@BobbyKotick: We still hate you, you know. And I personally prefer "project 10 dollar" to you just charging everyone $15 for content, regardless if they bought new or used.
Bobby Kotick Is Ok with Used Game Sales
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
No, Stone Prisoner was actually cut from the game entirely, but due to the delay in the PC release to coincide with the consoles, the team realized they had the time to finish it. Of course at that point, the disc content has already been finalized and locked down so they had to release it as DLC.Exort said:
The cake analogy is apt for comparison, but people keep thinking that developers bake a cake then cut it in half to sell bits of it at a time, which is incorrect. It's more akin to here's cake, and oh look we have some left over ingredients, let's make a muffin out of it to sell it too.
I never meant that, I just said it didn't made the cut... I didn't mean they cut the game in half and sell it.ThriKreen said:
By the way "originally intended to be a joinable NPC in the shipped game, Shale was cut by developers who wanted to concentrate on further polishing the game prior to release in 2008. When the game release date was pushed back to Q4 2009, developers spent time re-integrating Shale back into the game. Although still not included in the shipped version of the game, Shale is available as free Day One DLC to all purchasers"
He was "originally intended" be to in the "shipped game".
Source: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Shale
Two things:
#1: No amount of commentary from anyone in the gaming industry is going to convince me (or really many gamers I think) that there is anything wrong with used games, or that it in some way costs them anything.
The entire logic is based on the assumption that for every used game purchused, someone would have been paying full price for that game if the used game was not availible.
What's more while the game industry constantly harps on used games being sold for 'only $5 or so less than the new retail price' that's not really accurate. Most used game sales seem to be for games going for half, or even a third of their usual price. Or with other attached deals like "buy two, get one free". On top of that some game stores have memberships that add another %5-10 discount when buying used games, or perhaps even more if your getting a trade in incentive as well.
The point here being that it's not a situation where they are losing out on nearly the price of a full game in most cases. Typically the guy taking a used game home is paying less than retail for it.
That said the entire issue of "OMG, we want people to pay through the gills for media" has ben around for a long time. It's been an issue with authors who have done things like going after schools for copying specific short stories from their collections instead of making each student buy a copy, or even passing on books to more than one generation of students. It's been an issue with movie companies going back to the era of the VHS machines, and it's an issue with the current music industry which currently makes arguements about how someone should have to continuously re-buy the same music again and again for every format.
Simply put I think they need to drop this, in the end I don't see the need to limit the rights of consumers with their own media (buy, sell, trade, and copy for their own use) when these industries are making billions of dollars.
-
#2: When it comes to Bobby Kotick and his 'tude, I think he's caught onto the hostility of the consumer base to be honest. I don't think he has any concerns about anyone in paticular, but I'm not the only person who has been telling people to avoid buying games made by his company(s). I'm also not the only one who has looked at "Black Ops" and wondered if the next time around it might be possible to "choke" the game by getting enough irate fanboys off the chans or whatever pre-order the game and then cancel/transfer their money on the release day.
-
If I sound a little more annoyed than I am normally, it's because when I started playing "New Vegas" my father (I live at home) decided he wanted to finally play "Fallout 3" (on the PC). I discovered that for him to play the add ons (which I purchused as they came out) they apparently have to be re-purchused.
See, some people in the gaming industry would say "OMG, you dirty pirate" for letting someone in the same household play my game on the computer right behind me, but I personally think this kind of lending is perfectly reasonable within the same household.
As I've pointed out before I am hardly pro-piracy, but I do think that the extent the industry goes to is ridiculous. Passing out 100 free copies to all your friends at work, or putting a game up for free via a torrent is an issue, and all industry corruption aside, two wrongs don't make a right there. However more than one person in a household wanting to play the same game/content is being prevented?
Oh sure, I might be able to find some way to work around it, but I haven't, and pretty much figure I shouldn't have to.
#1: No amount of commentary from anyone in the gaming industry is going to convince me (or really many gamers I think) that there is anything wrong with used games, or that it in some way costs them anything.
The entire logic is based on the assumption that for every used game purchused, someone would have been paying full price for that game if the used game was not availible.
What's more while the game industry constantly harps on used games being sold for 'only $5 or so less than the new retail price' that's not really accurate. Most used game sales seem to be for games going for half, or even a third of their usual price. Or with other attached deals like "buy two, get one free". On top of that some game stores have memberships that add another %5-10 discount when buying used games, or perhaps even more if your getting a trade in incentive as well.
The point here being that it's not a situation where they are losing out on nearly the price of a full game in most cases. Typically the guy taking a used game home is paying less than retail for it.
That said the entire issue of "OMG, we want people to pay through the gills for media" has ben around for a long time. It's been an issue with authors who have done things like going after schools for copying specific short stories from their collections instead of making each student buy a copy, or even passing on books to more than one generation of students. It's been an issue with movie companies going back to the era of the VHS machines, and it's an issue with the current music industry which currently makes arguements about how someone should have to continuously re-buy the same music again and again for every format.
Simply put I think they need to drop this, in the end I don't see the need to limit the rights of consumers with their own media (buy, sell, trade, and copy for their own use) when these industries are making billions of dollars.
-
#2: When it comes to Bobby Kotick and his 'tude, I think he's caught onto the hostility of the consumer base to be honest. I don't think he has any concerns about anyone in paticular, but I'm not the only person who has been telling people to avoid buying games made by his company(s). I'm also not the only one who has looked at "Black Ops" and wondered if the next time around it might be possible to "choke" the game by getting enough irate fanboys off the chans or whatever pre-order the game and then cancel/transfer their money on the release day.
-
If I sound a little more annoyed than I am normally, it's because when I started playing "New Vegas" my father (I live at home) decided he wanted to finally play "Fallout 3" (on the PC). I discovered that for him to play the add ons (which I purchused as they came out) they apparently have to be re-purchused.
See, some people in the gaming industry would say "OMG, you dirty pirate" for letting someone in the same household play my game on the computer right behind me, but I personally think this kind of lending is perfectly reasonable within the same household.
As I've pointed out before I am hardly pro-piracy, but I do think that the extent the industry goes to is ridiculous. Passing out 100 free copies to all your friends at work, or putting a game up for free via a torrent is an issue, and all industry corruption aside, two wrongs don't make a right there. However more than one person in a household wanting to play the same game/content is being prevented?
Oh sure, I might be able to find some way to work around it, but I haven't, and pretty much figure I shouldn't have to.
Yea, but from Kotick stand point he have motive to do so, it is his biggest competitor. It is just like CoD release a new trailer when MoH launched. Anyways he also said"the best way to keep people engaged in your game experience is keep giving them more great content." and certianly the map pack for CoD is more "great content". It is their way of agianst used game.Niccolo said:
kotick has said something that isnt a thinly disguised dig at his own consumer base? well, its a thinly disguised dig at EA, his competitor, so i guess that makes sense. im fairly certain that activision would be doing this so anyone, regardless of new or used copy, can buy the insanely overpriced DLC for the game that was probably cut out from original development anyway, as opposed to genuinely thinking about something other than next month's sales figures.
Honestly, I can't help but feel he's just saying what he thinks people wants to hear. And he's spot on, but I remain suspicious.
Psst. Copy and paste the DLC files from your install (should be in the Data folder) to the Data folder of your father's Fallout 3, and then activate them from the launcher/FOMM.Therumancer said:
\GiantRedButton said:
*points at Blizzard and Battle.Net 2.0 in case of SC2* There your 'free DLC' is ability to play at all.
I don't really get his babbling, he pretty much used words to say nothing at all, it's like random musing about nature of gaming industry without any conclusion. "Yeah we could do, but we didn't and we know that we don't know" - that's pretty much what i got from all that.
Oh man, I literally lost it when I read that statement. Since when does Kotick give two shits about the best interests of gamers?Greg Tito said:
Thats the case with most pc games, the online thing is actually on consoles too.Keava said:
And Ea are the ONLY ones doing that.
You'll notice every time he opens his mouth it's either: "This is a great idea to nickel and dime people" or "this is what companies that are not Activision do wrong"Greg Tito said:
Fucking narcissist.
this coming from the man who is considering giving a monthly subscription to COD, "I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow..." he is talking about making a sort of COD WoW but in later interviews he says he has been thinking about making Modern warfare 3 online only available to those who pay subscription fees.
