100% optional secondhand DLC fee as a negotiation point when deciding what price point to pay for a secondhand copy.
@Greg S
I take your point, but regardless of how much it costs to make a game, gamers who cannot afford to buy new copies still won't have the cash to do so. That's why I think EA are on the right track with this strategy. They will liklely see more cash from folks that bought secondhand copies than they would get from infliciting draconian DRM on their paying customers (who bought n"
Friday, February 19, 2010
"njoyed the article, and share the concern about the 'slippery slope' aspect of this strategy. However, there's a bit more context required IMO.
The context I refer to is the execrable attempt by game publishers like EA, Ubisoft, 2K, and others, to declare outright war on secondhand sales under the guise of combatting piracy. Yes, I refer to the SecuROM/DRM fiasco that first began heating up with one of the Sims games, then Bioshock, Mass Effect1, and which finally erupted in all its pustulence with the infamous SPORE customer review revolt on Amazon.
Make no bones about it, the anti-piracy justification for the ridiculous phenonmenon of anti-customer DRM on PC gaming is nothing but an attack on secondhand sales. Gamers know DRM does not stop piracy. Pirates just enjoy the challenge of being first to provide a crack. Developers and publishers also know it, but they can't very well be honest and upfront about wanting to violate the US copyright act which guarantees the right to resell the products you've purchased. And they keep insisting on using DRM long past the time when DRM-free cracks are available, making a mockery of their stated rationale.
Only a lot of angry customer complaints, and a hearing by the FTC, forced EA to reconsider their strategy. Apparently, that's a lesson that Ubisoft has yet to learn as evidenced by their all-DRM-all-the-time approach to releasing AC2 on PC.
Now, as a huge fan of Bioware games, I was furious with EA until they allowed Bioware to set their own course with regard to DRM. Now, all we have to be concerned about is a simple disk check. No more semi-rootkit-SecuROM with limited activations and mandatory internet connections. And if I want to exercise my legal right to resell the games I buy, I can. (Though I never would)
Now, set against that recent history, I actually think EA are doing the best they can to try to legitimately get some cash from the secondhand market. I'm fine with that. Far better that they acknowledge the real target of their schemes than try to hide behind a blatantly absurd smokescreen.
All that said, I think EA and other publishers are totally wrong to think secondhand sales harm them in the long run.
New pricing is just too high for many gamers that are in high school or even college. What would EA prefer?
A> They don't play games at all and discover things like, I dunno, that girls/boys exist and can be even more fun to interact with than games? (Or just save their money for tuition etc).
B>They start pirating the games?
C>They buy secondhand copies legally.
If EA prefers option A then they risk young would-be gamers never forming the habit of gaming. So when they do get jobs, they don't really CARE about EA's latest and greatest anymore.
If EA prefers B, then they're just plonkers. Drive young folks to commit a crime, and get into the habit of not paying while playing. That's a winning strategy for the bottom line right there. NOT.
Or C: hook 'em while they're young knowing that when they grow up and get a job, they will likely be too excited to wait for a secondhand copy anymore and do wild, crazy things like pre-ordering or buying on the day of release.
There's a lot of ways to view secondhand sales, but I firmly believe publisers are being short-sighted with their delusional ambitions of killing secondhand sales.
Even so, I don't have a problem with publishers using secondhand sales to generate additional revenue by providing additional content for a price. That's kinda like car makers that support manufacturer waranties even after secondhand sales are made. They know that doing so provides them a way to make money off those customers in the future. That's not wrong, that's just good business. And compared with the alternative, it's a lot better for honest gamers who buy the product new. Frankly, those are the people that game publishers should be concerned about making happy. Historically, if you bought secondhand you contributed NOTHING to the future of that gaming company, and thus nothing to the chances of sequels etc being made. With this strategy, secondhand copies still have some chance of providing some income to the folks who make the games.
But, like the article author, I do worry that in time the optional-extra aspect of the DLC will increasingly become more closely tied into the core of the game experience. In that situation, they're essentially shipping an incomplete game. That would be bad for everyone. I just hope it doesn't come to t"
Friday, February 19, 2010
