Activision Joins the Anti-Used Games Crusade
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
True. I wouldn't want to see them actually go to the point where they start chopping off the main game for it. Then they might as well just make episodic contents to begin with.diasravenguard said:
I prefer to keep my single players and multiplayers separated though. Most of the games I got for multiplayers are exclusively for that--I didn't touch the single player campaign in SC, nor HL, and there isn't one too speak off in Quake and CS to begin with, etc.
Business 101, activision: If your game is still 60 bucks after a year, then you're doing something horribly wrong. Now, if you continue to do that and do even more things wrong, this will not end well.
Which ones is SC cause if its starcraft it had a very nice campaign good story to it even if it was pretty cliched now starcraft 2 is in episodes with the expansions finishing the story in 2 additional sets...olicon said:
I don't know what HL is offhand either. I do like the games to be separate but not if it means you get something like bomberman 360... I am not into online multiplayer but I know a lot of people are (at the risk in some cases to social interactions that they NEED to be successful but that's a different topic) My biggest feeling about a DLC is it can add features such as on Overload there is a DLC that opens up multiplayer options that were fun.
Am I the only one thinking this is nothing more then a large developer trying to invent reasons that we would have to pay more for their stuff? They don't really care about the excuse, they want to force us to pay for a stripped down version of the 'base game' and then throw additional expenses onto the game at a later date. Hell some don't even hide it! Be it ones that have clear parts missing from the main game with the intention to fill in these blanks later or, worse, those that release DLC within a week of releasing the game that you know should of been included to begin with.
Do you really trust these same companies when they claim they have to do it this way because 'reselling is costing us money' or some other bullshit?
Do you really trust these same companies when they claim they have to do it this way because 'reselling is costing us money' or some other bullshit?
I think everyone feels like that heck look at the news on spore lol the whole thing turned into a who can pirate it better/faster!Jinx_Dragon said:
Yeah I knew about Starcraft 2, I guess I'd count that, I found Wings of Liberty to actually have a decent amount of content but you have a point.diasravenguard said:
Minecraft has you manipulating colored cubes on a three dimensional plane.similar.squirrel said:
At this rate Indie Developers will have us manipulating colored cube (equivelants) in a 4 dimensional space.
When that time comes, I fear the repercussions.
You're forgetting about import fees, most new games here in Canada start at $69.99 and go up from there.diasravenguard said:
I'm not to aware of this situation but I've been against Activision since the Infinity Ward incidents, and decided not to buy Black op's unless it's second hand.
But really if Halo (ODST) can bring out every map they made for the Halo 3 multiplayer on the Multiplayer disk of ODST (even if bought second hand) so everyone can use it without downloaded content of which some players may not have been able to afford, (instead of taking Activisions route to make more money) I don't see why Activision thinks that having just sold one of if not the best selling game yet (Modern Warfare 2) where apparently Mr Bobby Kotick himself made the tidy sum of $20 million from how much their stock went up with the game release and sales.(http://kotaku.com/5403762/so-how-much-did-bobby-kotick-make-from-modern-warfare-2) They cannot afford to allow people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to afford their games when they come out at full price strait away and would have to buy them second hand, and have to penalise them by giving them less of a game.
Well thats that then, my little 'hello I'm back rant/my two cents' anyone miss me?
But really if Halo (ODST) can bring out every map they made for the Halo 3 multiplayer on the Multiplayer disk of ODST (even if bought second hand) so everyone can use it without downloaded content of which some players may not have been able to afford, (instead of taking Activisions route to make more money) I don't see why Activision thinks that having just sold one of if not the best selling game yet (Modern Warfare 2) where apparently Mr Bobby Kotick himself made the tidy sum of $20 million from how much their stock went up with the game release and sales.(http://kotaku.com/5403762/so-how-much-did-bobby-kotick-make-from-modern-warfare-2) They cannot afford to allow people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to afford their games when they come out at full price strait away and would have to buy them second hand, and have to penalise them by giving them less of a game.
Well thats that then, my little 'hello I'm back rant/my two cents' anyone miss me?
It's Activision. I'm amazed that they didn't come up with the idea in the first place. If developers really wanna prevent the sales of used games then they should at least lower the prices of their games. Or maybe we can ban sales on everything that's been used and turn this shithole we call world completely upside-down.
The game studios are trying to recover some of the money that Gamestop is getting from them. Yes, it's not all lost sales (some people will never buy new), but I'm pretty sure Gamestop didn't build their empire on selling used games to people who never buy new, but trying to convince folks who usually do buy new to pay $5 or $10 less and get a used copy, while Gamestop benefits from a much larger profit margin over that.
I don't see how DLC or one use codes are any different than collectors editions or pre-order benefits or special vendor exclusives, since they all end up doing the same thing, giving certain people content that others didn't get, for whatever reason. Not to mention MMOs, or most digital distribution platforms like Steam, where you can't transfer what you bought to anyone else.
The argument over whether or not DLCs subtract from what have been included in the game is, of course, a pretty difficult one to prove or disprove. If you're of the mind that developers do everything to screw you out of your money (as some people clearly seem to think), then $2 horse armor is an abomination upon the entire industry. Or, if you think that, just maybe, there's a balance between making money and giving customers what they want, that not every single developer is out to get you when they decide to sell you more content down the line.
I don't see how DLC or one use codes are any different than collectors editions or pre-order benefits or special vendor exclusives, since they all end up doing the same thing, giving certain people content that others didn't get, for whatever reason. Not to mention MMOs, or most digital distribution platforms like Steam, where you can't transfer what you bought to anyone else.
The argument over whether or not DLCs subtract from what have been included in the game is, of course, a pretty difficult one to prove or disprove. If you're of the mind that developers do everything to screw you out of your money (as some people clearly seem to think), then $2 horse armor is an abomination upon the entire industry. Or, if you think that, just maybe, there's a balance between making money and giving customers what they want, that not every single developer is out to get you when they decide to sell you more content down the line.
You realize that EULA's are not laws, right? They are contracts and the terms of a contract can be overruled. Although I'm not sure where it says in any EULA that you can't resell the game, I know it says that you can't make copies of it and sell those. Of course I'm never actually sat down and read an EULA. Also I just checked a couple of my console game manuals inc. a few from my 360 games and none of them said anything about reselling the game.Ultratwinkie said:
The closest was the Fable II manual which talked about the unauthorized copying, transmission, rental, or pay for play or whatever, none of which included resale.
When games go back to 30-40 (40 being a collectors edition) USD and not only show the approximate playtime on the back (they used to why don't they now???) but give more than 20hrs before even starting to think about multiplayer or 60 hours without I'll start feeling more like the game designers are designing games and not graphics... When I feel like the gaming industry is making games then I'll feel a lot less like they are actually not going after my wallet like a pickpocket!mattaui said:
This has already been covered back to hating on developers trying to steal our pants and wallets! Only big thing with a EULA is that it is the "end user" IE the person you sell the game too. It only matters when you are in ownership of the game.canadamus_prime said: