Curt Schilling defends Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Online Pass

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 30 January, 2012

"We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become."

The content unlocked by the controversial Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Online Pass is day one DLC, one of its creators has said.

The Online Pass, included in new copies of the open world fantasy RPG, unlocks the House of Valor faction quest, which includes seven individual single player missions. In addition, it unlocks a Mass Effect 3-themed in-game item - the N7-inspired Shepard's Battle Armour.

If you have a second hand copy of the game, you have to pay for the Online Pass to unlock the content.

This revelation was met with anger by some gamers who complained that the Online Pass should not apply to a purely single-player game.

Now Curt Schilling, head of co-developer 38 Studios, has had his say, explaining that the content is day one DLC, free to anyone who buys a new copy of the game - but, yes, if you buy a pre-owned version you have to pay for the content.

"It's clear the intent right?" Schilling wrote on the Reckoning forum. "To promote early adopters and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO ME, REWARD fans and gamers who commit to us with their time and money when it benefits the company.

"Every single person on the planet could wait and not buy Reckoning, the game would hit the bargain bin at some point and you could get it cheaper. 38 Studios would likely go away.

"That's just how business works. We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become. THE ONLY way we do that is to make games you CANNOT WAIT TO BUY! If we do that, and you do that, we want to reward you with some cool free stuff as a thank you."

Schilling went on to discuss the thorny issue of second hand game sales, which most developers and publishers love to hate.

"The industry is in a very odd place," he said. "The data coming in on used game sales is not saying the things many thought it should, or would. But companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.

"Again, you can argue with methods, or process, and you absolutely can bitch and gripe about ANY DAY 1 DLC you are charged for, because I think I agree with many on that, but we are trying to create something here, product and company wise, and it takes dollars to do that."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (246) Latest comment 4 months ago

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

  • Nico4 #1 4 months ago

    While I can agree with online passes not having a place in Single player games, I do still support online passes. Developers and what not needs to earn money as well and they don't earn anything with used sales.

  • Alivada #2 4 months ago

    "REWARD fans and gamers" Your rewarding them with stuff that should already be there, don't pretend like your doing us a favour.

    edit: a moderator has removed an insult that was clearly not necessary! Don't do it again!
    Edited by Alivada at 30/01/12 @ 10:35

  • Timotei #3 4 months ago

    A little aggressive?

  • el_pollo_diablo #4 4 months ago

    Sorry game makers, you sell a product just like everyone else. If a steering wheel was only included with a car purchase on day 1 to REWARD Toyota for making it, people would have every right to laugh, point and jeer.

    ***

    edit: Perhaps my analogy wasn't fair. Point taken.

    I still think though that the games market isn't some island. The general rule of selling things outside of gaming doesn't seem to be "rinse them while you have the chance".

    Gaming is making everything it sells modular, and in doing so is eating itself.
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 30/01/12 @ 17:53

  • joferjoe #5 4 months ago

    Was super hyped for this but after a massively buggy demo and now this =/

    I think im gonna just hold on for guild wars 2 and diablo 3 for my rpg fix :D

    And play skyrim while i wait xD!

  • des #6 4 months ago

    lol

  • bad09 #7 4 months ago

    Guys you have no say so no point complaining, customers don't like a lot of things this industry does but your wants and needs are ignored by these companies as they play a numbers game to see how many people buy into their crap.

    Vote with your wallet and this crap will go away as they will have no choice, but you ALL need to do it. Lots of people hate this stuff but STILL buy, it 'ain't going nowhere like that I'm afraid.

    I would suggest you do vote with your wallet to, look to PC DRM as it's quite clear that's where console ARE headed in terms of your rights if you do not fight back.

  • midnight_walker #8 4 months ago

    "Every single person on the planet could wait and not buy Reckoning, the game would hit the bargain bin at some point and you could get it cheaper. 38 Studios would likely go away.

    "That's just how business works. We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become. THE ONLY way we do that is to make games you CANNOT WAIT TO BUY!
    Unfortunately, exactly what you have made is a game I will most certainly wait and pick up from the bargain bin. It's seems alright and all, but come on. KOA is hardly Skyrim. Thinking about it, I must have lost my online pass for Skyrim. Oh no, wait - it didn't need one because it was fucking incredible and nobody in their right mind would trade it in. See you in the dole queue.
    Edited by midnight_walker at 30/01/12 @ 08:33

  • mrpsb #9 4 months ago

    I quite like the look of it, and the demo was OK, but it's not in the same MUST HAVE NOW category as Skyrim was for me, so I'll likely be looking out for it in a Steam sale or something. Sorry if that means the devs all die of starvation in the meantime.

  • witchdrash #10 4 months ago

    It's amazing, having seen this story on a few sites, how many people come out of the woodwork and act like the developers have stabbed their kitten in the face, if you don't like it vote with your wallets, and since that hasn't succeeded so far I think we can all assume most people don't care about them "pulling this sort of shit"

  • UncleLou #11 4 months ago

    Sorry game makers, you sell a product just like everyone else. If a steering wheel was only included with a car purchase on day 1 to REWARD Toyota for making it, people would have every right to laugh, point and jeer.

    Major difference: a used car is a used car. A used game is basically a new game. Bits and Bytes don't age.

    Not that I necessarily agree with him, but comparing digital media to physical objects isn't all that helpful in that respect.

  • MojoDex #12 4 months ago

    This game will be compared to Skyrim and Dark Souls. Neither of those required me to have an online pass for an offline game.
    Edited by MojoDex at 30/01/12 @ 08:37

  • Frybird #13 4 months ago

    Given how many studios closed down in recent years, i do believe that Schilling at least has a point.

    It's still sad that the battle against used sales is fought entirely on the back of the customer though, even though it's not entirely our fault.

    I don't think people other than the suits obsessed with numbers don't mind if thier game is shared among friends, and maybe even sold privately. But thanks to all the Gamestops and such this has become a "market", when it really shouldn't be, blown up to ridiculous proprotions.

    As such, i can understand how developers are scared of this beast, since the working in the game industry is like swimming on driftwood.

    That said, "Day One DLC" is still an annoyance even for loyal customers who should be rewarded rather than annoyed with codes and downloads and all the little nitpicks that come with it, and it's pretty much the "asshole" way to combat used sales.

    Publishers should go head on against those big store chains who turned the used games market into the abomination it is, but instead they rather take some money from them with exclusive DLCs.

    It's a complicated issue, and i feel for both sides....but as it is, i can hardly cheer for the Dev/Pub side...

  • marmaduke #14 4 months ago

    To be fair the best way to get people to buy your game is to give it a better name than 'Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning'. It sounds like a 17th century tax collecting simulator.

  • witchdrash #15 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo Car manufacturers tolerate the used market for 2 reasons, incredibly high cost of initial purchase and a thriving spare parts market, neither of which exist for games. Books would be a better analogy, but your average book does not cost a couple of million to write so the fact the second hand market cannibalises some firsthand sales is much less of an issue to publishers who can sell far fewer and still return a profit

  • Lonewolf2002 #16 4 months ago

    @marmaduke

    And whats wrong with 17th century tax collecting simulators?

  • McShifty #17 4 months ago

    Online passes are a pain in the ass but I can see why publishers use them. The whole retail model for videogames is broken and unsustainable. Personally I think a lot of the blame lies with the retailers themselves, refusing to give publishers a percentage on used game sales will ultimately lead to their demise. Their one bargaining chip was that if a console manufacturer or publisher stood up to them then they wouldn't stock their products, but that threat is becoming increasingly obsolete as people become more comfortable with Internet shopping and the giant supermarket chains branch out into electronic goods.

    But as is usually the case, it'll be the consumer that gets the shitty end of the stick while they argue among themselves.

  • Xboxfanuk #18 4 months ago

    According to the community manager (MUSE on the forums) the day 1 DLC was going to be the first proper DLC for the game, but when they saw they could include it they did so as day 1 DLC (remember SHALE from Dragon Age, same shit). Obviously 38 Studios isn't really keen on this stuff dogging their debut game, but EA of course will want this included as they fronted half the money.

    The code is free....FREE. Don't activate it. Don't use it, throw it in the bin if you must. Or buy the game used and don't buy the code. It isn't apart of the main game. People moan when you need to re-buy that DVD or Blu-ray for 10 extra minutes of footage or an unreleased behind the scenes but yet fans will buy it.

    Unless your idea of supporting the games industry is giving your money to shareholders of GAME and HMV you should really buy new.

    Now let's talk about how publishers/developers can release AAA titles on consoles DIGITALLY day one and drop the RRP down to £30.00!
    Edited by Xboxfanuk at 30/01/12 @ 08:42

  • UncleLou #19 4 months ago

    It sounds like a 17th century tax collecting simulator.

    Travel from village to village in the name of the king, oppress peasants and find their money hidden in cupboards, kill Robin Hood - sounds like a better premise to me than many games can offer.

  • Dyason #20 4 months ago

    I'll vote with my wallet and not buy this, even though I quite liked the sound of it and the demo.

  • King_Edward #21 4 months ago

    You also have to create a fanbase, and second hand sales are a great way of doing that. I know I won't bother with this game full price.

  • witchdrash #22 4 months ago

    @UncleLou I'd play it

  • witchdrash #23 4 months ago

    I am curious, this is always some sort of hot potato but who actually buys secondhand games? All my friends are gamers most with multiple consoles and not one buys secondhand games..

  • DwarfyP #24 4 months ago

    Online pass doesn't hurt anyone except GameStop and GAME. The 2nd hand market is damaging to sales so the developers have had to use this system to get a cut of the 2nd hand sales. Why should GameStop and GAME get all of the sale when they don't make the game?

    Personally I get the games new anyway so I wouldn't care if the Online Pass didn't actually give me anything other than register my purchase.

    @Alivada Yeah cos these guys would have always included Mass Effect 3 content in their game...
    Edited by DwarfyP at 30/01/12 @ 08:57

  • UncleLou #25 4 months ago

    I am curious, this is always some sort of hot potato but who actually buys secondhand games? All my friends are gamers most with multiple consoles and not one buys secondhand games..

    I am wondering the same thing, and in particular: the only shops I know here in Germany that offer used games on any significant scale are specialized retailers like GameStop. Their prices for all, new and used games, are so ridiculously over the top compared to other brick and mortar stores, let alone internet shops, that it's usually cheaper to buy the same game new somewhere else than used in one of those stores.

    How they manage to exist at all is utterly beyond me.

  • Inmediasress #26 4 months ago

    As I said before the game will probably flop and they know it.
    That's why they want as much of a reimbursement as they can get and that's the reason for the online pass.(more like offline pass)
    They know that probably most people plan on geting this later but not on day one.

    First they came over as simpatethic but with these bully tactics they lost a sale from me even tough I would ahve bought it on PC and not for full price because simply it doesn't seem like good value.
    Now I won't buy it anyway and other people should also vote with their wallets. That is if they wan't to try and send a message to publishers, otherwise next gen will be ugly.

  • repeater #27 4 months ago

    "That's just how business works. We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become."
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." - F. Nietzsche.

    ;)

    On a more serious note, I think those above that argue that "Skyrim didn't need an online pass to sell a lot of day 1 copies" are very naive. The Elder Scrolls is one of the most well-respected and established properties in the whole of the game business - everytime there's a new installment, the anticipation and hype is massive. If you like that kind of game, you KNOW you "have" to get "Skyrim", so you don't take any great risk by buying it on day one. To compare this with the first installment in a new IP like Amalur seems, at least to me, more than a little silly.

  • Shikasama #28 4 months ago

    Here's the ironic thing though Curt. I was excited for the game and planning on buying it but I can't support this type of practice at all.

    So congratulations on your lost sale.

    Also, stop acting like your game is breaking new ground and changing the genre forever. It isn't.

  • GAmbrose #29 4 months ago

    @witchdrash

    Kids. kids like my nephew who can't afford to buy games and whose parents can't afford to buy them games constantly. He regularly trades in games he's completed to get newer ones.

    I told her a lovefilm subscription would be cheaper overall, but then you've got the problem of making sure the kids look after the disc properly.

  • PlugMonkey #30 4 months ago

    @bad09 @Allvada
    Guys you have no say so no point complaining, customers don't like a lot of things this industry does but your wants and needs are ignored by these companies
    If you buy the game new, you get the content, and so how exactly has this guy wronged you?

    If you buy the game 2nd hand YOU ARE NOT ONE OF HIS CUSTOMERS.

    You can complain about "this industry" ignoring your needs, but if you buy 2nd hand, you are not a customer of "this industry". You have chosen instead to be a customer of a secondary industry that this guy has nothing to do with. So why should he not ignore you? You've ignored him.

  • BigDannyH #31 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo
    I get what you mean but comparisons to the used car market don't wash for me.

    A) a car is a long-term investment. No normal person would buy a brand new car if they only needed it for 2 weeks.

    B) a used car is not the same product as a new car because using the vehicle literally wears it down. A used game is exactly the same as a new one. If the resolution dipped and the controls became less responsive after every playthrough I bet the used game market would dry up a bit.

    Comparisons to the film/music industry are better. I think the reason they don't suffer as much is due to the pricing already being lower and the repeat value they offer. Plus, they've made a leap towards digital download of recent.

    I think the games industry will follow suit eventually. Personally I'd like to see digital downloads that work on both the PS3 and the Vita. I'd be far more inclined to go with Sony over Xbox if that were the case.

  • Vanmunt #32 4 months ago

    all those people 'the demo was buggy'.. that has been explained, sorry to promote another site but IGN has been running a 3 week review in progress.. do yourself a favour and read the thoughts of somebody who has played the game, I cannot wait for this...

  • BigDannyH #33 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey
    +100

  • berelain #34 4 months ago

    I've said this before, but publishers forget that second hand games are responsible for new game sales. How many of you have ever traded an old game in to get some money off a new one? I know I have many times. Ok, so you don't get much for them, but quite often I'll take a bunch of old games that I have no desire to play again and trade them in for a new game. By doing so I can afford to buy more new games than I would otherwise be able to.

    These online passes and day 1 DLC for new purchasers are all well and good, but one day it's going to have such an impact on the resale value of games that gamers won't be able to afford to buy as many new games.

    And who wins then?

  • arcam #35 4 months ago

    I don't understand how someone can support online passes but not support this implementation of it.

    What difference does it make whether it's part of the single player locked out or part of the multiplayer? Surely it's exactly the same situation - first-time buyers get the full experience, second hand buyers have to pay a bit extra?

  • PlugMonkey #36 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo
    Sorry game makers, you sell a product just like everyone else. If a steering wheel was only included with a car purchase on day 1 to REWARD Toyota for making it, people would have every right to laugh, point and jeer.
    And here come the tortured analogies of lots of things that day 1 DLC are completely unlike.

    If you buy a new Toyota, you get the after sales service.

    If you buy a 2nd hand toyota, you don't get the after sales service. You take your Toyota round to the Toyota dealer for it's free service, they quite rightly point out your not actually one of their customers, and tell you to get knotted.

    You can drive the car just fine without the after sales service.

    You can play the game just fine without the day 1 DLC.

    Hey look! A less tortured analogy already!

    How the hell is missing a few extra side missions and some Shepard armour the same as having no steering wheel, FFS?

  • busboy33 #37 4 months ago

    Is everybody pissed at day 1 DLC, or because they're calling it an "Online Pass"? Not sure what the problem is with giving extra free missions, over and above what is on the disc, to people that support a studio. Actually sounds like a fairly nice thing to do. What am I missing here?

  • SClaw #38 4 months ago

    Who cares? The demo was shit and broken and boring and tediously-samey.

    If you want to make money, Curt Schilling, then make a game that isn't a piss poor copy of every other action/fantasy game.

    Besides. Skyrim > All. I think we can just stop making these games until Skyrim 2 now.

  • apoc_reg #39 4 months ago

    I'm totally fine with this.

    If gamers want to continue to play a variety of games not just Modern Warfare 13 in ten years then its important our money goes directly to the games we support.

  • IkariW #40 4 months ago

    Theres a lot of people bitching on here about the quality of the demo, hey, thats what a demo if for! if you don't like it, don't buy it. At least they release a demo!

    As for things being a 'buggy piece of sh!t' well that didn't stop you all buying Skyrim now did it?! Oh wait... I forgot, it has a massive world so they can get away with it.
    How many times are Bugthesta going to shovel the same cr@p down our throats before some one sits up and says 'Hold on, this is just like your last game... except with more bugs' and not buy it?!

    Sure, no doubt some of you would say that "Its so big that you've got to expect a few bugs". Well, no actually, you shouldn't expect bugs...
    Make the f**king game a little smaller so that you can concentrate of quality not quantity, just an opinion of course.

    Ahem... rant over.
    Anyway Reckoning seems okay to me, sure, it may not set the world alight, but then, its never said that its going to. They've just said its got nice combat, and to be fair, from what I've played, it does seems to have nice combat. :)

    Like bad09 says, if you don't like it don't buy it, personally, I kind of enjoyed it, but hey, if you didn't thats fine too you know.

    As for the Online Pass, well, does it really matter? I mean, really? So many games have done this now, single player, multiplayer, makes no difference.
    There are just a lot of retail b!tches out there who are sheading a tear because they won't be able to make their 100% profit from ramming another second hand game down our throats.
    Well cry me a river f**ktards.... I'd rather the money went into making more games, and not paying for your staff parties and countless retail award shows!

    Personally, I can't wait for digital download only, then all these industry 'leeches' will be out of business.

    I mean, get this, I went into a shop recently, and their second hand games were repackaged to look like new games! plastic wrapped and everything!
    Anyway, after the last one of three so called 'Experts' came over had asked me the same thing as the other two before him, I got a little fed up, hence my reply:

    3rd Assistant f**ktard - "Can I help you with anything?"
    Me - "I seriously doubt it"
    3rd Assistant Tw@tweed - "I'll leave you to it then"

    I just thought, mate, One: talk to your colleagues about who needs help,
    Two: I was playing games when you were just a twinkle in your Daddies eye, I've likely forgotten more about games than you've ever known! no... you can not help me no!

    Then, when I tried to buy a new game, the industry wannabe behind the counter said, and I quote... "You know you can get this £5 cheaper if you buy it second hand?".

    What the f**k?!
    'NO, I DON'T WANT A SECOND HAND GAME THATS WHY I PUT A NEW COPY ON YOUR COUNTER, YOU F**KING LEECHING T**TS!, SO TAKE YOUR GAMES KNOWLEDGE LEARNT FROM THE INTERNET AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR AR$E!'

    And people wonder why developers are going out of business... sheesh. :/
    Enough is enough.

    EDIT -Negs from retail expected, support from Devs hoped for.-
    EDIT 2 -Apologies for the exceptionally bad language & length of post btw.. I hate Monday's-
    EDIT 3 -typos-
    Edited by IkariW at 30/01/12 @ 16:19

  • Bilstar #41 4 months ago

    I have no problem with this. Day 1 (or in fact, any time) DLC that is free to those who bought the game new. Game still works w/o it.

  • jogyourmind #42 4 months ago

    @midnight_walker

    Why fucking pricks like you are so glad to see promising new companies crash and burn, I'll never understand. I guess you are just a fucking prick, and therefore gain great pleasure from other peoples misfortunes. So come to think of it, you don't even need new games. You could just go and hang around in a hospital, masturbating over terminally ill people.

  • PlugMonkey #43 4 months ago

    @berelain

    The problem with the whole "resale funds new sales" argument is that it doesn't actually inject any new money into the economy. If there was no resale, you wouldn't be able to buy as many new games each year, but the guy you are selling it to would buy more.

    This is the reason why the 2nd hand market was never an issue until the retailers got involved. 15 years ago, it was a closed loop. All the money you got from selling an old game largely went into you buying a new game, so it wouldn't really impact the developers so much.

    Now? You sell them to GAME for £5 and they sell them to the next guy for £35. £30 has just disappeared out of the economy.

    You only need to look where the money ends up to see how the situation has changed compared to the 2nd hand markets of other mediums, and indeed the 2nd hand market of video games 15 or 20 years ago.
    And who wins then?
    Well, probably the company best inducing people to buy their games new. When you sell an EA game to by a Activision game, that's no real benefit to EA. If they encourage you to buy their games new, and Acti's 2nd hand, however...
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 30/01/12 @ 09:16

  • byakuya83 #44 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • zegerman1942 #45 4 months ago

    I think passes like this are good. If i really want a game and i pay full price for it as an early adapter, i get the online pass: the content is mine from day one.

    If i choose to wait for a game until it's in the bargain bin then i still get the content on the day i buy it.

    The only people who CAN complain about this are those who buy second hand. And honestly - like with EVERYTHING you buy second hand - the product won't be as good as if you buy it new (a car will have a few dents or at least some miles on it, and a game won't have all the content, unless you pay for the missing bits).

    What is the big deal about this? The only ones who actually make a hefty profit on every used copy are retailers like GAME. And none of the second hand market cash goes back to the developers.

    Personally i hope more developers will put stuff like this in. Because i know it won't affect me - the games i buy, i buy new (even if they are in the bargain bin sometimes). I support developers and not retailers like GAME etc.

  • el_pollo_diablo #46 4 months ago

    Perhaps my analogy wasn't fair. Point taken.

    I still think though that the games market isn't some island. The general rule outside of gaming doesn't seem to be "rinse them while you have the chance".

    Gaming is eating itself by making everything It sells modular, and they're doing it just because they can.

  • jogyourmind #47 4 months ago

    @SClaw

    Shit broken boring and samey, you mean like Skyrim? You overhyped fanboys are BLIND!

  • arcam #48 4 months ago

    The only people who CAN complain about this are those who buy second hand.

    I don't buy second-hand , but I complain about it because it's not right. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, it's a nasty, manipulative move and I don't support publishers sabotaging the legitimate second-hand market.

  • DefendoCroc #49 4 months ago

    Meh, demo is pretty crap imho, naff dialog, meh combat and your avatar just seems to move and roll to fast for me. I really think Dark Souls has put me down the path of no return for action/rpgs.

  • Scimarad #50 4 months ago

    Refreshing bullshit-free honesty there, I think.

  • RoOhDaMite #51 4 months ago

    Wonder how they gonna make a profit if people refuse to buy it altogether.

    Second hand sales are healthy for the industry, as they readjust the price and keep things Pareto efficient.
    In other words, if they artificially try to keep prices high, people will simply not buy their products, whereas in an economy where pressure from second hand markets exists the retail prices will readjust accordingly.
    Second hand sales represent a missed opportunity for the publisher to offer the right price at the right time und thus offer an incentive to do so.
    Edited by RoOhDaMite at 30/01/12 @ 09:35

  • Dizzy #52 4 months ago

    I think I will cancel my pre-order. This is bullshit.

  • zegerman1942 #53 4 months ago

    @arcam There has not been a "legitimate" second hand market for years unfortunately.

    The days where you brought your old game to a shop and got some cash for it, and you then spent the cash to buy a new game or browsed some other old game in that same store are over.

    The model that was introduced by the likes of GAME, Gamestop and other retailers is only there to make profit for them. Yes it does give gamers the advantage of saving a bit of money, in some cases, but it shafts developers.

    Example: i bought RAGE at GAME. if i finish the game within 2 weeks and bring it back, i get 90% of the price back (in store credit only of course). I buy the next new game and return that 2 weeks later also - i can keep doing this cycle and each new game will cost me about 5 quid. Which is not a bad deal for me right?

    Ok but what about all these used copies they accumulate? Right, so GAME stops actually ordering NEW versions of a game when they have several used copies. Anyone now wanting to buy it pays 35 quid (instead of 39) for a used copy - with the entire amount going to GAME and none going to the developer.

    It is not a nasty manipulative move by developers to introduce day one DLC. It is a way of protecting themselves from the aggressive second hand market that has established itself in the last 5 to 10 years. Again, as someone who does not buy second hand: how does it affect you? You can also still sell the game used if you want to - anyone purchasing it might just have to pay 10 quid to get additional content (which is NOT required either! it's not like they are actually preventing you from playing the game if you don't get it!).

    If you think this is manipulative, fair enough, but then look at the way the retailers manipulate the gamers - and which is worse? the people who make games for us trying to make a living and producing anothe game, or some random middle man trying to squeeze the most out of a product he has had no involvment in?

  • smoothbond #54 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo Really? You're comparing a steering wheel that is needed to drive the car to an optional series of quests that have no bearing on the main story campaign? Really thats the best you can come up with

  • DUFFMAN5 #55 4 months ago

    I don't have a major problem with this. Buying the game day 1 anyway.

  • Wedge1985 #56 4 months ago

    @RoOhDaMite Except that as publishers up their retail prices stores like GAME up the second hand prices to remain within a few quid cheaper. For example, when the base price of COD went up to £45 rather than £40 the second hand copies were £42.99 rather than £37.99. The market doesn't readjust because of the second hand sales.

    As I'm sure I've said on other threads about these, I've always looked at them as bonus dlc for the game rather than something that is being locked out. If they prevented you from completing the story and locked out the penultimate mission I could understand the outrage but fundamentaly you can still play the whole game if you buy it second hand. If you want the extra bits, pay more. Simple.

  • el_pollo_diablo #57 4 months ago

    @smoothbond I revised my statement :)

  • IkariW #58 4 months ago

    @RoOhDaMite "Second hand sales are healthy for the industry, as they readjust the price and keep things Pareto efficient.
    In other words, if they artificially try to keep prices high, people will simply not buy their products, whereas in an economy where pressure from second hand markets exists the retail prices will readjust accordingly."

    You do understand how the games industry works right? Many Talented people who make the games get paid to make them, in the process of making them, not once a game is released. Second hand sales are not healthy at all, the money does not go back to the right places, the industry will die if all sales where second hand, then retail wouldn't be able to sell anything!

    "Second hand sales represent a missed opportunity for the publisher to offer the right price at the right time und thus offer an incentive to do so."

    Although retail may think so at the moment, the rest of the industry isn't stupid, they can see that this is a problem, So don't bank on this being the case forever....
    Edited by IkariW at 30/01/12 @ 10:35

  • Wedge1985 #59 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey You sir are a genius. That analogy is brilliant.

  • Cjail #60 4 months ago

    @RoOhDaMite
    Wrong, so wrong!

  • Okamiwolf #61 4 months ago

    And this is why Skyrim will rightfully stomp this game into the ground in terms of sales. No EA online pass BS with Skyrim. You buy it and you get a full, huge, game.

  • Sicho #62 4 months ago

    I preordered the PC version. Can't wait. Even though I haven't finished Skyrim yet.

  • Wedge1985 #63 4 months ago

    @CheeseChipsAndBeans To be fair not everyone has the disposable income to afford new games all the time. I buy games second hand from time to time, online pass or no. I just usually factor in the fact that I might have to pay up to a tenner to get all the stuff. Seeing as I usually buy DLC anyway it doesn't really cause me any problems!

    The only people I can see this really affecting is someone without the machine connected to the net. If they worked out how to patch it offline (maybe using a secure login through a website to allow you to download the patch or something) then I don't really see that anyone can complain.

  • smoothbond #64 4 months ago

    Everybody should take a chill pill, I dont personally care for online passes but if its the only way Studios get rewarded then so be it. I've saved a lot of money over the years from renting games or buying used copies of Ebay and if that means the studios that create games I like dont get any money and may close down I dont think thats fair. In this instance its a series of optional quests and some fancy looking Gear. I bet you even without this DLC you're still looking at between 50 - 100 hours of gameplay. And yet everybody is still b1tching because the developer is trying to ensure they get rewarded for their hard work. Dudes they have mouths to feed and Nappies to buy, grow up people.

  • ZizouFC #65 4 months ago

    I just feel for those who don't have internet at home (they do exist!).

    I had to take my laptop to my brothers flat so he could download the Batman: AC Catwoman DLC because PSN doesn't like his ISP.

  • kangarootoo #66 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    Whats with the "sorry". I'm not sure he is asking for forgiveness, he is just telling us the reality of things.

    This sort of system allows devs to secure their future and continue making games. We might not like it, but I bet we would like there being no games even less.

    If you truly don't like the deal, don't buy the game. But its no good acting like they have a choice and just decided to do things this way to a) piss us off, or b) grow their gold mountain.

  • Alcock #67 4 months ago

    If they want to offer free DLC, at least have it on disc. It's annoying having to first install the game and then download the DLC, as is the case with many PS3 games.

  • kangarootoo #68 4 months ago

    @bad09

    With second hand sales being pushed so hard by retailers, its only the biggest franchises that can carry on regardless. You are quite right that if we vote with our wallets this sort of thing will go away, but the form that might take is that some of the games simply... go away.

    Do what you will, but consider why they are taking this step and what their alternatives are. If you want a future filled with nothing but CoD and WoW, then carry on.

    And ffs, don't start bringing the word "rights" into things. You are talking about video games - find some perspective.

  • Darren #69 4 months ago

    I can see why publishers like online passes - it makes second hand sales profitable in that buyers will have to fork out for a new pass to play it - but I think it is grossly unfair on people who have consoles that are not online. They may buy this game, quite rightly, for its single player content but will miss out on a chunk of content because they can't activate this pass online. These passes are only really practical for online multiplayer where you need to be online anyway; they should never be used for single player games IMO.

  • Po1ymorph #70 4 months ago

    Guess your screwed either way if your console is not online.

  • arcam #71 4 months ago

    @zegerman1942

    How about we make a deal with publishers then? Publishers lock out the second-hand buyers, and in return they offer a digital download version of the game at a cheaper price that low income gamers can afford?

    That way the publishers still get paid, people who can't afford £40 a game still get to play, and the market stops being flooded with second-hand copies.

    Why don't publishers do that? Satisfy the demand that's out there? Instead Ubisoft add an extra £10 on the retail price and EA make you pay for an online pass even if you buy the digital download? If publishers were willing to work with us and be reasonable perhaps I would be more sympathetic to their attempts to change the market.
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 10:03

  • kangarootoo #72 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "You can complain about "this industry" ignoring your needs, but if you buy 2nd hand, you are not a customer of "this industry""

    QFT... and all the other stuff about the economy. Can people please write that stuff down so we can save some time next time around? Its at least the second time I've seen PM eloquently explain it, and half of you at least were present the last time too.




    And are people STILL making the car analogy. Stop doing it! It makes you look dim! I love analogies, but that one is by far the worst. How the hell did we get so attached to SUCH a poor and flawed analogy? It baffles me.

  • Lord_Gremlin #73 4 months ago

    This sounds desperate. Successful singleplayer games don't really NEED an online pass. If your studio's survival depends ON online pass... Well, you're already dead.

    Yes, Fist of the North Star pun intended.

  • ubergine #74 4 months ago

    This doesn't sound any different from Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect 2, but calling it an "Online Pass" is just stupid.

  • Darren #75 4 months ago

    @midnight_walker - The demo was very average IMO, not terrible (except for the camera!) but certainly not outstanding in any way either. While I really love playing RPGs at the moment so I'm willing to give this a second chance but it will likely only be after it hits the bargain bins. That is unless it gets very good 80%+ reviews across the board then I may reconsider.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #76 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:13:22 09-05-2012

  • Bigmac1910 #77 4 months ago

    I can sympathize, but I'm voting with my wallet. There was a 50/50 chance of me buying it, but the online pass hassle just pushed me away.

    Funny how the the best selling Activision/Blizzard games don't use this system, not even MW3.

  • el_pollo_diablo #78 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo
    I just fail to see why games companies are allowed this sort of moral highground argument, when if it was any other company the response would be "we all have to trade under difficult conditions, but thad the way it is".

    They're cutting up their content because they can.

    And I sympathise with the realities of a tough development environment, but this is all the thin edge of the wedge. In 5 years time all the 'extras' are going to add up to half the game.

  • 32768Colours #79 4 months ago

    To be honest, I'll be waiting for it drop in price. Not out of principle, but because the game felt a bit cheap. I know it was only a demo, but there were quite a few graphical glitches and the game world felt quite enclosed - even the open bits.

    I don't suppose this would be of any consequence to EA or 38 Studios, but had they decided to sell this game for £25 instead of trying to "add value" with an online pass or whatever you want to call it, I think 99% of gamers would have snapped the game up in an instant.

    On the plus side, the demo did make me decide to start up a new game of Torchlight; a game that looks and plays quite a bit like KoA:R, but only costs a tenner. In fact even the sequel will be about the same.

    From the Torchlight 2 website:
    “It’s always been our goal to provide exceptional value for the price,” says Max Schaefer, CEO of Runic Games. “Everyone who wants to play Torchlight II will be able to comfortably afford to do so, and they’ll be able to play with their friend online or via a LAN, or play single player offline, all with no further purchases.”
    That's how you reward fans Mr Schilling. A good product for a good price. Something worth considering when Torchlight 2 sales outstrip KoA:R.

  • lucky_jim #80 4 months ago

    Buying a game like this second-hand, at least in the UK, is mental anyway. You'd probably only pay a fiver less than new, I'd rather pay the extra fiver to guarantee the disc won't have any pubes on it.

    I can understand the desire to get FIFA or something on day 1, with the online play and all that, but a game like this? I'll just wait until the asking price matches what I'm willing to pay (no more than £30 in my case) and buy it then. Everyone wins.

  • zegerman1942 #81 4 months ago

    @arcam that would be the ideal scenario Arcam. 100% agree. The problem is that you and i might well do that (and a lot of others) but there would still be a large chunk of people who would utilize second hand trading via retailers.

    It will take a while to switch. Things like steam and Origin will help (the same problem does apply though about having to be online). Eventually i hope retail can by bypassed completely.

    Just take a look at the numbers. Out of every boxed version for a 360 game, the publisher gets maybe 5 to 10 quid for every 40. the rest is split between retailers, first party (MS and Sony) and manufacturing. from those 5 to 10 quid, how much do you think a development team sees?

    Pure digital distribution would be mean all of the money (minus 1st party costs) go to the publisher and hopefully developers will see more money then as well.

    It'll be a while till we get there though. In the meantime i for one am trying to not support the second hand market, as i know it's not in the customers interest, but rather the retailers interest.

  • lucky_jim #82 4 months ago

    @32768Colours
    I don't see the two as comparable. One's a loot-em-up, the other's a narrative-based epic. I love both those RPG sub-genres but it's like comparing Crysis to 3D Monster Maze.

  • zegerman1942 #83 4 months ago

    @Bigmac1910 well first of all these games sell millions and have a massive budget in marketing and development behind them. So they can live with the second hand market.

    Secondly, i am not so sure that the Elite service for CoD could not be considered an "Online Pass" of sorts - sure it's optional, but so is the content you get from online passes :)

  • buddmonkey #84 4 months ago

    The online pass system is flawed imho. The argument that you are populating the servers at their expense is wrong as the initial buyer paid for the space on the server and isnt using it as soon as they sell the game on.Also the main complaint is that they are losing money...well do away with used games altogether and they wont make much more money will they?? It seems to me the argument is between developers and retailers here,yet we get the shaft with online passes as retailers still get second hand sales and WE pay the developers extra for the pass...just my opinion unless im missing something?

  • darkmorgado #85 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    Ah, the tired old car industry analogy again.

    Used car sales and secondhand game sales aren't the same thing and you know it. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

  • smoothbond #86 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo yep, just saw. Cool

  • A_Nonny #87 4 months ago

    "Every single person on the planet could wait and not buy Reckoning, the game would hit the bargain bin at some point and you could get it cheaper. 38 Studios would likely go away.

    "That's just how business works. We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become. THE ONLY way we do that is to make games you CANNOT WAIT TO BUY! If we do that, and you do that, we want to reward you with some cool free stuff as a thank you."

    I don't understand how an online pass or even free DLC makes people buy the game sooner. What the hell is he talking about?

  • Wedge1985 #88 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971 How is it limiting your rights?!? They're not outlawing second hand gaming.

    @Bigmac1910 things like COD, FIFA etc have already got a massive following especially online. Therefore more people buy it day 1 and less people relatively trade it in again.

    Actually thinking about it, FIFA had a similar thing with the ultimate pack bonus thing. Don't remember people crying over that.

  • Wedge1985 #89 4 months ago

    @A_Nonny It's not to entice you into buying it sooner. He's sorta saying that in their eyes they're not punishing second hand buyers but rewarding first hand buyers instead.

  • Paulie_P #90 4 months ago

    Why do people always use the Car metaphor when talking about online passes?

    Are there no other products to compare it to especially when the Car metaphor doesn't work!

  • Bigmac1910 #91 4 months ago

    @zegerman1942

    COD Elite is to get the paid dlc cheaper, and the extra stuff is only web based fluff, so they haven't removed anything from the main game. (Single or Multiplayer)

  • Laythe_AD #92 4 months ago

    People really seem to lack perspective here. The game comes with a free one use code that binds to an account of yours. It gives you content (truly a free extra or not, that can debated) at no cost, if the game has been purchased first hand. It is not Ubisoft DLC that requires a permanent connection. What's more, the tactic has become a common EA practice, and no one whined on and on about the first Dragon Age doing the exact same thing with Shale. This doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable, and I have a great degree of sympathy with developers regarding the second hand markets.

    Some people just seem to be here to hate for the sake of it, rather than come out with any useful constructive criticism. I don't know if this is to jump on a bandwagon or if it's because the developer has been a little too vocal in admiring it's own work and has thus angered Skyrim's legions of fan-boi defenders.

    On the subject of Skyrim. I find people complaining about bugs in a free demo that, as is always the case in such things, not necessarily representative of the finished product, and then heaping praise on Skyrim a paragraph up or down incredibly hypocritical. As said above, people are merely jumping the gun to pour as much scorn on the thing as possible.

    This is not to batter Skyrim, I add. I loved the game. I poured a lot of time into it. But that was a mess on release, at full price, any demo's they didn't put out be damned.

    I just find it all the more a shame given this is a brand new ip from a new studio, that looks like it's had an awful lot of love and attention thrown into it.
    Edited by Laythe_AD at 30/01/12 @ 10:31

  • PlugMonkey #93 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    I can sympathise with that point, as it could add to the depreciation of the product you're buying.

    It's unfortunate, but the only way these companies can influence the current status quo is through their customers, and there doesn't seem to be any possible way for them to reward their customers without them immediately spinning it around and calling it a punishment.

    How would you like them to go about adding value, in a way that you wouldn't consider it to be actually removing it?

    I'd be interested to know what difference this actually makes to the resale value. Are people willing to wait until they can get a 2nd hand copy cheaper really going to find half a dozen side missions and an armour set to be a deal breaker?

  • addugg #94 4 months ago

    Second hand at launch is around £2 cheaper, so buying new, supporting devs and getting the DLC is fine imo.

    Want second hand prices? Wait a few months for it to drop in price.

    At least new buyers can get the DLC for free unlike certain Soul Caliburs that will remain nameless.

  • witchdrash #95 4 months ago

    @GAmbrose Guess that makes sense

  • el_pollo_diablo #96 4 months ago

    @darkmorgado read on son

  • Bigmac1910 #97 4 months ago

    @Wedge1985

    I wish I felt that way, but it doesn't, I think the this part of the business model is flawed.

  • ChuckRialto #98 4 months ago

    Game companies have been around for at least 30 years despite piracy, loaning a game to a mate and second-hand sales. All of a sudden, along comes the technology that allows them to remove two of those and we now get "second-hand sales are killing our businesses so we need this technology to stay alive".

    Just be honest and admit that you've found a way to monetise loans and second-hand sales to increase profits NOT to keep your business afloat!

    A game is reusable in exactly the same way as a book, a DVD or an audio CD all of which take a great deal of effort to produce. I can only assume that those who feel they can make a special exception for software will be happy enough when someone finds a way to extend this foolishness to other entertainment media.

  • Bigmac1910 #99 4 months ago

    @Wedge1985

    While true that fifa and cod have a massive following, you got start someplace. You can't expect to gain a following if it starts by alienating part of your costumer base.

  • uiruki #100 4 months ago

    @32768Colours That is a poor example: Torchlight is a PC game, and thus is impossible to buy second hand. The comparison is irrelevant - buyers of KOA:R on PC will all get the missions because they have to buy it new. From the perspective of players on that format, they just added some extra missions for all players, for free.

  • Whitster #101 4 months ago

    I have several points I'd like to make here:

    A) While I'm not opposed to online passes in general, the excuse used here that they don't want people buying the game from the bargain bin in several months holds no water as the code will still be in there. Maybe if you didn't want people picking it up cut price in several months you would have used some marketing sense and not shoved your brand new, untested RPG IP out when gamers are litrally being drowned in a sea of AAA RPG content. I mean between Skyrim, Dark Souls and Zelda before Xmas, and ME:3 on the horizon, JRPG fans have got FFxiii2 just out and Last Story on the way, the markets swamped. If they had held it back a few month they would have helped themselves. As it is most people I know are interested in this but have all said they're holding off for it to go down as they'll have plenty to play anyway.

    B) Having worked in computer game retail, and using some trade ins last year to compe with the deluge of games in the latter half of the year, I really cant comprehend where people get their trade in prices/second hand costs from. Most games trade in at around 28-30 within a few weeks of release. This means you lose about 5-10 depending on how well you shopped around in the first place. If that game goes back out at 35 the shop are making 7 mark up at most, not exactly the massive profit people seem to think.

    C) people complain that the "Agressive" second hand market has pushed publishers into this. However fail to realise that the publishers stock pricing pushed retailers into an Agressive second hand market. I started working at Gamestation when the company was still in its relative infancy, and althought the second hand was a big part of the business it wasn't pushed as highly as today. However how many of you realise that retailers only make around £5 profit on a new game. Usually the unit price of a £40 title will be about £28? Once you factor in shipping, promotion, storage and shop overheads, the profit is cut into. Then the publishers started cosying up to supermarkets like asda and tesco, leading to some ludicrous loss leading pricing at some points, forcing specialist retailers to cut prices accordingly cutting into profits even more. So, don't put all the blame on retailers, publishers helped to create the situation we are now in.

  • kangarootoo #102 4 months ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    "In 5 years time all the 'extras' are going to add up to half the game."

    Well if that is what it took to stay in business in the face of aggressive second hand sales from GAME et al, that would indeed suck, but who would we blame?

    I'm really not sure they are taking any moral high ground here. They are just saying "this is what we have to do". Clearly it upsets people, so its not something they would do just for fun.



    ""we all have to trade under difficult conditions, but that the way it is"."

    Well, quite so. And in all difficult trading environments, companies have to find new ways to reduce losses and make their business more stable. To knowingly do nothing and go out of business would be idiocy, so they are taking exactly the sort of approach we might expect in "challenging times" - finding a new way to secure their revenue. And let us please not forget, this makes very little difference to their actual customer, the first hand purchaser. They owe nothing to the second hand purchaser.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 30/01/12 @ 10:38

  • PlugMonkey #103 4 months ago

    @Laythe_AD
    What's more, the tactic has become a common EA practice, and no one whined on and on about the first Dragon Age doing the exact same thing with Shale.
    That's a good point. I entered my Shale code, then never actually got far enough into the game to meet him before selling it.

    If your biggest concern is the resale price, how about just not entering the code?

    (The answer here being: the codes actually have a time limit, making them specifically an early adopter bonus. If you get the game out of a bargain bin two years after release, you won't get a code either...)

    The main problem they have is they keep marketing this stuff really badly, focusing on the cost and the loss of value. Nobody rages about pre-order bonuses having no resale value.

    If they said as an early adopter you got a voucher redeemable for one piece of DLC as a bonus, nobody would moan, but instead they all start wringing their hands and whining about 2nd sale and the need to gouge money out of people buying second hand. It's all about 2nd hand buyers getting less instead of early adopters getting more, when in fact those two states are identical.

    Whoever wrote their marketing brief should be drawn and quartered.

  • kangarootoo #104 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    "Bullshit! These kind of passes destroy the industry."

    Well that was dramatic. Any insights to share into how exactly they are destroying the industry?

    The rest of your post was all about how your rights are apparently being infringed (nothing about this system stops you selling the game on), so I'm unclear as to how the industry will be "destroyed".

  • Wedge1985 #105 4 months ago

    @ChuckRialto I think the main problem lies in that games haven't increased in price at all in the last 10-15 years. New releases have always been around £40. But development costs have increased quite considerably so now they need to sell massive amounts more of a game to make a profit. At one time 100,000 new sales could have covered your costs so the second hand market didn't matter as much. Now you see studios going under because they ONLY sold 600,000 copies. Suddenly the second hand market is a much bigger issue.

    Also referring to your book/cd/dvd examples: a book is written by one person, edited by a couple of people etc etc - low costs and prices have been steadily rising.

    DVDs are only one aspect of the movie industry with a lot of revenue coming from cinemas which again have been rising ticket prices these last few years too.

    The games industry have a massive problem in that they really need to raise the price of new games to keep up with development costs but we wouldn't pay the increased prices. Catch 22.

  • kangarootoo #106 4 months ago

    @Wedge1985

    When I was knee high to a... grown up, some top flyte Atari 2600 games cost £40. Games have never been cheaper than they are today :)

  • optimusprym8 #107 4 months ago

    The sooner the retailers have their grip removed from the throats of publishers the better for everyone. Digital download prices are high at the moment because the publisher still has to keep retailers happy. If the publisher started undercutting high street prices, the retailers would start to refuse to stock your game. Considering most of retail is distributed and controlled by GEM and GAME group, them refusing to take your game, or a large quanity of boxes of your game, will seriously screw you as a publisher even more. It's retail that makes all the money from 2nd-hand games and so I whole heartedly support any online pass or anything that gives power back to the publisher and studios and takes it and money away from the retailers

  • Wedge1985 #108 4 months ago

    @Bigmac1910 it is a difficult one. You need to build up the fan base as you said but if you don't make enough money on the initial game you then don't have a series to have a fan base.

    Again plug_monkey's hit the nail on the head. Whoever came up with this marketing strategy is a moron. New buyers get added bonus stuff that will be available to purchase by everyone else at a later date sounds a lot better than second hand buyers locked out of content.

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #109 4 months ago

    I'm sorry but anyone that sees the online pass system as 'evil' clearly have missed the point - I can't see how offering free content (and not on disk, and normally pretty solid DLC) is a bad thing to get you to buy the game new..

    GAME/Gamestation offer a game pre-owned for normally TWO QUID less then new with 2-3 month old games (and normally have new copies on sale within 3 months anyway) and keep 100% of the takings, I highly dought anyone would buy pre-owned when the price difference is only a few pounds..

    With EA it's not exactly locking 'the best bits' from the game, heck thanks to the online pass system I got to play the original Alice again for free as Windows 7 doesn't like the PC version.

    As long as places like Game/Gamestation exist the online pass will continue on, if you don't like the system, don't talk with your wallets against the publishers, do it against the retailers instead, and fight to rid the market of pushing overpriced used games over ACTUALLY selling us the new games in the first place!
    Edited by Kremlik at 30/01/12 @ 10:54

  • GibboMayhem #110 4 months ago

    PC and Xbox versions preordered since I loved the demo. I always buy my games new.

  • aequis #111 4 months ago

    @midnight_walker I guess it would be preposterous to suppose that some people might be more interested in KoA than Skyrim?

  • aequis #112 4 months ago

    @UncleLou Try Amazon.de. I get great deals on games ... up to 75% off just by going second-hand, depending on how old, popular or replayable the game is.

  • Stoneboy #113 4 months ago

    @midnight_walker You can´t trade Skyrim in, because it´s binded with your steam account.

  • SteveHolt #114 4 months ago

    My 2 cents: if you have this new, unproven IP, and want to make an impact in a very competitive market, why not try and launch your game at a lower price?

    This game will be more expensive than Dark Souls and Skyrim are ATM, same price as huge 1st quarter RPG releases FF 13-2 and Mass Effect 3... EA is sending KOA to die (unless the game get 10/10 reviews all over the place) , just like they did with shadows of the damned and alice madness returns last year.

    I say just release it at 25£ / 30€, right in impulse-buy territory and see what happens. It would probably be best for them in the long run to sell 500.000 copies at 30€ in the 1st month, rather than 300.000 at 60€ (more potential customers for DLC, no reason to buy it second hand since it's cheap enough already, positive PR).

  • LittleRiver #115 4 months ago

    They should have followed the BF3 "Special Edition" model- release some "free" DLC a month later to early buyers. Few complained.

    I do get why publishers do these things; I don't like it but I get it.

  • PlugMonkey #116 4 months ago

    @Wedge1985

    Also, as has been pointed out earlier on the thread, you will never get to the checkout in Waterstones with a new copy of a book on meet a checkout assistant who has been carefully drilled to ask if you wouldn't prefer a 2nd hand copy for 5% less.

    Not only are DVDs the secondary revenue stream for movies after the cinema takings, but HMV also don't stock 2nd hand DVDs. Or CDs for that matter. Only games.

    Anyone who doesn't understand how second hand sales in video games are different from how they were 15 years ago, or how they are in other mediums, really hasn't thought about it very deeply.

    When you are talking about DVDs not having this problem, all you are doing is describing the state of affairs games were in 15 years ago, when they also weren't having this problem.

  • Monkey_Puncher #117 4 months ago

    I used to be excited for this game too, but then I took a season pass to the knee.

  • deded #118 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey Got to agree with a lot of your points in this thread. Online passes are really a PR disaster for gaming but in the battle between what is now effectively first-hand publishers (who provide development cash and marketing budgets) and second-hand publishers (2nd hand dealers who provide shrink wrap and stickers) the OP is simply an attempt to make a new copy of a digital product 'better' than an older copy. I don't see any other way of doing that except by adding bits to the new copy that arn't available on the older copy unless you pay a bit more for it.

    @gotyourmoney
    How often does the used market kill developers?
    Do we need figures? Games are judged on their sales in the first few months (if not the first fortnight), so if new sales are decreasing because everyone waits for 2nd hand copies (or lower prices after a month or two) then games are considered failures, sequels don't get made, developers go under. The evidence for that is surely all around us. What you get then is massive sequels with built-in buy-it-day-1 audiences (like COD, Skyrim, FIFA, etc) predominating while new IP and smaller games lose sales and are forced to use OP to compete, which turns gamers off them even more. Is this good for gaming?

    Re: the 'not buying it will alter publishers actions' argument: not to rag on Skyrim, but y'all should never have bought it after the buggy mess that was Oblivion, nor should you buy ESVI for this very reason. Nah, didn't think so...

    Re: Online passes. Anyone here that wouldn't have bought Skyrim with an online pass? Nah, didn't think so...

    ...and as for the Reckoning demo, I've played it several times and this 3-4 month old, unfinished demo runs a hell of a lot better than Skyrim does four months and three patches after launch.

    I'll be buying Kindoms of Amalur: Reckoning (a clumsy title, but seriously, any clumsier than The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim?) and I'll be buying it new. On PC as it happens, but the OP wouldn't put me off on console.

    Editted for clarity.
    Edited by deded at 30/01/12 @ 11:05

  • spekkeh #119 4 months ago

    I'm not too bothered with online passes mostly, but it does decrease the inherent value of your product. If said product also happens to look derivative as shit, I won't be buying it. It's an economic decision, so you'd better be sure as a publisher that you can pull it off, and that it works for one game franchise doesn't mean it will work out positively for another. Mass Effect Yay, Kingdoms of annoyingly hammy titles Nay.
    Edited by spekkeh at 30/01/12 @ 11:10

  • ShiroBen #120 4 months ago

    Jeez, okay, calm down, guy! I get that you're stressed and all but far out.

    Seriously though, the reward I want for buying a game is to actually, y'know, have the game. Not to have to download stuff, not to have to muck around with passes or whatever, I just want to be able to play the game I paid for without worrying about anything else.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #121 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:13:22 09-05-2012

  • bad09 #122 4 months ago

    I love how people call it "aggressive" 2nd hand, retailers do it to earn. What people seem to forget their is very little margin in new because publishers keep upping the RRP while retailers have to keep games at a realistic level for consumers.

    If retailers charged what these publishers want you wouldn't be up the industries arse so much, 2nd hand keeps your new prices down at a reasonable level folks your want to go back to 360 launch of £50 or £55? No thought not.

  • Sicho #123 4 months ago

    @lucky_jim PC-Version costs only 28£ on amazon with a pre-order bonus ... so what are you waiting for? ;)

  • PlugMonkey #124 4 months ago

    @deded

    (a clumsy title, but seriously, any clumsier than The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim?)

    (Yes. A lot clumsier.

    Honestly, I think the biggest problem this game faces is that even after having played and liked the demo, neither me nor my girlfriend can ever remember what the damn thing is called. My brain is certain it should be "Awakening", and "Amalur" just isn't sticking either.

    In our house it's known locally as "Kingdom of Something: Something".)

  • kangarootoo #125 4 months ago

    @SteveHolt

    "I say just release it at 25£ / 30€, right in impulse-buy territory and see what happens"

    But what if "what happens" is that you fail to break even and go out of business? Devs can't just rashly lower the price as an experiement. And also, if your figures were the more likely outcome, why wouldn't they already know this, and why wouldn't they be going with your plan?

  • ZuluHero #126 4 months ago

    If you like DLC and "online passes" that's fine. If you don't like it, well that's fine too. The only thing I don't like is when people start to get personal and attack those in the other camp.

    The weird thing is that I see lots of mudslinging at the developers, lots at the publishers and lots of mudslinging at each other, but hardly any levelled at the game shops and supermarkets (and any other pre-owned sellers) that are the instigators of all this.

    People say "vote with your wallets!". Yes, by all means, vote with your wallets - but don't take that to mean "boycott the game". Instead, support the industry by buying the game from a shop or online retailer that doesn't sell 2nd hand games or support the pre-owned market (even if they do sell the game 1st hand), or even buy it from a Digital Distribution site.

    That is more likely to get shops to rethink their strategy, shows the developer and the publisher that we care about their products and shows that we are a united front. And without us chastising the very thing we care about.

    Because to be honest, I'd hate to see another good dev shut up shop because I don't think that's a nice looking path for any of us.
    Edited by ZuluHero at 30/01/12 @ 11:12

  • deded #127 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey Reckoning? Amalur? Kingdom? Just pick one fella.

    Skyrim (that bit is good I'll give you) could get away with it because everyone knows it's Elder Scrolls while Amalur feels the need to say 'hey, we're new and we have 10,000 years of lore!'. I don't know why, but some people seem to think lore is like, really important or something... they do have an up and coming MMO in the same universe though, so of course I can see why they want to link KOA: Reckoning to KOA: MMO...

    Partly I think it's the newness of the name as well - Wii sounded pretty dumb when we first heard it too right? Now nobody blinks.

    Frankly it could be called Kingdom of Poo: Constipation and I'd still want to play it though - not sure a title matters all that much TBH.
    Edited by deded at 30/01/12 @ 11:12

  • NotSoSlim #128 4 months ago

    Seriously can see a activation code scenario next gen for every game like pc. Think about how used pc games market is basically dead now.

    Wondering whether Valve wanf Steam in console space and may offer a service to either Sony or MS.

  • PlugMonkey #129 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    See? Look how pissed off you are! How on earth have they managed to take "a voucher redeemable for one free piece of DLC", and turned it into this sort of consumer backlash? They've somehow managed to make a free giveaway sound like a bad deal!

    Drawn and quartered, I tell you. Drawn and quartered.

    The Witcher, to be fair, hasn't had to deal with this problem yet. I'll be interested to see how CD Projekt handles it. I wasn't too impressed with how they planned to go about tackling piracy.

  • freethinker101 #130 4 months ago

    Look at it this way, buy it brand new get 7 missions. Buy it 2nd hand don't play the seven missions out of hundreds. Or buy it from someone like me who won't use the online pass and then sell it. This is basically preying on the completionist in us all, and making us feel like we are missing somthing.

  • DisneyJon #131 4 months ago

    ea needs online passes because they make short games with lacklustre multiplayer barring fifa. Good value games don't need passes.

    High quality good value games > online passes.

    KOA will be 20 quid by march and 15 preowned. It won't get another release because it won't sell well past the first week.

    Developers and publishers are getting way too arrogant so I'm happy when they fail : D They treat their customers like shit. Look at WB when they screwed up the Batman codes.....

  • kangarootoo #132 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    "It is destroying the industry because they are losing customers."

    Well that isn't remotely true. The games industry as a whole is increasing every year, and that won't change just because you've started to "lose faith".

    The issue however is that the landscape has changed, with huge jugganaut franchises dominating one end and penny-costing freemium titles at the other, and the middle ground being squeezed by a second hand market the like of which we've never seen before.


    Your whole thing seems to be based on "fair" and "rights" and this perception that you are being mistreated in some way. I mean, "money grabbing twats"? Really? You just seem unable to accept that you can't have it all on your terms, because those terms won't allow a number of businesses to function. They aren't doing it to annoy you, and they really aren't all getting super rich. They are doing it because its necessary. Once upon a time it wasn't necessary, so they didn't DO IT.

  • PlugMonkey #133 4 months ago

    @NotSoSlim

    Did you see the Alienware console box that was in the news on here a few weeks ago?

    Steam don't need to offer the service to Sony or MS to get into the console space. They just need someone to make a decent spec box that doesn't have an Alienware logo adding 25% onto the price.

  • Cappy #134 4 months ago

    That makes it an even easier choice to ignore yet another release.

    I want a complete product. I want all the relevant data on the disc, the DLC component won't be online forever, it costs money. I don't want a mess of files thrown all over my hard disc, using my space unnecessarily for day one DLC schemes.

    Sadly it seems like this is prevailing direction of the industry, simply putting in a disc or cartridge and playing with no fuss, the traditional golden standard seems to be dying. Now we have odds and ends to download and install, endless updates to fix bugs intentionally let through, i.e. a certain publisher that had to release a certain game on 01.11.11 for instance.

    I'll just keep my money, if developers making such products go out of business, so be it.

  • blarty #135 4 months ago

    @Xboxfanuk 'Unless your idea of supporting the games industry is giving your money to shareholders of GAME and HMV you should really buy new.'

    This is perhaps one of the greatest comments I've seen on the Second-Hand game market shenanigans.

    And although we might dislike the publishers for doing this, at least in the main they're upfront about it.... how much mark up do you think some of these shops make on trade-ins?

    The one thing that I do disagree about online passes is that they don't depreciate in the same way that retails games (not pre-owned do) i.e. if a platinum game comes out at 20 quid the online pass (if you have more than one console in the house) is still 8 quid or whatever.

  • optimusprym8 #136 4 months ago

    It's the retailer / distributor who determine the RRP in some regards - when you buy a game cheap in a retail high street store, the store is still making their margin, the publisher has had to agree to a drop

  • jonbwfc #137 4 months ago

    We MUST make a profit to become what we want to become.
    I assume everyone else was also thinking 'what, hugely rich?'

    I actually don't mind so much if companies want to operate in a commercial way - it's up to them to generate as much income from the product they make as they think the market will bear after all. However, I can entirely do without the fairly transparent attempt to dress it up as some sort of 'we must do this or we die' thing. I'm fairly sure KoA will make a healthy profit, and I'm pretty sure it would have done without all this 'in built DLC' shenanigens. This is just an exercise is squeezing the market for that extra bit of cash.

    What will kill you long term is treating your customers like they are fools. we aren't. So stop it.

  • Bigmac1910 #138 4 months ago

    While I've seen some good and bad arguments for and against online pass, at the end of the day, I chose not to support it even though I buy 99% of my games new. So as I wrote in another thread, my 3DS just seem to get all the new upcoming releases instead as they don't have this inconvenience.

  • blarty #139 4 months ago

    @BigDannyH Although closer , I wouldn't make too much of a correlation between games and the film/tv industry - box office receipts and syndication deals are in general much higher earners than the later DVD sales

  • Seoh #140 4 months ago

    I don't understand the problem here, why shouldn't people who pay more for the game new receive a little something extra over those you purchase second hand? I prefer the option of delivering future content free to those that pay rather than withholding content from day one.

    This was done best with "The Witcher" and "Galactic Civ II" where legitimate copies received loads of extra content and all the developers support. That is the way to reduce piracy and second hand sales.

    On a side note really looking forward to this game, all the previews are really positive and point out how unrepresentative the demos bugs are.

  • drhickman1983 #141 4 months ago

    I honestly have no problem with this. I'll admit buy second hand games once they've reached the 10-12 quid price range, because I don't have a huge expendable income. But I can fully understand why developers need to get sales, and if these methods help them stay afloat then I'm not going to begrudge them.

    I'd never buy a second hand game whilst the new game was only £5 cheaper. If I could afford to spend £30ish then that little extra wont be a problem. But once the second hand games become notably cheaper, as much as I'd like to support the industry it would be uneconomical for me to not take up the offer. And if they are noticably cheaper I'd have no problem spending that relativly small ammount more to unlock features, assuming the game was good.

    I noticed above people mentioned how games have always been the same price, and they really have. Megadrive games would retail for £40. Virtua Racing, because of it's special chip, retailed for £70! Allowing for inflation, games were comparatively more expensive 15-20 years ago than now, and had smaller budgets spent on developing. Though the cost of producing cartridges would offest that slightly.

  • DodgyPast #142 4 months ago

    All this games don't age stuff is pure bull shit.

    Try selling a 7 year old car vs. a 7 year old game. The car probably retains it's value better.

    They're doing it because they can and car manufacturers can't.

    Anyway for me it's just become another game I won't buy. Ubisoft and EA are saving me a lot of money these days.

  • berelain #143 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    you make a good point, and I should have been clearer in my original post; I meant trading in games to offset the price of a new game, not remove it completely, and of course I do buy plenty of games at full whack as new products. But If I can trade in stuff, I'll take a risk on another game that I might not have bought originally. I might then invest in DLC or other content for that game, all of which is a better deal for the publisher. But I see what you mean with the EA / Acti new game analogy.

    Incidentally, I'm not against online passes or day-1 DLC, so long as its not an important part of the game that's being gated out.

  • blarty #144 4 months ago

    In reality, if you want to trade-in a game, sell it on Ebay for a fair price, when taking into account the cost of an online-pass, etc. - you'll probably get as much if not more money for it, and the buyer will get a fairer price for it.
    The issue with the second-hand market is the greedy middle man.

    As someone else has pointed out, there is little to no money going back into the games industry with the second-hand market, retailers, such as Game, will start to emphasise a buying pattern that will enforce, not diverge from, a strategy that maximises profits from second hand sales.

    Go into Game or HMV, how much emphasis is put on the must-have title (that in the event of someone trading those titles in, they can get a huge re-sale value for) instead of the other less well-known titles, that you would hope dedicated games shops should be showcasing - there's starting to be little difference between the full-price titles on the shelf at Tesco and the titles at Game. Also look at how much they've increased their prices of Collector's editions etc in the last 12 months.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #145 4 months ago

    If a steering wheel was only included with a car purchase on day 1 to REWARD Toyota for making it, people would have every right to laugh, point and jeer.

    Breakdown cover, road tax, insurance, plush toys... Many things are included with the purchase of new cars that are not intended or able to be passed on to people who buy them second hand.

    And of course, the motor industry has the notion of 'approved used' cars, that pass back through the hands of the manufacturer or their chosen partners.

  • robthehermit #146 4 months ago

    I don't have a problem with online passes etc. I buy all my games new, most often I'll wait until they're £15 or less, but I always buy new. I have preordered this though.

  • Lunatic4ever #147 4 months ago

    So I should get the game because Studio 38 wants to exist? Seriously?

    I won't buy the game but it's not because of the online pass it's because of the demo. It was bland and generic and didn't feel right. You can make money with a good game without day one dlc too. If your game is really really good and you didn't come off as an ignorant developer with an asshole attitude than it will work out.

    Now where is that bargain bin again?

  • arcam #148 4 months ago

    New releases have always been around £40.

    Games have never been cheaper than they are today

    This always gets said and upvoted, but it isn't true. Games for the last generation of consoles were £30, for this generation they are £40-45. That's a price raise of 35%-45%.

  • PlugMonkey #149 4 months ago

    @berelain

    I think you're still missing the point. It's the profit Game make down the line where the money gets removed completely, because they never use that to buy new games with.

    And while you trading in games lets you buy more, that doesn't add anything in the long term, as the guy buying your old games if buying less.

    It means you can buy more new games, but doesn't mean more new games are being bought over all, if you see what I mean.

  • blarty #150 4 months ago

    @DodgyPast But you wouldn't wait 7 years to buy a game.... but there's plenty that would wait 6 months and have it filling the pre-owned shelves. Life-spans for products are different

  • PlugMonkey #151 4 months ago

    @arcam

    My old MegaDrive and Master System games were all £40 new. Some were £45.

    Historically, we've been dealing with a £40 rrp for a long, long, long time.

    The last gen £30 prices were largely down to the channel island tax loophole, not a lowered rrp.

  • kangarootoo #152 4 months ago

    @DodgyPast

    "All this games don't age stuff is pure bull shit.

    Try selling a 7 year old car vs. a 7 year old game. The car probably retains it's value better."

    Spectacular!

    o-O

  • arcam #153 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    No they weren't, it was a significantly lowered RRP (£39.99 compared to £49.99 today), and that was the standard price offered by stores, including the high street which doesn't benefit from any tax loopholes.

    There was also a very strong "classics" or "platinum" market, which meant everyone knew popular games would go down to £19.99 if you were prepared to wait. That's another important part of budget gaming that has all but disappeared.
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 12:00

  • kangarootoo #154 4 months ago

    @arcam

    Ok, so my generous use of the word "never" is not strictly true. All markets eb and flow, and we'll see a drop in RRPs again as we move toward digital delivery. My general point still stands though.

    That said, you can always find new titles for £40 or below.

  • Daeltaja #155 4 months ago

    I have no problem with this at all, he has a very valid point. However, if the game is good enough, it's simply not needed. Just look at Skyrim for an example.

    Being a new IP and all, this is acceptable. They have to find a way from people picking it up second hand, if the company wants a future.

  • Dizzy #156 4 months ago

    Strangly Skyrim doesn't seem to need this. I wonder why?

    Also downvoting people that are against online passes? What is this? Corporate bots released?

  • witchdrash #157 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo I would disagree in % I would say the game would fare better go into a cash converter or cex and check out the mega drive games, they tend to go from £2 to £15, sometimes higher if they're rarer

  • DjchunKfunK #158 4 months ago

    I don't know what everyone's major problem is. Batman: Arkham City did the same thing by locking you out of the Catwoman stuff if you didn't buy the game new. I don't remember many people making a huge fuss over that.

  • Machetazo #159 4 months ago

    @DwarfyP "The 2nd hand market is damaging to sales so the developers have had to use this system to get a cut of the 2nd hand sales. "

    Publishers. It's the pubs and their friends in suits that arrived at this. Because they'd sooner not accept the alternative: negotiations between themselves and retail.
    The feeling out process didn't go so well, I would assume that was what lead to the situation for some games like Blur, and Singularity.

    Did consumers set the pricing: No. The problem is that enough money is not getting to where it should be, but they refuse to talk it out.
    The pricing model, and this applies to both buy-in and often sell pricing, tieing in to the amount used on making the games, is appearing unsustainable.

  • arcam #160 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    The point is the games industry brought in the mass market with great games at accessible prices. Then raise the price by 35%, and act shocked when that same mass market turns to second hand buying/selling to offset the price rise.

    Publishers now want to keep hold of that mass market they have gained but they are not prepared to offer mass market pricing. The rise of second hand is a natural response to that conundrum.

  • witchdrash #161 4 months ago

    @DjchunKfunK It was overshadowed by the genuinely ridiculous number of pre-order bonuses where you simply couldn't get everything by buying new as parts of the game were locked to individual retailers. This issue, compared to that is minor.

  • ZuluHero #162 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 12:14:28 30-01-2012

  • kangarootoo #163 4 months ago

    @Dizzy

    "Strangly Skyrim doesn't seem to need this. I wonder why?"

    A $50m marketing campaign?

    Edit: a title with 100+ hours of gameplay in it, that new purchasers hang onto to for months before trading in?
    Edited by kangarootoo at 30/01/12 @ 12:21

  • -cerberus- #164 4 months ago

    Bullshit much? This went from a must buy to a no buy in a jiffy when I heard about the pass.

  • kangarootoo #165 4 months ago

    @arcam

    Second hand is rarely about the cost of new. If new RRP falls, so will the cost of second hand. This has always been the case.

    The rise of second hand ISN'T a result of pricing, its a result of a marked change in policy by high street retailers. And those high street retailers are focussing on SH as a new revenue stream, because sales of new games (like many products) are increasingly made online.

    That is what is happening here. Its really got nothing to do with RRP. GAME haven't focussed on SH because of some new and untapped cry for help from gamers - they have done it because running a bricks and mortar shop in this day and age is A Bad Idea™.

  • TeaFiend #166 4 months ago

    @arcam There is still a lot platinum range games at cheaper price, sadly a lot of shops do not sell them as they can just sell a preowned one instead.

    Whilst older games might have been similar prices, inflation would make them comparatively more expensive today. £40 a decade or two ago is not the same £40 now.

  • deded #167 4 months ago

    @gotyourmoney Wow, way to mis-interpret my comments.

    There don't seem to be any figures regarding first/second-hand sales (or God knows, you'd have found them right?), so we have to go off other information that isn't quite as simple to interpret if we want to ascertain what's going on. Your argument seems to be that you can have a non-fact based discussion (bar one quote that says one game is doing very well indeed; didn't know that, ta), but that I can't. Riiiiiight.

    I am intrigued by what Schilling (who is I would imagine hardly short of a bob or two BTW), was referring to in the OP though - "The data coming in on used game sales is not saying the things many thought it should, or would." Meaning what exactly?

    He seems to have figures - maybe you should go and ask him for them?

  • arcam #168 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo

    Sorry, but I disagree. I think the rise of second hand is directly linked to pricing.

    Second hand existed before the big RRP rise. After the rise, retailers saw a big increase in people wanting to sell their games to help fund the purchase of new games.

    If retailers were buying lots of second hand games, they obviously need to sell lots of second-hand games too.

  • xavier_dragoon #169 4 months ago

    @Nico4 I'm fine with online passes in any context: bottom line is these people need to get paid: you don't pay the full price, you don't get the full content!

  • miiiguel #170 4 months ago

    Bullshit much? This went from a must buy to a no buy in a jiffy when I heard about the pass.

    You probably wanted to buy 2nd hand, otherwise you wouldn't be outraged, so they probaly don't care.
    Edited by miiiguel at 30/01/12 @ 12:30

  • Inmediasress #171 4 months ago

    @arcam
    I fully agree with you.

    That's what I always say when devs/publishers basically beg me to give them money so they can make games because the have it soooo rough.
    I mean whose fault is it in the first place that game making costs so much and who was the one in the first place that made gaming mass market????

    Ah yes the suits who only think about throwing ridiculous amounts of money at something and wanting short term returns of even more ridiculous amounts of money.
    Heaven forbid if something can't sustain that exponential growth we have things like this article and a down the toilet heading industry.
    This basically sums up not just the game business but the whole problems the capitalistic world economy is facing, and will not survive if it doesn't adapt.
    Meaning that people in power should use their brain for more than just counting their money.

    Many people think that their leader figures and big company bosses are highly intelligent and know what they are doing but I think such granted preceptions can be decieving.
    Many of them may be intelligent I don't doubt that but they certainly lack any kind of ability to think outside of the box.
    Most of them just sit on top of their ivory towers.

  • 32768Colours #172 4 months ago

    @lucky_jim

    From the demo of KoA I thought the two played very similarly. I also thought the levelling system and the art style were quite similar.

    KoA really didn't give off much of an epic feeling to me, and felt much more like it'll be a looting game, not that I'm saying looting games should be budget price.

    I suppose what I was driving at was that they should price their game more realistically to start with rather than trying to attract people at £40+ with something that most people do not find attractive - online passes / day one dlc.

  • Sak666 #173 4 months ago

    I though of buying Mass Effect 2 from PSN store but it costs 60€... for digital copy. Then they bitch bout used games sales...

  • busboy33 #174 4 months ago

    @Okamiwolf:

    "You buy [Skyrim] and you get a full, huge, game."

    . . . and if you by this game you get a full, huge game. This is extra content, above and beyond the full, huge game. When Skyrim releases DLC are you going to accuse them of shorting you? If this DLC was released 3 months after KoH hit retail would your opinion change?

    According to the developers, this isn't content locked out on the disc. Its additional content. How is free additional content unfair?

  • -cerberus- #175 4 months ago

    @miiiguel: No. Extortion passes are anti-gamer bullcrap and whether they come free with the game or not, I simply don't support them. Especially when they cut out single player content.

  • arcam #176 4 months ago

    @TeaFiend Inflation makes some difference, but not all.

    While game prices went up 35%, average salary went up 10%.

    Do you think the publishers have taken that 35% extra revenue and are now paying their developers 35% more than they did in 2005? No, they are getting 10% extra, if they are lucky. Meanwhile average CEO pay has increased 30% in the last year alone.

    This whole thing about the money being used to save developers is a smoke screen. If you follow the money it is quite clear who is benefiting from the increased cost of gaming - and it is not the developer, it's not the retailer, and it's not the gamer.
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 12:41

  • PlugMonkey #177 4 months ago

    @arcam

    And second hand existed before your "big RRP drop" too.

    The difference is (and this really, really is the one consistent difference between where games are, where they were and where everything else still is) that second hand didn't exist in the high street retailers that were also the main channel for first hand sales.

    If it's down to games being £40, then why didn't it happen 20 years ago? Games were £40 then too, and £40 was a hell of a lot more money in 1992 than it is today.

    One thing and one thing alone is different between 1992 and now, and also coincidentally different between games now and DVDs, books and CDs now.

    If it was the crippling price of video games today, video games would never have made it out of the 90s.

  • bikmate #178 4 months ago

    There was a slim chance that I'd pick this up at bargain bin price, but the guy's attitude just made me decide to never get it. I don't even want the game for free now.

  • arcam #179 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    If it's down to games being £40, then why didn't it happen 20 years ago?

    Because back then games sold to a small but highly dedicated audience who were prepared to pay extremely high sums of money for their hobby. Now they are selling to huge numbers of people , many of which aren't really that bothered. That was the main point of my whole post, I'm surprised you missed it.
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 12:46

  • Azilis #180 4 months ago

    Guys, his reasoning does make a certain amount of sense. All this does is encourage people to buy the game new, which I have no problem with.

    This is their first game, so they don't have the fanbase of a Bethesda or a Bioware (who far more cynically puts out day 1 DLC already knowing that the game will be profitable). At least in this case, if you buy the game new, you get the online pass automatically.

    I guess this was never something that would have bothered me, though. I very rarely buy used games and I never sell them secondhand.

  • busboy33 #181 4 months ago

    For all the car analogies, try looking at it this way:

    You can buy a car new or used. If you buy it new, the dealer will throw in a Bose stereo system. If you buy it used, and you want the stereo, then you have to pay additionally for it. Either way, you get the car.

    Still offended?

  • arcam #182 4 months ago

    @busboy33

    Do I have to give that Bose stereo back to the manufacturer to sell for a second time when I want to sell the car on? No. Please lets stop talking about other situations and just talk about second hand games.

  • MrChuckles #183 4 months ago

    You know the old 'i don't get things left out when buying a new car' arguements are beginning to actually be wrong. Have you seen the Citroen adverts where you get a year's free fuel? That's a car based Online Pass right there...

  • scorpius45 #184 4 months ago

    Next gen I would like to see online passes changed, instead of locking out content from second hand games have the ability to earn trophies and achievements locked out.

  • PlugMonkey #185 4 months ago

    @arcam

    Yeah, I got that actually. What I'm confused about is how on earth we ever got to the point where games managed to be mass market. Was that entirely down to some of them being dropped to £30 for half a generation?

    If so, I would imagine that explains why games like Modern Warfare, which have the highest RRPs and also never appear as cut price £20 Platinum games, struggle to find a mass market?

    £40 in this day and age represents pretty good value for money compared to almost anything else you could spend it on - which is why games are so massively popular, I reckon.

    Not because Game came to the rescue of the masses by offering them 2nd hand for £37, and therefore hitting the magic mass market price point.

    My point (in case you missed it) is that your argument is full of holes, where as my argument isn't, making me still have more confidence in my argument than yours.

    Games haven't gone up at all since 1992, have only gone up at an inflationary rate since the last generation, and yet that's your reasoning for a massive shift in consumer behaviour. Not the massive shift in retailer behaviour that has coincidentally coincided with it and the same retailers beginning to struggle against internet trading.

    I remain unconvinced.

  • RevanNL #186 4 months ago

    Doesn't change my view: the Online pass is a 'solution' to a problem that the industry created themselves, it is wrong to punish second hand buyers. Buying a game second hand isn't something new, and the industry didn't do anything when companies like Gamestop were starting to report massive profits due to second hand sales. But that's when the trees still grew well into the sky.

    Now, there's a recession and people are more reluctant to buy a game full price and suddenly the Online Passes showed up. Because according to the industry, their dropping profits (and therefore lower stockvalue) is the fault of the consumer.

  • arcam #187 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey coincidentally coincided with it.

    Of course I am not saying it's a coincidence that retailer behaviour has changed at the same time as consumer behaviour. Again, all my posts are trying to show the link between the two, so I can only assume you are not understanding my argument.

    The main difference is that you are saying that retailer behaviour led to the changing of consumer behaviour, whereas I am saying the consumer behaviour (i.e demand) has led to the change in retailer behaviour.

    Retailers are merely meeting the consumer demand to buy and sell games. Retailers can't just create a huge second hand market out of thin air. It has to be led by the desires of their customers, and it is my opinion that that demand has grown stronger with the increased cost of gaming in real terms.

  • deded #188 4 months ago

    @gotyourmoney Take a look around your screen - look! A website full of information!
    deded's status as Bizarro World inhabitant confirmed.
    So that's an argument then? Bizarro World is quite pleasant right now, thanks for asking. The sentence may have read better like this:
    Your argument seems to be that you can have a non-fact based discussion (bar one quote that says one game is doing very well indeed; didn't know that, ta), but that I can't.
    ...but then I get the feeling that wouldn't have made much difference to your reply. Personally I'd rather talk about the topic on hand than exchange shots with you, (not sure why you want to really) but Bizarro World calls...

  • busboy33 #189 4 months ago

    @newf most/all DLC is pre-planned. Are you saying unless the developer doesn't begin to think about DLC (which may take a substantial amount of time and effort to create) until after the game goes gold, its shorting consumers? That's a very silly approach.

  • stryker1121 #190 4 months ago

    @witchdrash I do..and I trade in old games for new games.

  • Saxo #191 4 months ago

    Cant see what the fuss is about, if you dont want to pay full price (buy used) you cant expect too get a full product. If i buy a used car i also know i might not be as good as a new car. but it is cheaper. you cant get both. As a primarily pc gamer this is how its allways have been with cd keys and now steam.

  • Whitster #192 4 months ago

    @NotSoSlim seriously digital distribution won't happen on consoles as the only means of purchase for at least 10/15 years due to infrastructure.

    I know several people who live in greater London but are limited to internet speeds of 5mb or less because of what's actually connected to their house, myself included.

    I recently brought the first Witcher in a steam sale and it took me over 15 hours to download it, if thats the way consoles go, I'm out of the game.

  • Uncompetative #193 4 months ago

    Does he really speak IN ALL CAPS like that?

  • busboy33 #194 4 months ago

    @arcam Fair enough, you don't have to trade the stereo in. But we're not talking about second hand games . . . we're talking about 1st hand games. The issue is 38 Studios offering an incentive to 1st hand buyers to encourage more of them, and the apparent frothy outrage some people are feeling about it, and why.

  • Bander #195 4 months ago

    "THE ONLY way we do that is to make games you CANNOT WAIT TO BUY!"

    So making games we DO NOT WANT TO SELL is considered impossible?

    Personally, I'm finding boycotting games with online passes surprisingly easy.

  • Eathanskies #196 4 months ago

    I support online passes 100%. Devs don't see a dime from used game sales, how can people be mad at the devs if those same people aren't even supporting them?

  • Feanor #197 4 months ago

    @arcam People who don't have their console connected to the internet can't complain about an online pass for multiplayer, but an online pass that locks out single player content is different. Especially if that content was hacked out of the game like Catwoman in Arkham City.

  • Rens11 #198 4 months ago

    What about people not connected to the internet do they miss out on content because they can't redeem the code?

  • NotSoSlim #199 4 months ago

    @Whitster Agree but it wouldnt shock me if they go down the code activation route like every pc game now bar a few.

    Activate it once then its worthless used but user can redownload the game whenever they want and devs get the money.

    They all hated used sales

  • jstar #200 4 months ago

    I don't understand this whole used games market debate. How can the automobile industry and the housing market and all the other industries that have new and used sectors work this out? Why is it such an issue with games? Please someone explain it to me.

  • ZuluHero #201 4 months ago

    @Rens11

    I know, i was in the same situation when STEAM first launched with HL2 and was outraged that i needed to connect in order to play a game that i owned*.

    Back then it was more of a wide spread issue, but nowadays I think people like you are now sadly in the minority.

    I know it sucks, but at least you get access to the full game sans 7 quests, right? And it's still a huge game at that. Much better than having a game that is for all intents and purposes a shiny coaster until you connect online.

    And while we're on the subject of 7 quests, I'd be interested in seeing how many people left more than 7 quests when playing Skyrim**, seeing as that seems to be the most oft-touted comparison for not 'shafting' the consumer.



    *it is a bit odd that people seem to be more outraged now by this than that though.

    **I know i missed more than 7.
    Edited by ZuluHero at 30/01/12 @ 14:37

  • -cerberus- #202 4 months ago

  • Bawlsz #203 4 months ago

    I was interested in this game, however I do not like online passes, but I'll probably buy it new when it's under £20, most new IPs go cheap quite quickly.

  • Rens11 #204 4 months ago

    @zuluhero

    I have the internet but there's still plenty of people this day and age who don't should they have a worse expierence because of this? I personally think its unfair

  • butler` #205 4 months ago

    lol

    some suits really do need a their PR mouth pieces.

    i wonder if his was sick that day.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #206 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 16:59:10 06-02-2012

  • KanePaws #207 4 months ago

    "...BUY! If we do that, and you do that, we want to reward you with some cool free stuff as a thank you."

    So all I have to do is pay your full price to get free stuff!?

    I remember when quests in RPGs didn't count as premium-price "free stuff," but were known as "content."

  • UncleLou #208 4 months ago

    @jstar I don't understand this whole used games market debate. How can the automobile industry and the housing market and all the other industries that have new and used sectors work this out? Why is it such an issue with games? Please someone explain it to me.

    There's already several good explanations in the thread.

    As for other, similar industries: they've already (partly) solved it by going the DRM/download route. You can't sell Steam games, or albums you've bought on iTunes. Or books you've bought for your Kindle. Yes, they're all "download only", so there's no physical object to sell in the first place, but the physical value of a game disc and packing is basically zero, anyhow. It's the content that makes it valuable, not the physical object as such.

  • MrChuckles #209 4 months ago

    Why games are different to everything else you buy:

    Houses: When i buy a house new i know no one has lived in, i know that it isn't going to fall down (And i can get my money back if it does). The company who made the house makes a profit from building my house, by me buying it. Their profit is complete. If i buy a second hand house, it is a big risk, hence thousands of pounds on surveyors and solictors when you buy one. Houses last a lifetime.

    Cars: Pretty much the same as houses. A new car compared to a 2nd hand one is a much cooler thing, also when cars go wrong, they can kill you, new is a lot safer. The company needs to sell thousands of cars to make a profit overall. Cars last a good 3 years for the person who buys them and potentially over 20 in their life.

    Games vs Houses & Cars: A new vs a 2nd hand game has no difference apart from a pube or two. The company selling my game needs to sell X million copies of the game for each game and gets nothing from it selling on. Games are played and finished in a couple of days and then traded in. For the owner, they go from being worth £35 to being something taking up space on a shelf.

    Music: When i buy music i will listen to it multiple times. If i like the album, it is likely i will like the album for many years and will continue to get enjoyment out of it, therefore i don't want to trade it in. I'm also not allowed to trade it in to the same shop where i bought it from.

    Games vs Music: I will usually play most games once through, then don't want to play them again. Games get very dated very quickly. A game a few months old is already not very desired, so 90% of sales are in the first month. 2nd hand purchases in the first month hurt the most, 2nd hand purchases 2 years later hurt no one.

    Books: A new book looks and feels nicer than a 2nd hand one. A good book can be read multiple times, digital versions cannot be traded. A classic book will always be a good book, even in 100 years.

    Games vs Books: Again, games age extremely fast, and are only played once.

    Movies: Movies that have been bought (Why do people buy them???) are watched a few times, great movies don't age too badly, people watch them and then probably don't for a few months.

    Games vs Movies: Now, these are pretty similar... You know the ONE big difference between Games & Movies??? You can't trade movies in for 50% of their price in HMV, Tesco, GAME or anywhere else on the high street. If you could, the film industry would be doing exactly the same thing that the games industry is trying to do.


    So, in short, the only fair comparison is with Films and how many of you out there buy all your films and trade them back or only buy second hand? I'm betting there are almost none of you, why not?

    Of course, the answer to my last question is because it's much easier just to download them than actually pay.
    Edited by MrChuckles at 30/01/12 @ 15:36

  • ZuluHero #210 4 months ago

    @Rens11

    I don't disagree with you. And it's very admirable of you to think of those worse off, especially if you decide to boycott the game on their behalf.

    Though ironically those few people will blissfully unaware of all this going on :)

  • Wedge1985 #211 4 months ago

    @jstar Because a house initially sells for more than it cost to build. Same with cars and most physical objects.

    For media they have to calculate how many will sell and then budget accordingly. If they budget for a million sales and then only sell 500,000 new copies they are massively out of pocket. This is the same for cds, films etc but for these other industries they aren't reliant on only one source of income. Music - cds, mp3s, gigs, festivals etc. Films - cinema, dvds, corporate sponsorship etc.

  • FortysixterUK #212 4 months ago

    I find myself agreeing with most of what he is saying ( the game co-dev Kurt Schilling). He is starting a new company and needs this game to be both a critical and financial success otherwise the company folds and its employees lose their jobs.

    I was always going to buy this on day 1 so the pass code issue is simply a non issue.

    If you buy a second hand game surely you can't expect to get the DLC included in the game you have probably paid a third of the original retail price for ?

  • Whitewalker #213 4 months ago

    Demo on PS3 was very buggy, game play was so so & the camera did not work as it should have, often leaving it where I could not see my target, maybe I missed something there? The game world totally lacked immersion, especially the outdoors environment even though the story was trying hard, but everything else just seemed to pull it down. Finally to have an on-line pass for an off-line game is really frustrating to say the least.

    So my wallet votes 'No buy'!

  • lolercopter #214 4 months ago

    Poor choice of words. They shouldn't have called it "online pass", especially since it's a single player RPG. Now deal with the consequences.

  • icematt12 #215 4 months ago

    Digital console games £30 on release? Humans might have colonised Mars or the Moon by the time that happens.

    I understand the guy's point but still think greed pokes it's ugly head somewhere.

  • ZuluHero #216 4 months ago

    @Whitewalker So after that list of irksome annoyances an online pass is the straw that broke the camel's back? Please.

  • NiolK #217 4 months ago

    I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Seems like a perfectly reasonable way for them to make some money on second hand sales. It's not like they're forcing you to buy the DLC, its just there if you want it and if you're an "early adopter" of sorts you get it on the house.

    Another commenter compared it to buying a car without a steering wheel which is just idiotic. They're not making you pay extra for an integral part of the game, it's an optional extra. Be grateful that they're giving it free to anyone and not just releasing it as paid for DLC in a few months.
    Edited by NiolK at 30/01/12 @ 15:51

  • Gastrian #218 4 months ago

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

  • Machetazo #219 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo Games have never had as large a potential pool of customers to sell to, either.

  • Machetazo #220 4 months ago

    @kangarootoo EA/2K...2K was all over EA's heels, and the reason, quality was surely a factor, but also the price was compelling.

  • Gastrian #221 4 months ago

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

  • PlugMonkey #222 4 months ago

    @arcam

    No I am understanding your argument, it's just that the logic flow isn't consistent.

    A recap:

    You have said that this happened:
    1. Publishers hiked their RRPs to £40.
    2. The gaming public therefore stopped buying games because the price was too high.
    3. Retailers responded by offering more 2nd hand games because they are cheaper, and therefore demand from the public went back up.

    I am saying that can't be true because:
    1. The gaming public had a plentiful appetite for games at £40 previously, even when £40 was more money than it is now.
    2. The gaming public has a plentiful appetite for game that are currently £40 and are never discounted, like COD, which sell millions and millions of units.

    Now, what I am saying has happened:
    1. Retailers made most of their money from new games.
    2. Retailers began getting undercut by channel island mail order firms with prices they simply couldn't compete with.
    3. Retailers looked for a new market that would allow them to survive; one which the online channel islanders couldn't beat them on.
    4. Retailers therefore expanded their focus on 2nd hand, aggressively marketing it in store to encourage gamers to trade in sooner (which never used to happen), and at the checkout to buy 2nd hand instead of new (which also never used to happen).

    And you have said this can't be true because:
    1. You say it isn't.
    2. You don't want it to be.
    3. I'm too stupid to keep up with you anyway.

    Is that an accurate appraisal? Do you see why I'm not convinced at this stage?

    If you can see a hole in the theory, please point it out, as I have done with yours. That's the whole point of having a debate.

  • kangarootoo #223 4 months ago

    @arcam

    "Second hand existed before the big RRP rise. After the rise, retailers saw a big increase in people wanting to sell their games to help fund the purchase of new games."

    We might just have to agree to disagree on this one. All I can do is repeat what I said in my previous post. High street retailers saw a decline in new sales, as the public increasingly started their games online, and so they refocussed on second hand sales to build a greater return from less individual sales (as well as give people a reason to walk through the door in the first place). This apparent rise in RRP that you mention is simply not a determining factor (and indeed, that rise in RRP hasn't really translated into a significant rise in online prices).


    If trade-ins could easily be performed online, for even greater discounts, places like GAME would be closing stores within 6 months.

  • kangarootoo #224 4 months ago

    @MrChuckles

    Oh my christ! You have actually come up with a decent car analogy, that works and makes sense. I genuinely thought it could not be done :)

  • kangarootoo #225 4 months ago

    @arcam

    "Retailers can't just create a huge second hand market out of thin air. It has to be led by the desires of their customers"

    The key thing here is that retailers don't take their cues only from what people would like to buy. They actually take their cues from what they are able to sell people. That people always wanted to buy games for less is not the reason places like GAME suddenly focussed on selling them. If that were the case, second hand games would have been taking up 80% of the shop front since I was a kid.

    How does your theory answer that? You say that GAME changed their behaviour when the Great RRP Rising happened, but why didn't they focus so much on second hand before then? The same "save some money" principles would have applied, and the customers would still have liked to buy second hand for that saving. Indeed, second hand sales HAVE always existed to a lesser extent. The only thing that has changed is the retailers' focus on SH sales.


    So on the one hand we have a small increase in RRP, and on the other we have high street chains struggling and going out of business. HMV is on the rocks, Zavvi is dead in the highstreet (with their online arm sold off). Blockbuster have been close to dropping several times over the years. GAME must know that their actions are killing their future by pushing online passes and digital distribution, but they have no choice. Take an honest step back and tell me you don't think NOT GOING OUT OF BUSINESS is the primary motivation for places like GAME. Really?

  • kangarootoo #226 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    "or the garage telling you you need to change your tires, otherwise the car will have limited abillities"

    Well, they might well tell you that. Snow tyres spring to mind.

    And I'm not so far behind you in age :)

  • arcam #227 4 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I'm not saying your theory can't be true, I'm just offering an alternative.

    In truth the answer probably lies somewhere between the two. Customer demand for buying/selling second-hand games has increased, and retailers have realised the large profits to be made in that market, and the two coming together have created an absolutely huge market. A perfect storm, if you will.

    Apologies if it sounded like I was saying you were too stupid to comprehend, that was not my intention. I just wanted to make sure my argument was understood.

    @kangarootoo

    Of course the primary motivation for any retailer is earning money. I don't think I suggested otherwise. And the reason the second hand market did not used to be so huge when games were even more expensive is because the demand (for selling as well as buying) was not so great when they were selling to dedicated gaming fans. Hobbyists are much less likely to sell their games (which is where all the stock comes from of course) and place importance on saving a few pounds than the mass market they have been selling and marketing to since the explosion of the PS2.
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 16:47

  • kangarootoo #228 4 months ago

    "1. You say it isn't.
    2. You don't want it to be."

    Genuine lol. Can't fault that logic.


    Edit: just seen your last post arcam. Thats the spirit :)
    Edited by kangarootoo at 30/01/12 @ 16:44

  • arcam #229 4 months ago

    "1. You say it isn't.
    2. You don't want it to be."

    Genuine lol. Can't fault that logic.

    That is not what I've been saying at all. Go ahead and laugh it up, I have tried to explain my POV, if you want to ignore it and take the piss you are quite entitled to, but I'm done with this subject for the day.

  • kangarootoo #230 4 months ago

    @arcam

    Oh come on, don't be so touchy. I'm sorry we sort of ganged up on you.

    Like PlugMonkey, I've not been ignoring your logic. I'm afraid I just don't find it very logical.

    It honestly does seem like first and foremost you don't like online passes, and are creating a theory after the fact to support that dislike.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter really. The sun will still rise tomorrow, and it won't make a tit of difference who among us is right and who is wrong. So I'm done too :)

  • arcam #231 4 months ago

    OK , let me sum it up. Games are now mass market. Mass market is much more sensitive to price and much more likely to dispose of a game after playing than the hobbyists of pre-PS1 days. These factors create a much more favourable market for second-hand gaming.

    That's it. I think it's easy to follow, but it may not be if you don't have the same perspective as me.

  • PlugMonkey #232 4 months ago

    @arcam

    No offense meant or taken.

    I think games just lend themselves to a 2nd hand market as well, as you don't really "finish" a CD or a DVD in the same way, so a new release isn't going to hit the 2nd hand market anywhere near as quick. A CD or a DVD is generally bought with the intention of it being a long term investment.

    Thinking about it, this has become increasingly true of video games as the 2nd hand market has developed. When I were a lad, there were very few games you could buy on a Friday, finish over the weekend and be done with by the Monday. So, it could be a case of the two meeting in the middle, as you say.

    Basically, the retailers did what they needed to to survive, and now the publishers are doing the same.

    They just really, really do suck at marketing it.

    I'll bow out of this discussion on the same note I always do: it's all a moot point anyway, as in 5 or 10 years, there won't be any highstreet games retailers, and there won't be any second hand games.

  • TrilbyG #233 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:38:09 30-01-2012

  • arcam #234 4 months ago

    I'll bow out of this discussion on the same note I always do: it's all a moot point anyway, as in 5 or 10 years, there won't be any highstreet games retailers, and there won't be any second hand games.

    Agreed. The ironic thing is that I've already moved to that situation (haven't bought from the high street or bought or sold a second hand game) a few years ago. I'm more arguing from a matter of principle, and for some reason that's when I can go a bit overboard. Bit embarrassed by my little strop now. So no hard feelings ;)
    Edited by arcam at 30/01/12 @ 17:35

  • deded #235 4 months ago

    @gotyourmoney You're single provided fact? Call of Duty sold a lot. Wow, way to go. Get back to me with your next piece of insightful evidence. Oh, wait, don't.

  • Bander #236 4 months ago

    Used cars vs. used video games.

    Cars: People who buy cars new, know that they can sell them later to get some of the money back. Which in turn may go towards a newer car. This makes new cars more affordable, and in turn, many more new cars sell and more manufacturers can thrive.

    Games: Exactly the same. Being able to sell games, enables the purchase of more new games. Otherwise shops wouldn't even bother to stock niche titles at all.

    Cars: People who buy used cars do not expect to be buying the best, latest, up-to-date models. Heads will not turn. The previous owner probably found something much better. There won't be any wow factor. It's closer to the date of it not being worth maintaining than it used to be.

    Games: People who buy used games, are getting games that somebody else didn't consider to be worth keeping, possibly because they are not much of a fun challenge or not entertaining. It won't contribute to the pride someone may have in their games shelf. The FAQs are already written, the high score tables are full and probably include a few cheats, the few online players that remain are all unbeatable, and the ending has been put on YouTube. Sell it again and it'll be worth even less.

    Cars: Keep a car in as close to its original condition as possible for long enough, and eventually it becomes rare, even unique; prized among vintage collectors. The value is more likely to increase with niche models than with common mass-market ones.

    Games: Exactly the same. Alas it's not possible if a chunk or all of the game exists only as downloadable data, 'owned' by only one user.


    Edit: I'm going to assume that everyone that negged this is a greedy short-sighted videogames publisher, or can't read and write. After all, nobody has disputed the above. Or I'm living in a world where people want only the rich to have games and cars, and a limited selection at that due to the market being much smaller. Anything that they become tired of should just be landfill, buried before the poor can even look at it.
    Edited by Bander at 31/01/12 @ 16:21

  • XVariant #237 4 months ago

    Not sure if this has been said yet but there is an argument for online passes increasing the trade ins of games and being good for the retailers. Bare with me...

    The whole reason retailers like selling pre owned games are the margins involved, they make more money selling second hand versions of games. One of the reasons i believe is they pay either no or reduced VAT when seling pre owned games. Please correct me if i'm wrong. But there are other factors behind the increased profit margin.

    Before the online pass you could take a game back(within a limited time period eg 28 days) and as long as they are in the exact condition they were bought in a retailer could still re-sell them as new (exactly the same as buying almost anything else). Making the same profit as if selling it brand new.

    Now, if a game shipped with a code, a retailer has to assume it has been used and it is therefore not in the exact same condition it is bought in. The only option for customers is to trade in the game at less than they paid for it and the retailer can then re sell it with the increased profit margin.

    My point is that if the reason of the online code/pass is to kill the second hand market it might actually be encouraging the opposite. Leaving the only losers as us gamers.

  • Breadbitten #238 4 months ago

    I've said it once and I'll say it again...IT'S A GOSHDARN NEW IP! These guys have no fans yet, nothing concrete for people to commit to (demoes DO NOT count) and yet they try and justify this as rewarding people? I think I'll just go ahead and drown myself in a sink now...
    Edited by Breadbitten at 30/01/12 @ 18:57

  • jogyourmind #239 4 months ago

    I'm sorry but anyone that sees the online pass system as 'evil' clearly have missed the point - I can't see how offering free content (and not on disk, and normally pretty solid DLC) is a bad thing to get you to buy the game new..


    The average poster on here is a complete idiot and they don't understand what this article is even about. I think some people just can't afford to buy the game anyway so come on here to rant and rave the make themselves feel better about not getting the game. It's like if they convince others this is bad, they can convince themselves that they aren't missing out on a potentially fun game.

    I doubt most of these commentors have even read and understood the article.

    The saddest thing to me is that the average gamer today is too dumb and too closed minded to even think about who or what is behind their games. The number of people who are keen to support exciting new companies is just tiny nowdays. Modern gamers are too stupid to understand or care, they are barely even capable of reading. They don't make decisions based on thought, they make them based on instinct, they are like the human equivalent of goldfish or something. They don't think about anything, they just kind of float about and occasionally dart towards something which catches their eye. So if you are a big corporation that can get your game hyped all over the place like Skyrim, then you are going to snag millions of these goldfish, just because they see your ads out the corner of their eyes, and every time they absent mindedly click a game movie, the ad that comes up first is DOVAKIIIN DOVAKIIIN YOU MUST BUY OUR GAAAME ITS SOO COOOL IT HAS DRAGONS AND YOU CAN HAVE LOTS OF FUUUN!! By the time the game is released, there is no decision to be made. Their human instincts and need for survival is the only thing making decisions for them, and it has already decided, they need Skyrim.

    Games like this stand very little chance. Unless you can afford the millions of dollars to create a huge tidal wave of hype to smash your game in to everyones face for 6 months prior to release, then you are destined to be 'indie' forever.
    Edited by jogyourmind at 30/01/12 @ 20:00

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #240 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 16:59:10 06-02-2012

  • PlugMonkey #241 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971

    There's a very strong desire at the moment to change both games and consoles from a "product" to a "service". It's not something I'm hugely convinced about either.

    Sometimes, I just want to pay up front, and then be left to immerse myself without having to establish a never ending dialogue with someone/thing.

  • kangarootoo #242 4 months ago

    @Biker_Bob_1971 and PlugMonkey

    Tbh, I agree most of the time. Games are increasingly services, and in business its something I have to consider. But as a gamer, I too prefer just buying the game and playing it and enjoying it, without concerning myself with in-app purchases, and DLC expansions, and Facebook connectivity and the like.

    And tbh, of all the recent initiatives, the trend in online passes is the one I have least issue with. I play less games these days, so trading in isn't that much of an issue for me, and the bottom line is I completely understand why such an initiative is perceived as necessary. There are lots of recent changes that as a gamer I don't like, but this isn't really one of them. It still allows me to do the thing I mentioned at the start - buy the game, play the game, finish the game.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #243 4 months ago

    Post deleted at 16:59:10 06-02-2012

  • Bander #244 4 months ago

    We shouldn't have to do any advance research on whether we get all the content of a game (I'm not going to call it extra content if it's finished and held back).

    Ever since Saints Row 3 was announced, I eagerly awaited its release. I read all the stories here, signed up to the various things like the Facebook page, YouTube account etc. Played the game at EG Expo. Decided to pre-order and obviously pay full price. Did some research as to where to get the best price/fastest delivery and made sure that it was the Professor Genki pre-order pack.

    I didn't even know the game used an online pass! Somehow that little fact completely slipped by. This Season Pass business was completely new and confusing also. Make sure to buy content from the in-game store to avoid paying for it twice? If that's the case then the purchase system needs fixing before options like this are allowed to exist. Plus the PS3 version was supposed to get exclusive content, which didn't happen, so Saints Row 2 ended up being bundled for free? I didn't know about this either!

    Most stupid of all though, was that I didn't get the pre-order content anyway, despite pre-ordering, paying a cash deposit and having the Genki version listed on the receipt. Apparently the head office of the high-street chain which I ordered from didn't order enough units of the Genki version and didn't communicate this to their shops. If the people most responsible for distribution numbers can't be expected to get something like this right, how the hell can players be expected to? I haven't use the online pass code.

    TL:DR version: It's fucked up. I'm boycotting this nonsense. Buying NTSC import games that ran at the wrong speed for the early CD-ROM consoles was less annoying than worrying about online passes and pre-ordering.

  • Laminator #245 4 months ago

    Sorry to sound harsh, but this game just does not seem good enough to justify a day 1 AAA price buy. I mean the art style is nice but the graphics are dated and remind me of WoW circa 2007 - is that really still acceptable for a full budget title? Indie game Orcs Must Die looks better! The movement and animations do not feel great and the camera is odd. The game also seems linear as hell after playing Skyrim.

    The next paragraph applies to PC version only. Yet again it seems another lazy (read cheapest possible) console port. Maybe one day developers will realise a PC port requires a SEPERATE DESIGN of user interface and controls to work well. Also we actually like to have more than 2 graphics options available.

    Of course all of this is based on the somewhat buggy demo but that's all we have to inspire our preorder or day 1 purchase.

    I admire the guys honesty but you sell new copies of a game by making a great game people must have, not by making an above average game and loading it with 'online pass' complications.

  • timberwolf #246 4 months ago

    "The data coming in on used game sales is not saying the things many thought it should, or would."

    Could someone explain this to me.