L.A. Noire will debut the Rockstar Pass

By Robert Purchese Published 11 May, 2011

An EA Online Pass copycat?

Next Tuesday a Rockstar Pass will be available to download for L.A. Noire on Xbox Live.

This Pass costs 800 Microsoft Points.

But what is it? There's no explanation given.

The name Rockstar Pass suggests an emulation of the EA Online Pass - a code that must be entered either to play multiplayer or download additional game content. In L.A. Noire's case, this is presumably the latter, as Rockstar will add more crime capers called Cases for players to download and solve.

We've put a query into Rockstar.

L.A. Noire arrives next Friday. It's a detective game spun from film noire inspiration, hence the name. The boast of L.A. Noire is an unprecedented approach to facial motion capture, whereby an actor's performance is mapped almost 1:1 into the final game. The impressive result is a necessity: readable expressions - can you spot the liar?

Eurogamer investigated L.A. Noire at the end of March.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (153) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • cannonbait #1 1 year ago

    Hopefully it means free dlc if you have a new copy of the game. Perfect way to implement an anti pre owned strategy.

  • Shinetop #2 1 year ago

    Rockstar Pass, EA Pass, Uplay, Bioware accounts... and all that on top of your regular XBox Live, PSN or Steam account. Total pain in the ass.

  • ron_aldo #3 1 year ago

    An air of numbing inevitability about this

  • octo #4 1 year ago

    People love gaming. Remember that games industry? Remember when people used to love flying? Now they have to be carrying under 15Kg of luggage (which they will have to humiliatingly unpack at the airport if over by 3kg), check in two days in advance and incur enormous credit card charges if they are paying with anything other than an obscure card that nobody in the rest of the world has ever seen before. Is that what you want gaming to be like? Is it? You fucking fucks!

  • Shinetop #5 1 year ago

    Still can't get over those faces, by the way. It's like they reanimated a waxy corpse. Sure, they're expressive, but it's creepy ashell and really uncomfortable to watch. Also who else has the sneaky suspicion that "catching the liar" means "Press X when the NPC smirks evilly"?

  • kristo #6 1 year ago

    Fester Shinetop knows what he's on about. I am sick to fckin death with all these accounts. Just wait til they get hacked.

    Gaming is getting to be way to much of a pain in the arse.

  • jablonski #7 1 year ago

    So I need to pay for xbox live, so I can pay for a Rockstar pass, to let me pay for DLC?

    Cheers

  • CaptainQuint #8 1 year ago

    Y'know, if this meant that ALL future DLC was included in the price of this one off purchase, I would say it's a good idea.

    I'd like to see fps games take up such a model, but it'll NEVER happen, greedy fucks.

  • DiamondIce #9 1 year ago

    Two of us use the same 360 and I worry that only one user will get the benefit. For example with EA passes, do they tie to the console or the gamertag?

    My heart sinks when I read that a pass is required for certain areas of a game.

  • SClaw #10 1 year ago

    Suck to be a 360 player, huh? You guys have to pay twice. On the PS3 it's... wait... shit... never mind. :(

  • Steroyd #11 1 year ago

    Oh for f**ks sake.

    I don't like having to have a pause and think about it, whenver I look at pre-owned games outside of wether it'll have too much scratches on it.

    I just want to save some mola damnit. :(

  • Gromit #12 1 year ago

    @Shinetop

    Uplay GIVES you stuff for FREE. No payment involved. Also, given there is supposed to be no multiplayer in this game, we don't know for sure that this will mean you have to pay for anything.

  • BigDannyH #13 1 year ago

    I reckon that the publishers might be surprised how far their sales would fall if it wasn't for the secondary market.

    Being able to trade in a game means a lot of younger people are able to buy more of the big games first hand. They might be biting the hand that feeds.

  • chasejamie #14 1 year ago

    @DiamondIce. EA pass is tied to your gamertag.

  • arcam #15 1 year ago

    @Steroyd

    That moolah might be in your pocket right now, but that rightfully belongs to the games industry.

    Next time you pause and think about buying a second-hand game, pause and think about the money you spend on food or petrol too. You'll realise that is money that could have gone to the games industry. You might as well use that petrol to burn down the houses of games developers, as that's what you're effectively doing anyway.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 09:31

  • slickster #16 1 year ago

    It dont bother me if online pass or not i always buy my games from new.

  • the_dudefather #17 1 year ago

    I hope they work this into the game

    /approaches back door to Vinnie 'Fingers' Maldonado's illegal casino
    /tiny hatch slides open
    'What's the password?'
    'CGRH-FAEG-2Y53-GD5G'

  • Tinrib72 #18 1 year ago

    Hmm, still going to wait until I see this on the cheap. Why pay full whack for a single player game on day one these days anyway? There's bound to bugs that'll be sorted with patches down the line and its not like online player population is of any importance with a title like this. Also your going to get shafted when you want to sell it on thanks to the pass..

    So, looking like next year at some point I'll be finding this game brand new on Amazon for about £15.

  • jablonski #19 1 year ago

    "/approaches back door to Vinnie 'Fingers' Maldonado's illegal casino
    /tiny hatch slides open
    'What's the password?'
    'CGRH-FAEG-2Y53-GD5G'"


    Sorry, that password has already been redeemed.
    But I'll let you in for 800 points

  • Sodding_Gamer #20 1 year ago

    I know it's something to moan about but it isn't that bad surely?! BFBC2 did this and you paid more than 800 points, and got like 8 bits of dlc, fair enough they were still on the disc but I was happy with the extra amount of content that everyone who supported teh game to begin with could unlock and play. It really wasn't a big deal. And I reckon Rockstar will just do the same. Put a bundle of cases out every now and then for the people who bought it new. Which keeps the game in the hands of gamers, rather than game shops. Mainly because there is no multiplayer to add longevity, they will just keep adding dlc, which will be free for people who WANT TO HAVE MORE.

  • metalangel #21 1 year ago

    @chasejamie: however, all gamertags get the benefit of the pass on the console where you activated the pass. Go to another console and only that one gamertag will have the pass (I think)

  • Murton #22 1 year ago

    "For example with EA passes, do they tie to the console or the gamertag? " - don't know if it' the same on 360 but on the PS3 is ties to both the PSN ID that registers it and the console it is registered on. I used an Online pass on my account via my girlfriends PS3 and she can use the features on her ID on her console and I can use it them on my ID on my own. If it's the same on 360 you should be okay, assuming the Rockstar pass works the same way.

    Also, DLC chapters in a story driven game such as this = epic fail. Unless all of the DLC is set after the main story or requires the play to travel elsewhere where the action of that DLC chapter bears no relevance to the main story how will new chapters fit into the timeline of the game? I have this on pre-order and really really want to play it but between pre-order bonuses, the PS3 exclusive case and this online pass thingy I'm beginning to think that my experience will be so much better if I leave it in the plastic until the PSN Store comes back, which is a shame because I was really stoked for this. Decisions decisions.

  • telboy007 #23 1 year ago

    @octo

    The voice of reason! :D

  • arcam #24 1 year ago

    Why pay full whack for a single player game on day one these days anyway?

    Because you often miss out on lots of content if you don't.

    The games industry has moved past punishing those who don't pay at all (pirates), past punishing people who pay less (second-hand buyers), and has now moved towards punishing those who don't pay before there are reviews (non pre-orderers).

  • andywilkie35 #25 1 year ago

    Paying up front to pay for DLC? What the fuck is this industry coming to? That better just be speculation, otherwise they can suck my balls.

  • Eraysor #26 1 year ago

    One sale lost! Well done Rockstar. Thanks for deciding that my next purchase will be Witcher 2.

  • kongzi #27 1 year ago

    couldn't it be this is more like project ten dollar? Where you get the pass with the new game, and if you buy second hand, you can buy the pass for an additional 800 points. Like Mass Effect 2 did, a lot of smaller free stuff and some bigger expansion at cost.
    Maybe Eurogamer should wait until their query to rockstar is answered before they put out a piece like this.

  • Steroyd #28 1 year ago

    That moolah might be in your pocket right now, but that rightfully belongs to the games industry.

    Next time you pause and think about buying a second-hand game, pause and think about the money you spend on food or petrol too. You'll realise that is money that could have gone to the games industry. You might as well use that petrol to burn down the houses of games developers, as that's what you're effectively doing anyway.

    While I'm at it, I may as well think of those poor chickens who are cooped up in those battery farms every time i buy a non free ranged egg, or pray for that cow that was slaughtered each time I eat a beef burger, I don't care if I buy it new or used if i see Red Dead Redemption for £13, I see Red Dead Redemption for £13. I got it new from Amazon for £13 this time :p

  • Monkeyspoon #29 1 year ago

    The rockstar pass is free if you buy the game new. It's 800 points if you buy it second hand.

    I'd like to know what the pass gives you as the PS3 won't be able to activate it until the store is back up. Which is annoying as all the signs point to the PS3 version being the best.

  • arcam #30 1 year ago

    The fact you thought for a minute my comment was serious shows how ridiculous the situation has got.

    (Though TBH, maybe it's not a bad idea to think of the battery-farmed chickens when buying non free-range eggs...)

  • Whitster #31 1 year ago

    Ok I'll give that we don't know exactly what this is yet, but I really don't understand the fuss over online passes.

    I you really want a game new on day one it'll be in the box anyway, and even if you wait a week or two are you really that miserly that the £3 cheaper version on the preowned section is going to tempt you anyway, knowing that it lacks content. Like others have said games tend to drop their price quite fast these days (I just picked up Dragon Age 2 on Amazon for £17.99 already) and these cheaper new copies will still have the code in.

    However the one issue I have with the passes is expiration dates. I noticed on the back cover of DA2 that if the code wasn't redeemed by 31.3.12 it will expire. Which seems to be a bit unfair that people may still by a new copy after that point but not be able to redeem their content.

  • UncleLou #32 1 year ago

    Why pay full whack for a single player game on day one these days anyway?

    Because that's basically the only form of gaming I am interested in. If everybody stops buying single-player games until they get cheaper, all we'll see is even more mp-only games, or games with tacked-on mp, or games where the coop mode ruins the sp experience.

    Might as well say "why pay full whack for a multiplayer game, let's all wait till they're patched and online works well, and they're cheaper, and then we can all start playing together".

  • coolbritannia #33 1 year ago

    Is that Elijah Wood in the hospital bed playing a girl?

  • Murton #34 1 year ago

    "or games where the coop mode ruins the sp experience. " - in my experience co-op generally improves the experience, I've yet to play a game which is "ruined" by co-op.

    As for pre-owned vs new, a new release on the pre-owned shelf is generally only £2-3 quid cheaper, GameStation do £2 quid off on all pre-orders and have started doing double reward points on selected titles too taking your saving to £4 and you get a sealed box with the code in so why not buy day 1? If you want an even better deal then Toys R Us of all places do £5 quid on pre-orders of selected titles and you can usually find at least one online retailer selling at £35 too.

    As for those who buy new but wait, that's fair enough I guess. I suppose it depends on your gaming habits and your friends, there are some games that I pretty much have to get day 1 because if I don't my friends constantly talking about them will spoil it for me, I also make a point of buying anything with a good co-op mode on day 1 if one of my regular co-op buddies is up for getting it too so that we can hit it straight away. Personal preference I guess.

  • DiamondIce #35 1 year ago

    +1000000000000000 to UncleLou

  • UncleLou #36 1 year ago

    "or games where the coop mode ruins the sp experience. " - in my experience co-op generally improves the experience, I've yet to play a game which is "ruined" by co-op.

    Coop only improves the coop experience, so to speak. At best, it's separate from the sp campaign (Portal 2 shows how it's done right), at worst, single-player feels like a coop afterthought (Lost Planet 2).

  • arcam #37 1 year ago

    What I don't understand is if in real life I can't tell if a person is lying by looking at their face (seriously, who apart from Tim Roth can do this?), what difference does super-realistic faces in LA Noire make?

  • Jimster71 #38 1 year ago

    Since it is a single player only title, it is likely to appear in the used market in fairly high numbers. People finish the game and trade it in, others wait to pick up the game cheaply as a pre-owned title. The publisher is trying to make up for this with a 'you didn't buy it new' penalty.

    As mentioned already, games drop significantly in price after a month or two anyway. I'm quite happy to wait until then to pick up a new copy. I still have other games I want to finish off before playing this anyway.

  • Fab4 #39 1 year ago

    I think i'll pass.

  • Shinetop #40 1 year ago

    What I don't understand is if in real life I can't tell if a person is lying by looking at their face (seriously, who apart from Tim Roth can do this?), what difference does super-realistic faces in LA Noire make?

    Exactly. The only way you'd be able to tell is if they started overacting and had a nervous tic everytime they told a lie, or winked profusely. I can't see this working well at all.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #41 1 year ago

    It's capitalism guys, and we still have some control.

    Do one of the following instead:

    * Buy The Witcher 2 only from GOG as it's cheap, has extras, and is DRM FREE!

    * Wait for games that charge extra to be reduced to £17 in 3 months time and then buy it.

    The car industry didn't give two fucks about greener cars until the consumer started buying the ones that were. Then they were all over it like a rash.

    If publishers see that the DRM free, cheap, Witcher 2 is a massive seller then they will start to take notice, or indeed that their big budget game only sells over 2 million once the price dropped.

  • dadrester #42 1 year ago

    Paying up front to pay for DLC? What the fuck is this industry coming to? That better just be speculation, otherwise they can suck my balls.

    hang on. what? paying for something before you get it? unheard of! What's the problem? (assuming this IS like project $10) The people that buy the game new get the content without having to pay, and the ones that get it second had, can make up their own minds if they want to pay for it. It's not like if you don't buy it straight away you'll never be able to get it again. If got the game second hand and you're not sure the DLC is value for money, then wait until it is, or don't buy it (again, assuming it's like project $10)

    Judging by previous R* DLC even if this was simply a way of buying multiple cases at once I'd be tempted, as both the GTA4 add ons and undead nightmare were excellent value for money.

  • geeza2020 #43 1 year ago

    I really cant wait for the day when all you get in the game box is a little card with a code that you have to enter (you must be online of course,if not, why not? dont you realise there are CoD map packs out there for you to buy? Yes maps used to be free, but everything has a dollar value these days, even your life) in order to "long-term rent" games. In the future we own nothing, the publisher owns everything. Thats where we're headed with all this bullshit, the online pass is just one link in the chain of events which will eventually strangle the industry, and it makes me sad to see Rockstar join in with it.

  • Steroyd #44 1 year ago

    0 Since it is a single player only title, it is likely to appear in the used market in fairly high numbers. People finish the game and trade it in, others wait to pick up the game cheaply as a pre-owned title. The publisher is trying to make up for this with a 'you didn't buy it new' penalty.

    I bought Dragon Age new in January but the EA pass DLC thing had expired, in a sense I got penalised/missed out on content for not buying the game day 1.

    Hell there are cases where I missed out on stuff for not pre-ordering the special edition mega £500 version of a game.

  • dadrester #45 1 year ago

    ...or... you get what you pay for. Vote with your wallet and all that. I shall be buying this (assuming it reviews well).

  • MrChuckles #46 1 year ago

    W00t, screwing over 2nd hand purchases, as a developer, i say Yay!

    We lost approximately 2/3rds of our income on the last game we made due to 2nd hand sales.

    EDIT: Oh, and we don't mind you buying it 2 months later when it is £20 new either, so if you want it cheaper, do that, you'll get whatever passes you need.
    Edited by MrChuckles at 11/05/11 @ 11:21

  • Mkwone #47 1 year ago

    I'm not seeing too much of a problem with this particular situation. All new copies of the game will have the pass word already in the box, so if you don't want to buy day 1 you can save money and buy new at a later date - presumably when the price is lower.

    Secondly i know people say they should be charging people for holding back content, but really when the game is a big as LA Noire I don't mind. If the game came packed full of every case day one chances are i'd not play them all. Release a few after release and chances are i'll download them and play those cases specifically.

  • Vedfolner #48 1 year ago

    Why is it that Nintendo doesn't need these crappy, greedy, complex DLC-policies to earn (plenty of) money?

  • Tinrib72 #49 1 year ago

    @UncleLou - I guess your spending habits (and gaming) differ from mine then. As it happens I do enjoy single player games (though prefer score attack and online games tbh) but the experience with them wont change whether I spend £40 on it on release day or £10 - £20 six months to a year down the line. And I have several titles from months gone by that I've got my eye on. So as soon as I get round to completing my current stock of SP titles then I'll be having a browse through various retailers selling them off cheap. As it happens I bought Just Cause 2 brand new in Sainbury's last night for a tenner, which I thought to be a bargain.

    Online specific titles on the other hand, especially driving games which is my main source of gaming fun, dont always tend to have a large population of players and will normally dwindle sharply as the months go by. So by that reasoning I will be getting DIRT 3 as soon as it released so I can get in on the online action while I can.
    Edited by Tinrib72 at 11/05/11 @ 11:29

  • kangarootoo #50 1 year ago

    Jesus, listen to yourselves. You would think entering a code was like cutting off your legs.

    This is exactly the same system as other publishers have in place. Buy a game new and enter a code (like we've never done that before on a console). Buy it second hand and get less functionality than if you had bought it new (my heart bleeds).

    And the first person to wheel out the car analogy is proclaiming their stupidity.

  • dadrester #51 1 year ago

    Why is it that Nintendo doesn't need these crappy, greedy, complex DLC-policies to earn (plenty of) money?

    Because rather than charge for new content they simply box up games that are 13 years old and sell them again to idiotic fans who will buy anything as long as it has the plumber or the fairy on it.

  • coolbritannia #52 1 year ago

    @Cheeky Error, not just you dude, this looks dodgy as hell to me. The faces just remove me further from the reality of the game. I'll pick it up next year for a tenner, like I did Alan Wake.

  • TheDudesRug #53 1 year ago

    Sounds great. Lock up all the cheapskate down-and-outs as far as I'm concerned, stops me having to tread where their filth has been.

  • Vedfolner #54 1 year ago

    @dadrester

    Wow. I'm guessing at least more than 50 % of all games released these days carry a "2", "3" or even a "XIII" at the end of their title. See what I'm getting at?

  • nickal47 #55 1 year ago

    I don't particularly have a problem with this - the game is rumoured to be 30hrs + so you are getting a shit load of content out the box - presuming this code is going to be used for additional dlc. I do have a problem with cunts like EA, Ive recently purchased Tiger Woods and a lot of the courses on the actual disc are fucking locked and you have to buy as dlc to play them - it actually affects your career progression in the standard game if you dont buy these courses - that is just wrong imo.
    Edited by nickal47 at 11/05/11 @ 11:46

  • ucankurbaga #56 1 year ago

    wait a minute, this game has multiplayer??

  • agparrot #57 1 year ago

    I eventually bought Mass Effect 2 for.... £15, new, in ASDA. It had the cerberus code, and everything. Then I bought almost all of the DLC for half price, in sales.

    Looks like I'll be doing the same here, too.

  • -cerberus- #58 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles #49: "W00t, screwing over 2nd hand purchases, as a developer, i say Yay!

    We lost approximately 2/3rds of our income on the last game we made due to 2nd hand sales."

    Then lower your bloody asking price. If people bought it used it's probably because they knew your game wasn't worth €50 or more.
    Edited by -cerberus- at 11/05/11 @ 12:00

  • arcam #59 1 year ago

    We lost approximately 2/3rds of our income on the last game we made due to 2nd hand sales.

    I'd be really interested to find out how you found that out.

    I've always wondered what data companies use to work out a dollar figure on the effect piracy and second-hand game sales have.

  • dadrester #60 1 year ago

    @Vedfolner
    Sorry. I couldn't resist (also on re-reading, the "idiotic fans" might have been a bit much) :) on a more serious note though, Nintendo don't really have an infrastructure in place for the 3rd parties to deliver DLC very well. As a publisher I think Ninty are in a slightly better position than Sony and MS, because 3rd party software doesn't really pose as much competition to their first party releases, which generally perform significantly betteri. You will find that the 3rd party publishers have exactly the same concerns with the preowned wii market that they have with 360 and PS3 though.

  • metalangel #61 1 year ago

    @Murton: System Shock 2 is ruined when played in co op.

    @kangarootoo: Yeah, because we didn't make enough of a fuss when they first brought in these codes we're now in the situation where it's common and accepted practice.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #62 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles: "W00t, screwing over 2nd hand purchases, as a developer, i say Yay!

    We lost approximately 2/3rds of our income on the last game we made due to 2nd hand sales."

    You didn't lose any income. People buying things 2nd hand shouldn't be factored into your accounts.

  • coolbritannia #63 1 year ago

    "You didn't lose any income. People buying things 2nd hand shouldn't be factored into your accounts."

    This. The games industry thinks it's owed something from it's customer base. Last time I checked, it was a developer's responsibility to add value to keeping the game if they don't want 2nd hand sales.

  • MrChuckles #64 1 year ago

    @-cerberus- If the game price was lowered to €40 i believe that the same people would buy it new then 2nd hand buyers would pick it up for €35 instead of €45. The release price of the game will always be a few € more than the 2nd hand price, and 2nd hand buyers will ALWAYS go for the cheaper price.

    Personally, i don't buy anything day 1, i buy my games directly from people at work 2nd hand (And then happily pay for any passes) or i wait a few months and still buy the games new for

  • Gastrian #65 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • MrChuckles #66 1 year ago

    @coolbritannia - If 2nd hand didn't exist (Or only existed between friends, ebay or boot fairs like the old days), i'd have thought we'd have got maybe another 1/3 to 1/2 of those people to buy a new copy either on day one or when the price was reduced, adding 50-100% to our revenues. We might have also lost a 1/3 of our current sales due to people not having the spare cash after trading in their old games.

    Either way, you can see that from a developers point of view we really should make the 2nd hand version of a game as unappealing as we possibly can. As a consumer, i will usually buy 2nd hand whenever i can, so i am on both sides of the fence.

  • Vedfolner #67 1 year ago

    No worries, I've been there myself ;)
    You're right about the fact that Nintendo doesn't offer much of an opportunity for third party developers regarding DLC, passes, codes etc. Their online service is a joke.
    My point is simply this: I'm glad there exist at least one games developer where I know that when I've bought the game ... that's it! Thank god. With my 360 and my PS3 I have to consult my mates when we buy a game that we will be playing together online just to ensure we all get the same version. I also have to take into account if the game is at all worth purchasing on day one - or should I rather wait 12 months and get the "complete edition" with all the DLC packages? When will that be released? And don't get me started on the accounts and passes. I just want to play the (complete) game.
    Edited by Vedfolner at 11/05/11 @ 12:25

  • -cerberus- #68 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles #67: I'm not talking about €40. I'm talking €25, €30. Either way, I'm all in favor of the 2nd hand market simply because not every game is worth its full retail price. Consumers are FREE to choose what they spend THEIR money on.

  • MrChuckles #69 1 year ago

    @arcam - We have X players with accounts playing out game on a service like Xbox live or PSN (When it is up), yet we have only sold 1/3 of that number of copies of the game. This also doesn't take into account those with their xboxes/playstations offline who have bought the game but don't show up.

    The problem is much larger than most consumers actually think. And again, my consumer side of my brain agrees with you completely, i want the cheapest games possible.

  • MrChuckles #70 1 year ago

    @-cerberus- #71 I'm not in favour of 2nd hand, i'm in favour of free. Halo 6 for example. You get the first level for free, every subsequent level costs you £2 to unlock and multiplayer is £10. You can spend £10 to just play multiplayer, or £20 for all 10 levels of the single player/co-op campaign or £30 for the whole game. Crap games make no money, great games make loads, the consumer pays for what they want to play and all the money goes to the developer. No 2nd hand needed, and retail dies a death.

  • arcam #71 1 year ago

    yet we have only sold 1/3 of that number of copies of the game. This also doesn't take into account those with their xboxes/playstations offline who have bought the game but don't show up.

    And that means you lost 2/3 of your sales? I think you are over-estimating that by a large margin, but as I don't have any kind of evidence I'm just going to assume you do because you seem quite specific.

    As a developer, can I ask why you don't just put the whole game behind a one-use code? If no second-hand buyers could use your game your publisher would presumably be 66% richer.

  • lavalant #72 1 year ago

    Can't see why Rockstar need to implement an online pass, their games don't depreciate as quickly as EA's shite.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #73 1 year ago

    I agree Mr Chuckles. I've been saying this for years. It also means that you get to play the game quickly rather than waiting for an 8GB download.

    The price for the whole lot should remain competitive though.

  • arcam #74 1 year ago

    You get the first level for free, every subsequent level costs you £2 to unlock and multiplayer is £10.

    I think everyone would love this but there's a reason publishers won't do it. Even the best games are lucky if 50% of its buyers actually finish it, so revenue for publishers would drop like a stone in an instant.

  • Steroyd #75 1 year ago

    Why is it that Nintendo doesn't need these crappy, greedy, complex DLC-policies to earn (plenty of) money?

    Because Nintendo isn't Rockstar or EA.

    Or that Nintendo consoles don't have a hard drive, take your pick.

  • MrChuckles #76 1 year ago

    @arcum #74 - 'As a developer, can I ask why you don't just put the whole game behind a one-use code? If no second-hand buyers could use your game your publisher would presumably be 66% richer. '

    For the plain and simple reason that retailers would refuse to stock the game in their shop. For one of our recently released games on PC, we wanted to have a special pre-order price lower than the retail. When the retailers heard this they not on;y refused to stock the PC game (A minor problem tbh) but also refused to stock our next console product as punishment, we obviously therefore had to release at full price online. Retail is the big bully in the room that won't let us do special offers and they don't want you getting cheap one license games. Personally, it'd be great to release a game for £5 in shops with the first 1/4 unlocked and you pay £5 to unlock each other 1/4, again, retail would say no, so it doesn't happen.

  • geeza2020 #77 1 year ago

    "We have X players with accounts playing out game on a service like Xbox live or PSN (When it is up), yet we have only sold 1/3 of that number of copies of the game. This also doesn't take into account those with their xboxes/playstations offline who have bought the game but don't show up"

    This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Unless people are actually making physical copies of the game and sharing them around I dont see how this is possible. Lets say that "X" is 100 customers (just to keep it simple), you have sold a third of that number, thats 33 sales then. How does the second hand market "create" another 77 players? If you sell 33 copies of the game brand new, and those people all sell their copies into the second hand market, and all those customers start playing online, you STILL only have 33 people playing online. The same number you had when all the first time buyers bought it. As i said, unless people are actively pirating your game (which is no fault of the second hand market, and its customers should not be punished for) it seems your figures are way, way off.

  • MrChuckles #78 1 year ago

    @arcum #77 - 'I think everyone would love this but there's a reason publishers won't do it. Even the best games are lucky if 50% of its buyers actually finish it, so revenue for publishers would drop like a stone in an instant. '

    Incorrect, 50% of game revenue going straight to the developers is WAY WAY more than the current 15% of a game's retail price going their way. Hell, if you only ended up paying £10 worth of downloads, that's pretty close to what we get now per copy from the £40 in the shop.

    Hence if you buy the game new for £20 3 months later, we are still getting around £8, it's the shop that lose most of their profit.

  • Fab4 #79 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles, maybe developers (like yourself), instead of coming up with ingenious methods to drain money from people purchasing your game 2nd hand, could sit down and ask yourselves why so many people were selling your game in the first place.

  • Murton #80 1 year ago

    @Metalangel - System Shock 2 was over 12 years ago and the co-op mode was unfinished, Looking Glass made no secret of the fact that it wasn't included in release because it wasn't ready and when they released that patch that enabled they even said that it wasn't as stable as they would have liked. I've had the pleasure and it crashes far too often to be playable, but when it is working it's not a bad experience as such.

    On topic, until we know more about what this RockStar code gives us I think we need to calm down. If it's something like the Cerberus Network where it's going to be a requirement for all other DLC then I think people will be rightly pissed, if it's just something minor then I don't see the problem. I'm just gonna sit back and wait for RockStar to explain their intentions.

  • MrChuckles #81 1 year ago

    @geeza 2020 #80 - That is TOTAL xbox live/PSN users, not at the same time. You know when someone has played a game, unlocked achievements/trophies etc, so we know the total number of copies sold and the total number of players, ever.

  • Ryze #82 1 year ago

    Hopefully this facial animation system will be used on EVERY Rockstar game from this point onwards. It's excellent, and bodes weill for the next gen of machines when the skin and the rest of the world will look much better.

    Lord knows more games need better acting and animation. I don't know why they bothered with TDU2's characters - they're off-putting.

  • MrChuckles #83 1 year ago

    @fab4 #82 - 'maybe developers (like yourself), instead of coming up with ingenious methods to drain money from people purchasing your game 2nd hand, could sit down and ask yourselves why so many people were selling your game in the first place. '

    Ok, let's say you are Bioware and you are making Mass Effect 3, a game aimed at consumers (like me) that love single player RPGS with interesting stories. I buy Mass Effect 3, i finish the story, i don't want to play it multiplayer, i therefore trade it in. How on earth do you make me keep the game without DLC?

    Sure Multiplayer modes are easy but not for this audience, replayable story is hard without it feeling the same and randomised dungeons generally feel a bit bland. So, how do YOU make single player fans not trade in Mass Effect 3.

    In short, the easiest solution is for every game to be multiplayer heavy, but lots of people don't like going online and being killed by kids.

  • -cerberus- #84 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles #71: "I'm not in favour of 2nd hand, i'm in favour of free. Halo 6 for example. You get the first level for free, every subsequent level costs you £2 to unlock and multiplayer is £10. You can spend £10 to just play multiplayer, or £20 for all 10 levels of the single player/co-op campaign or £30 for the whole game."

    What kind of bullshit business theory is that? Are the moneyhungry that desperate nowadays?

    That's why we have demos. If you like the demo, you buy the game. New or used, it's up to the consumer. You have no right whatsoever to corner us and demand a full retail price, be it day 1 or three months later.

    - "Crap games make no money, great games make loads."

    Really? Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, with its rubbish 4 hour campaign and almost dead-on-arrival multiplayer, sold over one million copies. Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, with its brilliant single player story experience, sold a mere 730000.

  • Gastrian #85 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • MrChuckles #86 1 year ago

    @-cerberus- #87

    Firstly, you are paying less for a full price game in my idea than you do now. Secondaly, you only pay for the bits you want. Thirdly there is no reason why online prices would drop once the game has ben out for a while. Fourthly If people were playing Kane & Lynch and thought it was crap they wouldn't buy the next chapter and it would make less money...

    I was refering to how it would work under my system not the current one.

    The whole system is like one rolling demo, if aat any time you get bored with the game, you stop paying to unlock any more. everyone wins imo.

  • Cronan #87 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles

    You didn't lose any income. If you want to get income from the secondary market, then you need to be in that market, why do you think car companies buy and sell used vehicles?

    Twat.

  • MrChuckles #88 1 year ago

    @Gastrian #88 Well, fingers crossed that works and isn't killed by GFWL!

  • MrChuckles #89 1 year ago

    @cronan #91 -Yay, the age old car analogy and an insult to boot!

    Because the risk of buying a multi thousand pound car second hand that the previous driver could have thrashed the hell out of, and could end up costing you thousands of pounds to get it fixed is just like buying a 2nd hand copy of a disc which is pretty much the same as a new copy. That's why the new car market is much healthier than the new games market.

  • -cerberus- #90 1 year ago

    @Mr Chucklesl #89: "The whole system is like one rolling demo, if aat any time you get bored with the game, you stop paying to unlock any more. everyone wins imo."

    That's like paying for advertisement. Preposterous.

    And 'everyone wins', eh? Except for the consumer who will never see his money back because he didn't like the rest of the game and cannot get rid of it. You, on the other hand, get to keep our money.
    See, this is why 2nd hand market exists: if we didn't like a game, at least we can sell it and see 'some' (not all) of our money back. It's only fair.
    Besides, every 2nd hand copy was bought from retail at one point in time, was it not?
    Edited by -cerberus- at 11/05/11 @ 13:10

  • Murton #91 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles - I've advocated that same idea as a new model for racing games and for music games. Imagine if you could download the RockBand game engine for free and then simply pick and choose from the vast library of DLC tracks to build your own game, I'd wager most of us would end up spending far more than the £40 RRP if the game was sold this way. Or a racing game that comes with one test track and one car, also free, and then sells individual tracks and cars in a DLC marketplace.

    From a consumer point of view it is the ultimate system, we get to tailor our own experiences and pay for them accordingly, for a developer it's a huge gamble as it makes zero use of the huge retail sector and the guaranteed income that it brings. At the moment devs/pubs sell millions of copies worldwide at wholesale to retailers and then the retailers sell them from there, even a game which doesn't sell very well to consumers recoups at least some of its cost due to this wholesale model, go fully digital as your system would require and every game would have to be a mega success or the company would fail. I don't doubt that we'll see someone try it one day, but I don't think it'll be an established company that does it, it'll be a start-up that tries it first as for them the only way is up, much like Tell Tale have become the example of how episodic games should be done.

  • MrChuckles #92 1 year ago

    @-cerberus- #93 'And 'everyone wins', eh? Except for the consumer who will never see his money back because he didn't like the rest of the game and cannot get rid of it. You, on the other hand, get to keep our money.
    See, this is why 2nd hand market exists: if we didn't like a game, at least we can sell it and see 'some' (not all) of our money back. It's only fair. '

    You misunderstand... You get the demo (first level) for free.. You then buy level 1 - £2... You like it, buy level 2 for another £2, you don't, then stop buying.

    At no point do you buy anything you don't like or at most it'll be £2. You literally cannot buy something you don't want, that's the point.

  • Cronan #93 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles

    "We have X players with accounts playing out game on a service like Xbox live or PSN (When it is up), yet we have only sold 1/3 of that number of copies of the game"

    That's plain old piracy, nothing to do with the secondary market. If you sell 1000 copies of our game, and 500 people sell their copy to someone else (via eBay, Game, car-boot sale, whatever), then you still only have a mximum of 1000 people playing your game online.

    So what's the problem?

  • MrChuckles #94 1 year ago

    @Murton - 94 - I know of at least 2 major companies doing it already, and i wouldn't be surprised if future consoles were designed with this in mind. Important people are seeing so much money going to the retailers right now that they know something has to change, and making games cheaper to buy at the same time ensure a much higher % goes to the developer is the way forwards.

    I'll stop annoying all the consumers now and getting so many negs i'll probably get banned.

    Ciao until this subject comes up again...

  • MrChuckles #95 1 year ago

    @Cronan - #96 That is ever. E.g. We sell a million copies at retail but over 3 million people have played our game at some point... People say we shouldn't complain, people are funny. :p

  • kangarootoo #96 1 year ago

    @metalangel

    "now in the situation where it's common and accepted practice."

    And the problem with that is, what? That we have to enter a code? That when we buy second hand, we don't get the full online experience for free? I recognise the state of affairs, I'm just not sure what the legitimate complaint is (other than the usual "I want things my way, regardless of reality";).

  • -cerberus- #97 1 year ago

    @Mr Chuckles #95: "You misunderstand... You get the demo (first level) for free.. You then buy level 1 - £2... You like it, buy level 2 for another £2, you don't, then stop buying.

    At no point do you buy anything you don't like or at most it'll be £2. You literally cannot buy something you don't want, that's the point."

    I understood perfectly. It's a seriously flawed system and I'll tell you why right away.

    That is correct, one doesn't buy what one doesn't want. But in this case; one cannot sell what they no longer wants. If it's a digital copy/portion of the game and the consumer doesn't want it anymore, will he be refunded upon deletion of the content from his harddrive? I'm guessing not. Hence, only the developer/publisher wins.

  • mss99 #98 1 year ago

    Just buy your Rockstar pass when the swap disc screen appears on the 360 to continue play. Helps compensate them for the costs they incurr from Microsoft for using more than one disk.

    Only kidding, but couldn't resist ;)

  • dadrester #99 1 year ago

    The games industry thinks it's owed something from it's customer base. Last time I checked, it was a developer's responsibility to add value to keeping the game if they don't want 2nd hand sales.

    you mean like... errr... paid DLC and online passes?

  • arcam #100 1 year ago

    Important people are seeing so much money going to the retailers right now that they know something has to change

    Is this really true? Most independent games shops have gone out of business ( I know, I worked at one and we couldn't cope with the £2-3 profit we made on new games), and when GAME bought Gamestation, the second-biggest UK game store at the time, they paid £74m for the company - less than Call of Duty's marketing budget.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 13:35

  • Murton #101 1 year ago

    Mr Chuckles: "I know of at least 2 major companies doing it already"

    Out of curiosity, which two publishers and which games? I'm genuinely interested in this business model and would like to try it out from a consumer standpoint to see how it works out. As I said before, I see exactly where you're coming from, it would be a big bonus for consumers to be able to buy their games in a modular fashion, I just don't see it working for a big budget title is all. If I could find an example of where it has been done already though, it would help my understanding of the benefits and help support your argument of course.

    I'm all for business innovation in this industry as the current model of releasing unfinished games at full retail and then charging extra to fill in the blanks with DLC is getting quite tiresome. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Rockstar or LA Noire follow this model, but it is clear that some games, especially shooters, do cut or delay content for sale at a later date.

  • dadrester #102 1 year ago

    If it's a digital copy/portion of the game and the consumer doesn't want it anymore, will he be refunded upon deletion of the content from his harddrive? I'm guessing not. Hence, only the developer/publisher wins.

    So you're effectively saying that all games should be completely free and the consumer should never have to pay a single penny for anything? They should just be able to 'rent' the game for a holding deposit which the developer/publisher would then have to pay back in full at the consumer's whim? dreamworld

  • kangarootoo #103 1 year ago

    This point usually gets raised sooner, so I'll chuck it in for balance.

    If you buy second hand, you aren't the "customer". The developer owes you nothing, because you paid them for nothing. Taken to the logical conclusion, if you want to complain about any aspect of your gaming experience AT ALL, the person to complain to the is the seller (be that the game shop that sold you pre-owned, or the seller on eBay). No transaction exists between you and the publisher, so your game experience is not their responsibility.


    I buy second hand sometimes btw. I just reognise that you get what you pay for. If I pay a discount, the world doesn't owe me anything I've not bought.

  • Shinetop #104 1 year ago

    The problem isn't a DLC pass. The problem is that every publisher and platform now requires you to register an account, enter a code, link your stuff, etc. I'd much rather they'd find a solution that works through your existing XBLA/PSN/Steam/GFwL account rather than stick cards with codes in each box or require you to register at some website and link to your XBLA/PSN/Steam/GfWL account.

    As for people who want to keep buying second hand: tough titties.
    Edited by Shinetop at 11/05/11 @ 13:44

  • kangarootoo #105 1 year ago

    @-cerberus-

    There seems to be an inherrent assumption in your logic that being able to sell on what you didn't like is some universal constant. But surely the basis of the whole discussion is that apparent constant being questioned?

    You paid £2, you didn't like the game, but you can't sell it on because you have experienced it. And the problem is? If you buy a cake, eat it and don't like it, would you complain about not being to sell it on?

    You can't say "your plan is flawed" simply on the basis that a second hand sale cannot take place, and act like you spotted something everyone else missed.

  • dadrester #106 1 year ago

    I worked at one and we couldn't cope with the £2-3 profit we made on new games

    However Tesco, Asda, Sainsburys et al can afford that for the minuscule amount of shelf space and high turn over they make from those products.

  • arcam #107 1 year ago

    If you buy a cake, eat it and don't like it, would you complain about not being to sell it on?

    The difference is that a cake can't be sold because it is physically impossible (although many retailers and cake makers are kind enough to say "if you didn't like it, send us the wrapper and we'll refund you";).

    Games, on the other hand have no such restrictions on being sold, so publishers are inserting artificial restrictions to prevent it. That's what many people don't like I think.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 13:58

  • -cerberus- #108 1 year ago

    @dadrester#105: No. I'm saying the 2nd hand market is the best option for everyone. Every used games was bought new from retail at one point in time by someone who thought the game was worth a full retail price. The developer/publisher/retailer each got their share of the money.

    Now, that very same copy is sold on the 2nd hand market. The seller gets some of his money back while the game itself is simply switching owners. The only party that loses some of its money, is the person that bought the game new from retail at full price. And the fact that the game landed onto the second hand market says more about the game itself than anything else. The first-time buyer thought it wasn't worth keeping, the 2nd hand buyer thought it wasn't worth a full retail price.

  • MrChuckles #109 1 year ago

    @Murton #104 - Sorry, can't tell you, it's all hush hush and if the retailers knew about it, they'd probably strangle us. Big companies is all i can say though.

  • dadrester #110 1 year ago

    I'm saying the 2nd hand market is the best option for everyone.

    But it clearly isn't! You can take yourself as the model consumer, saying you don't trade in games unless they're not very good, and always buy games new if you think they're worthwhile, but that consumer model can't be applied to everyone. Unlike the tired old piracy argument where a pirated game doesn't equate to a lost sale, with pre-owned, that's EXACTLY what it equates to, for publishers and developers. Not a single penny of that transaction goes to them.

    What the $10 project, and MrChucles' idea for a distribution model are trying to do is ensure that there is a fair way of dealing with this for the consumer. With the $10 project you are buying features from the publisher that they give away fro free to people who buy the game from them. With MrChucles' idea you are buying individual episodes at a much lower cost, with a generous demo to see if it's your thing. If that idea seems so abhorrent to you then just don't buy it.

    The bottom line is that in order to be able to make games developers need to get an income, and the pre-owned market is taking a rather large slice of that income, so developers and publishers are coming up with new ways of getting to it.
    Edited by dadrester at 11/05/11 @ 14:17

  • -cerberus- #111 1 year ago

    @dadrester #114: Then we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  • orangpelupa #112 1 year ago

    btw MrChuckles idea about

    - 1st episode free
    - other EP is pay.

    has been done by Telltale Games.
    Back to the future the game episode 1 is free. and sold in bit, ep 2, ep 3, ep 4, and will complete in ep 5.

  • Murton #113 1 year ago

    @dadrester#105: No. I'm saying the 2nd hand market is the best option for everyone.

    Not strictly true. The negative effect on publishers repeat sales (for restocking retailers) is well documented, but the 2nd hand market isn't even the best option for all consumers. For example I never buy pre-owned, I like knowing that some of my money went to the people who made the game I just bought, I like breaking that PlayStation seal on the plastic wrapping and I like that smell that comes from a freshly opened box. I like knowing that the disc and manual are in perfect condition, no finger marks, no scratches, no creased or torn pages and no hair or other debris inside the case. But unlike some I don't begrudge those who do buy pre-owned, horses for courses and all that good stuff.

    It must however be recognised that the over-proliferation of the second hand market means that many retailers aren't maintaining their stock levels as well as they used to and if I don't buy a game on day 1 I might not be able to find it at all for several weeks. My local GameStation has only just got Lego Star Wars 3 back in stock as new this week after selling out on the launch weekend and relying solely on pre-owned stock since. The PS Sharpshooter was much the same for an entire month after its release and when my girlfriend tried to buy her own PS3 last year we hit the same hurdle and were faced with the decision of the model she wanted as pre-owned, or paying the extra to get the 250gb model as new. So there is a definite downside to the pre-owned market for consumers as well as the games industry.

  • dadrester #114 1 year ago

    [edit] @~cerberus~[end edit]
    [edit2] Murton. you're quoting me quoting ~cerberus~ [end edit]
    :) ok... but I do like to get the last word in ;)

    I'll put it this way: If Joe Shmoe (which makes up 90% of the games buying public, unfortunately) walks into Game clutching his £40 ready to buy that game his mates have been banging on about for a few weeks, and is told he can get exactly the same game for a tenner less pre-owned, do you think he's going to consider, for one iota, where that money goes except into the till? He'll almost certainly pick up the cheaper one.

    Now assume he wasn't offered the pre-owned copy of the game. Does he walk out of the shop with nothing or does he get what he came in for at full price? Pre-owned is pushed so hard and incentivsed so much I really don't think the "quality games don't get returned" argument hold any credence. In fact I'd put money on there already being several thousand copes of 10/10 scoring, 2 week old game Portal 2 on pre-owned shelves.
    Edited by dadrester at 11/05/11 @ 14:38

  • arcam #115 1 year ago

    a fair way of dealing with this for the consumer

    If this is fair, why don't publishers mention prominently it on the box? It is after all a pretty big change in the way games are sold, but it's being hidden from new and second-hand buyers alike.

    It's hard to avoid the conclusion that publishers are hiding it because they know their customers don't like it.

  • dadrester #116 1 year ago

    Probably because the regular customer doesn't give a shit about it, and it's a way for the publisher to try and claw back a bit of the lost revenue from the pre-owned market. I dare say Retailers wouldn't be too pleased if there was a big sticker on the front saying "IF YOU BUY THIS NEW RATHER THAN PREOWNED YOU GET ALL THIS EXTRA STUFF"

  • arcam #117 1 year ago

    Again with the "we'd love to be fairer to consumers, but retailers won't work with us if we do" argument

    I know there's some truth to that, but it often seem like an excuse publishers use to not do the right thing. Are retailers really going to refuse to stock your games if it mentioned on the box that includes a one-time-only code for multiplayer? Does that outweigh your responsibility to be upfront with your customers?

    And how are you encouraging new game sales if you don't even tell the customer what the difference is between a new game and a pre-owned one?
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 14:49

  • -cerberus- #118 1 year ago

    @dadrester #118: "In fact I'd put money on there already being several thousand copes of 10/10 scoring, 2 week old game Portal 2 on pre-owned shelves."

    Now that's something I happen to agree with and it wouldn't surprise me either. But like I said earlier: it's entirely up to the consumer to decide if the game they bought is a keeper or not. Personally, I'm very picky with my games but the ones I did buy (launch or used), I keep.

    All in all, if I'm allowed to throw in a random musing, I feel like gaming has become more of a luxury than a hobby and it angers me a great deal.

  • geeza2020 #119 1 year ago

    The unfortunate truth seems to be that devs/pubs are on one side and retailers are on the other with customers being spit-roasted in the middle and being told to give thanks for it.

    Devs/pubs dont like the way retailers are doing business, so will do anything in their power to stop retailers, and make more money for themselves. To say that DLC/online passes etc were in any way put in place to benefit the customer is complete and utter bollocks. Its been implemented because its an effective way of curbing retailers income from second hand sales. And if that fucks the customer, then in the devs/publishers point of view, fuck em.

    Thats where we are in games today, the bottom line is all that matters, and as I have stated before in other comments sections, it will eventually bite the industry in the arse. Any creative industry that ends up putting more emphasis on money earned than the quality of the art they produce ends up imploding. See movies and music industries over the last 100 years for examples of this. In the meantime, I will continue to buy the games I believe are worth it brand new, and those games that dont live up to my expectations will be sold back to retailers or on ebay. I dont buy games second hand because they just arent worth the 3 or 4 quid difference.
    Edited by geeza2020 at 11/05/11 @ 14:50

  • dadrester #120 1 year ago

    Does that outweigh your responsibility to be upfront with your customers?

    If they're buying a pre-owned game they are not your customers.

  • arcam #121 1 year ago

    If they're buying a pre-owned game they are not your customers.

    I'm talking about customers who buy the new game.

    Do you not think you have a responsibility to inform them about the changes you have made to the way you are packaging and selling multiplayer?

    Some people are really friggin' cheap.

    It is the principle of the matter my friend. I haven't bought (or sold) a second-hand game in over ten years, but I believe that the rights of the consumer should not be trampled on by companies fighting for extra profits.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 14:59

  • Gastrian #122 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • Collymilad #123 1 year ago

    I'm fine with this.

    Fact is, it's nice to get games cheaper but the dev gets no money when you buy 2nd hand. In fact it's quite a huge nerve that some people on here who appear to ONLY buy 2nd hand think they should even be entitled to an opinion on the matter. If you've only ever bought a 2nd hand game you've contributed ZERO to the industry and haven't helped one bit to funding existing/new game projects.

    So yeah, little quieter maybe.

    You can't compare the situation to cars/sofas etc as so many love doing either - since games are much more fleeting. People have them for less time and they "replaced" much more often.

    Edited by Collymilad at 11/05/11 @ 15:06

  • kangarootoo #124 1 year ago

    @arcam

    "The difference is that a cake can't be sold because it is physically impossible"

    That is indeed A difference, but it isn't THE difference, as there is more than one.

  • arcam #125 1 year ago

    @Gastrian

    It's either written in tiny print on the back, or you'll only find it once you've paid your money and removed the cellophane. IMO that is deliberately hiding the information, and the reason why is obvious.

    @kangarootoo

    Well yes, so let's ditch the cake analogies huh? Especially as you already labelled anyone using a car analogy as a moron.

  • kangarootoo #126 1 year ago

    @arcam

    "but I believe that the rights of the consumer should not be trampled on by companies fighting for extra profits"

    But which consumers are we talking about here? The first hand buyer hasn't been trampled (unless you consider typing in a code, being trampled). And the second hand consumer isn't being trampled on, they are simply not being catered for - not being catered for, but a publisher who has received no money from them - which again doesn't seem like a problem to me.

    If you don't pay a publisher, they don't owe you any kind of game experience AT ALL. Simple, but clear, in my eyes at least. That basic truth seems to be getting ignored or obfuscated way too frequently, but it is fundamental.

    Cake analogy. I bake a cake, I sell it to you on the proviso that I will give you a free cup of coffee every day for a week, you like my cake a fair bit but you aren't mad crazy about it so you eat half and sell the rest on. The person you sold it to turns up at my door demanding free coffee. And I say "what on earth makes you think I owe you free coffee?"

  • dadrester #127 1 year ago

    I'm talking about customers who buy the new game.

    Do you not think you have a responsibility to inform them about the changes you have made to the way you are packaging and selling multiplayer?

    Hardly a noteworthy box feature is it? "you have to input a code". If you look in the manual for both BFBC2 and Mass Effect 2 (the only 2 project $10 releases I own) it does say something about it. Certainly the cards that have the codes printed on them tell you about it.

  • kangarootoo #128 1 year ago

    @arcam

    I read your last post after making my new and improved cake analogy.

    And the car analogy is bollox because it utterly ignores structural deprecation and repair (a keystone part of the used car market - a used car is worth less, because from the moment it is sold new, it is slowly breaking). A game never structurally deprecates, you won't get to the end of the it and find the last two levels are shot with rust, you won't have to pay ever increasing servicing charges to keep your elderly game up and running.

    Analogies are fine in principal. It is bad analogies we should have a problem with.

  • -cerberus- #129 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo #133: "Analogies are fine in principal. It is bad analogies we should have a problem with"

    I agree. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    Edited by -cerberus- at 11/05/11 @ 15:24

  • dadrester #130 1 year ago

    also. who doesn't love cake?!

  • Fab4 #131 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles, I have games for systems I no longer still have, or have working. Games so brilliant I could never bring myself to sell them. Try developing some like that instead of trying to make money of something you've already sold once.

  • arcam #132 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo

    The cake analogy is crumbling mate. I'm not even sure how to answer that while sticking to the pastry theme. I put it to you that you are ignoring the structural deprecation of a piece of cake.

    @dadrester

    I think it is noteworthy. Not in terms of selling the game, but in terms of informing your (first-hand) customer how you have changed the way ownership of the product works.
    Edited by arcam at 11/05/11 @ 15:33

  • kangarootoo #133 1 year ago

    @cheeky_error

    "What this forgets though is that if we all decide developers and publishers are behaving like dick, we will just go elsewhere for games or entertainment"

    Let me get this right. If the publisher doesn't start giving the second hand consumer free stuff, the second hand consumer will "go elsewhere". Given that the second hand consumer didn't go to the publisher for their purchase, I'm not sure that it matters where "else" they go.


    And don't think I didn't spot your cunning use of "we all" in there to try and munge everyone into the same big consumer-ball. First hand consumers aren't getting "mistreated", and so consequently (with the exception of a few angry people that will never be pleased) won't decide anyone is a dick, and won't go "elsewhere". Second hand customers on the other hand might think devs and publishers are all dicks, but given they aren't customers of said devs and publishers, I'm really not sure they will care.


    You see, again I say, right at the heart of this we have a situation where the first hand consumer gets the full package, and the second hand consumer gets a (by degrees) inferior or less complete package.

    The ONLY issue in all of this - the only thing that is causing upset - seems to be that people that buy second hand want the same deal as the first hand consumer. In other words "I want to pay less, to someone else, and still enjoy all the perks as if I actually paid the developer for their work". TOUGH TITS someone said earlier, and I struggle to disagree.

  • dadrester #134 1 year ago

    I think it is noteworthy. Not in terms of selling the game, but in terms of informing your (first-hand) customer how you have changed the way ownership of the product works.

    But why bother? are customers rights really being infringed by asking them to activate content by entering a code? If so then I'd also like to see every online enabled xbox game come with a big fuck off sticker saying "YOU CANNOT ACCESS 50% OF THIS GAME UNLESS YOU HAVE A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION!"

  • MrChuckles #135 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo #139 - 'The ONLY issue in all of this - the only thing that is causing upset - seems to be that people that buy second hand want the same deal as the first hand consumer. In other words "I want to pay less, to someone else, and still enjoy all the perks as if I actually paid the developer for their work". TOUGH TITS someone said earlier, and I struggle to disagree.'

    The other valid complaint is that first hand buyers probably won't know that when they try and trade in their game they wont get as much as for another game without a pass. Then again, those people should probably try selling the game on ebay or to their friends as they'd get more money than from GAME anyway.

    Just doing my bit for both sides of the argument... Like you i couldn't give a toss about 2nd hand buyers.

  • dadrester #136 1 year ago

    also... you've not changed they way ownership works. In order to change something the customer would already have to own it. The customer "owns" the bit of paper that the code is printed on. If they decide they want to sell it on ebay they can do so. Having that code entitles them to content, that people who don't have a code aren't entitled to. Simple.

  • MrChuckles #137 1 year ago

    @cheeky_error #143

    Just gonna nick a couple of quotes here:

    'Rather than being just a little bit humble and thanking people for taking enough of an interest to choose playing their game in the first place'
    &
    'Someone who buys your game second-hand probably wasn't going to buy it new in the first place. That isn't a lost sale, it's a potential future customer.'

    These are EXACTLY the comments that used to fly about on the PC market for pirates, almost to the letter. What developers should do is make games for the people that pay their wages. If a 2nd hand gamer has a perfect experience of a game, why the hell would they buy it new next time, surely they'd be even more likely to stick with their awesome, cheaper 2nd hand experience.

    I got Mass Effect 2, COD:BLOPS, Red Dead all 2nd hand from guys at work in the last year, the only way i'll bother to buy anything new is if the 2nd hand version is worse either because you get extra stuff with new, or stuff cut out with 2nd hand.

  • arcam #138 1 year ago

    In order to change something the customer would already have to own it. The customer "owns" the bit of paper that the code is printed on.

    Well I guess you are technically right. After their £50 purchase, really the buyer owns nothing except some plastic and paper. Well done for outwitting your customers on a technicality, I'm sure that such respect for your customers well only lead to a more healthy relationship in future.

  • dadrester #139 1 year ago

    Someone who buys your game second-hand probably wasn't going to buy it new in the first place. That isn't a lost sale, it's a potential future customer. That person isn't going to buy anymore of your games though if you penalise them for not wanting to pay full price for something they aren't sure about.

    WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

    This is so clearly flawed logic! Do you honestly think the £3 difference Game or HMV discount pre-owned games by will make a difference to someone who is already intending to make a purchase? I've worked in games retail, so I can tell you what the average customer is like, and it's nothing like the people who read games press like Eurogamer.

  • kangarootoo #140 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles

    Whether second hand value will suffer overall is something that will come out in the wash. No doubt it will result in a reduction, but by what degree I don't know. To someone who has no plans to play online, it may make no difference at all (me and Dead Space 2 for example). And comparing one online-pass game with another non-online-pass game isn't really comparing apples with apples (CoD:BO with online pass functionality is still going to make more second hand than Bobby Bananas Moon Adventure without).

    I'm also not sure whether the resale value of games is a driving factor for the silent majority.

  • dadrester #141 1 year ago

    @arcam

    What I'm saying is that a person still has the right to sell their online pass code if they so desire. They don't own any more or any less than if they'd bought a game that didn't have an online pass. If they wanted to, they could play the single player portion of the game and trade it in, and then also sell the unused online pass.

    [edit] The only difference being that they have to fill in a printed code.
    Edited by dadrester at 11/05/11 @ 16:44

  • MrChuckles #142 1 year ago

    @cheeky_error - Personally i was part of the PC development industry back then and piracy hit us way less than 2nd hand sales do now.

    To be a pirate you have to actively go onto a website which condones piracy, you have to knowingly download a game for free when you know you should pay for it, usually have to unpack the thing, apply a crack and then fingers crossed it might work.

    To be a 2nd hand game buyer you walk into GAME, try to buy a game new, and then get convinced to buy this other copy for £3 less.

    Pirates are genuinely nasty thieves, 2nd hand game buyers just like saving money and who can blame them? Totally different mindsets, but similar result to the developers.

  • arcam #143 1 year ago

    Just want to say thanks for a mostly civil discussion all :) And also say that while I've moaned a lot here, I'm talking in generalities.

    LA Noire looks like an awesome game, exactly the sort of thing I love gaming for, and I hope it is a big success all round. Online passes are a relatively unimportant matter when it comes to a company like Rockstar, who have never failed to give me a full-fat, satisfying game with tons of content, intelligently and carefully put together.

    Just get it on PC, please ;)

  • menage #144 1 year ago

    Passes suck if they require online to access your game or content. This better not be the case.

  • Gastrian #145 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • kangarootoo #146 1 year ago

    @@cheeky_error

    I missed your earlier response wasn't ignoring it, though MrChuckles put it better thank I might. The suggestion that happy second hand buyers turn into first hand buyers ignores the need for a motive. As he said, if the second hand experience is great, why would they ever spend first hand. The first hand product HAS to provide something unique that is worth the extra dosh, and passes like this do exactly that.

    As it happens, I do work on games for a living. I rarelt comment on here from a personal perspective though, and my stance on the matter would be the same if I did something else for a living. I also tend to take a more hardnosed devil's advocate when I think one side of a discussion is under-represented (as it frequently is on this subject). And lastly, I am rarely offended and I understood your use of the Royal "you" :)

  • metalangel #147 1 year ago

    Just something to consider:

    Retailers love second hand because they get lots of money. Which means they weren't making enough money off new. Which means they weren't selling enough new, as they have to compete with online shops. Online shops sell cheaper. Could it be that 'new' costs too much for everyone?

  • -cerberus- #148 1 year ago

    So let me get this straight. The 2nd hand market is a war between developers and retailers. The consumer, caught in between and free to choose what he spends his money on, must pay the price no matter what. And developers such as MrChuckles and kangarootoo advocate this? Nice. Real nice.
    I wonder if both MrChuckles and kangarootoo have the dignity or the guts to reveal what games they have helped develop?

  • arcam #149 1 year ago

    @Gastrian

    I think 150 comments in we all understand why second-hand games are different to second-hand cars (or cakes for that matter). However that difference doesn't apply when it comes to CDs and DVDs, and I think we all understand that too.

    This may or may not be a crucial issue to game developers' survival. However, IMO that is not enough in itself is not enough to justify actions whose only purpose is to sabotage a consumer's ability to sell on a product they have paid for.

    Gamestop have said virtually the same thing: “We don’t like being in the used games business,” GameStop Nordic’s managing director Niall Lawlor claimed during a Game Developers Conference (GDC) panel, “but we have to be there. We would have to exit the games business otherwise.

    It seems to me that if both retailers and publishers are struggling to survive (seems funny to say that after reading Acti, Capcom, Namco etc. profits recently) then there is something fundamentally wrong with the business that will not be solved by the two parties warring with each other and catching consumers in the crossfire.

    I don't believe the retailers created this situation. Gamers created it. There is obviously a huge number of people that want to sell their games, and it just wouldn't be capitalism if the market didn't respond to that. If GAME didn't do it, someone else will.

    Instead of trying to smother that desire, retailers and publishers should look at what creates it, and try to come up with a solution that doesn't make customers feel like they are being used for profit (I know they always are, but no one wants to feel like that).

    As is so often the case, the market will adapt eventually, and the games business will survive. We are in a transition period now, and everyone will feel the burn as habits change and money flows in different directions, but it will work itself out in a way that sits well with retailers, publishers and customers alike.

    IMO high quality DLC is a great stopgap solution, as it enables you to sell content at much higher profit margins to second-hand buyers who previously would have been a write-off, and digital distribution is a massive opportunity to eradicate huge costs that would benefit retailer, publisher and customer alike. I wouldn't need to buy second-hand if there was a downloadable copy that offered a bigger discount than the £3 that buyers are apparently getting now.

    I have confidence that it'll work itself out, because people are getting pissed off about the way publishers are treating them and a business won't survive like that for long. All the companies involved will do everything they can to make sure the industry changes to their benefit, but at the end of the day it's consumers that will decide, and the successful players in the games business will be the companies that give consumers what they want. I just hope there aren't too many casualties before we get there.

  • MrChuckles #150 1 year ago

    I'd be happy to reveal what i have worked on if i worked for myself, but this is my personal opinion and if i reveal myself working for a particular company they might not be amused if it get latched on as 'Company Y thinks this about retailers'. I'd love to blog about it but again, i'd have to do it anonymously, which is annoying for you and me.

  • callum9999 #151 1 year ago

    I keep reading about this 1:1 face mapping but that was the first trailer I've seen - it looks incredible! There were times when I was watching their faces when it was looking so close to be being real, I forgot I was watching an animated game!

    Plus the whole concept of working up through a police department solving crimes is a great one. I'm surprised it's taken this long to make one actually, what with the intense popularity of crime shows, films and books.

  • -cerberus- #152 1 year ago

    @MrChuckles #160: There's your problem. Communication. Blogging it might open up a dialogue between developer & retailer, thus eventually ending 'Operation Consumer Shield', yes?

  • Gastrian #153 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012