Curt Schilling Defends Kingdoms of Amalur Online Pass

[Epona]

You forget about the Power Up card which gives you 10% off. So, $10 off, not $5. Most brand new games that are less than a few weeks old will have the original box and manual. I see that you have a hatred for Gamestop, I don't have that but the greed of publishers is getting on my nerves.

Make me jump through hoops and call it a reward, fuck that.

 

[Syzygy23]

Penny Arcade explained it best:

I?ve been reading a lot his weekend about Fat Cats and how fat they are and how they want your money, but the only choice you get in this matter (aside from the wholly valid ?not buying it? choice, of course) is which supposed Fat Cat to enrich. You can enrich the people who made the game you are enjoying, or you can enrich people who had nothing to do with the game. Policies like this are designed to incentivize new purchases: that is to say, sales. We call those sales.

I've been hearing a lot about this game actually, and it might be a priority purchase for me, even before Skyrim if the combat turns out to be really good. Combat in the Elder Scrolls games always felt rather iffy to me.

Yeah, I'm a raging bethesda fanboy and I'll be the first the admit that KoA: Reckoning's combat system is WAY better than Skyrims. Stealth kills are FAR more satisfying, for one.

 

[Puddleknock]

Seems pretty reasonable to me, I really can't blame developers or publishers for trying to limit used games sales. Day 1 free DLC does not bother me at all (day 1 premium DLC would however). The only issue I would have with day 1 free DLC is if the codes given bug out. I had issues with DA:O due to some of my codes not registering and that resulted in not getting some pre order items and Shale not being in my game till my second playthrough.

But in principle I agree with 38 Studios.

 

[Latinidiot]

I don't see what the problem here is. You get the whole game for 60 euros (the standard new release price in my country, I don't expect them to change that), and if you get it second hand for 40, or 30, or whatever, you pay another ten to get the rest of the game. What is the problem?

 

[Balvale]

Day 1 DLC is complete bullshit. If they had it ready to go in time for launch, they might as well have put it in the game.

On the other hand, since it's free with a new copy of the game, you can see it as withholding content from people who buy used. However, in that case it's still a case of punishing the person who buys used while inconveniencing the person who bought it new, while pretending to reward them.

The content is typically finished after the product goes gold. They can't put it on the CD because the CDs are made. It's called incentive. Car dealerships do it, Wal Mart does it, and your local bakery probably does it. You reward people who buy your product from you. If game developers create content solely to incentivize a new purchases, that's absolutely fine. The only time it wouldn't be is if they were locking you out of core content. Which they aren't.

 

[Epona]

Day 1 DLC is complete bullshit. If they had it ready to go in time for launch, they might as well have put it in the game.

On the other hand, since it's free with a new copy of the game, you can see it as withholding content from people who buy used. However, in that case it's still a case of punishing the person who buys used while inconveniencing the person who bought it new, while pretending to reward them.

The content is typically finished after the product goes gold. They can't put it on the CD because the CDs are made. It's called incentive. Car dealerships do it, Wal Mart does it, and your local bakery probably does it. You reward people who buy your product from you. If game developers create content solely to incentivize a new purchases, that's absolutely fine. The only time it wouldn't be is if they were locking you out of core content. Which they aren't.

Yeah right, the content is likely ON the disc and all you are downloading is an activation key. Even if it's not, it was probably purposely withheld, but was finished, so they could have an online pass.

Wal Mart and car dealerships aren't trying to kill the used market so their motives don't come into question like those of the game industry. BTW, I have never actually seen Wal Mart do anything to get you to buy new instead of used but whatever. Most car dealerships also sell used cars.

I'll tell you how I see it. I see this is as becoming more complicated than it needs to be. I remember buying a game and having the entire game on the disc/cartridge. No codes, no downloads. Also, I see supporting online passes as supporting the publisher war on used games. Why would I want to help publishers kill the used market and devalue my games after the shrink wrap is removed?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Never get why people moan about this, if you want it, buy the game new, if your not interested then buy the game second hand. Make the choice. Most 1day dlc is pointless to the game anyway.

Kingdom or Amalour looks great, i enjoyed the demo and its good to give a new IP a chance. Especially if it is successful then the sequel should be great and have all the things added to it that they cut out of it. We shall see.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wasn't Curt on the other side of this issue just a couple days ago? I seem to recall something about how this was supposed to be free DLC and they had never planned on an online pass.

- and health only regen'd via pots or paying a town healer, making alchemy rather a must to skill into.

You know, I played the demo 3 times and only had to use one potion. I also picked up several over the course of my playthroughs, so it's quite possible it's not a must.

 

[Aggieknight]

I can't speak for anyone else, but the online pass turned this from a release day buy to a wait-and-see for me.

Online passes are like car companies saying that if you buy the car used, you need to buy access to real-time traffic (which is free to the manu). Release day DLC to me is like having to purchase the maps for your navigation system when you buy your car used (something the first buyer already payed for). That the game industry believes that it is entitled to a share of the revenue from 2nd sales bothers me.

What I don't have a problem with is paying for online services associated with a game. The call of duty elite service is brilliant IMHO. They are selling the customer something ongoing. I think the clincher would be if the service came free for 60 or 90 days with the purchase of a new game and used gamers have to buy it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I can't speak for anyone else, but the online pass turned this from a release day buy to a wait-and-see for me.

Online passes are like car companies saying that if you buy the car used, you need to buy access to real-time navigation. Release day DLC to me is like having to purchase the maps for your navigation system (or something similar) when you buy your car used. That the game industry believes that it is entitled to a share of the revenue from 2nd sales bothers me.

What I don't have a problem with is paying for online services associated with a game. The call of duty elite service is brilliant IMHO. They are selling the customer something ongoing. I think the clincher would be if the service came free for 60 or 90 days with the purchase of a new game.

Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

 

[razer17]

I don't think this is a bad idea. I don't really disagree with day one DLC. What I find distasteful is online passes, like in sports games. Those suck, whereas for DLC it isn't so bad.

 

[Aggieknight]

Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I did read the article and I disagree. Whether the content is on the disk, in the cloud, or stored on the moon is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization is selling a product and intentionally defeaturing their product for people who purchase the game used.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I did read the article and I disagree. Whether the content is on the disk, in the cloud, or stored on the moon is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization is selling a product and intentionally defeaturing their product for people who purchase the game used.

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

 

[Aggieknight]

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

I believe you are making assumptions that you cannot support. To include the piece of paper in the box, the "content" has to be identified at the time of manu of the disk itself, making whether the content is on the disk or in the cloud irrelevant. Furthermore, content is planned out months/years in advance and a decision must be made at that time, not late in the development cycle.

 

[Atmos Duality]

With no offense to 38 studios, it doesn't matter how well they dress it up, it's an indefensible position from any perspective.

Speaking from a position of strict-neutrality; it's purely Defensible from the Supply side and Indefensible from the Demand side.

Supply wants to remove the leverage arbitrage Demand has here. This directly increases their revenue, but may indirectly reduce it by negative word-of-mouth, as we witness here; (however, to which degree it reduces revenue is a matter of debate).

As a matter of fairness, it would be best if there was a more lenient return policy for games where the service attached them was the main draw. [sub](This doesn't work out so hot for games that you can easily beat in an evening or two (which are becoming increasingly common) as the buyer could get essentially a free rental, and the market requires sales to definitively cover the cost of production.)[/sub]

Otherwise, you end up with situations like this: where savvy customers will just wait for the Used version to avoid getting jacked by a bad purchase. Which in turn spurs more arbitrage (do I even have to mention Gamestop here?)

I guess what I'm saying, is that the Publisher and the Customers are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it's putting both of them at odds. Not necessarily about what constitutes "fair business", but how one can stick it to the other.

And really, this sort of innate competition is supposed to spur someone into finding the proper/most-efficient solution, which isn't even remotely happening here. Publishers offer "Do-or-die" as-is deals, and their either customers scorn them for it or walk away entirely.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Never had a problem with Day 1 DLC that is included with Purchase. Granted it feels like they are slicing up a game to hold a part of it hostage to anyone who wants to save a few bucks down the line. But I'm part of the PC master race. There is no used games in this market.

So all it comes down to is an inconvenience.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

I believe you are making assumptions that you cannot support. To include the piece of paper in the box, the "content" has to be identified at the time of manu of the disk itself, making whether the content is on the disk or in the cloud irrelevant. Furthermore, content is planned out months/years in advance and a decision must be made at that time, not late in the development cycle.

>Criticises my assumptions for lack of support

>Proceeds to make assumptions with lack of support

I they want to reward people who buy new, that's their prerogative, it's their game.

This isn't about punishing those who buy used, but rewarding those who buy new.

 

[lord.jeff]

But publishers, of so many god damn people are buying/selling used games, maybe you need to just stop, and figure out why they're doing that. You could, oh I don't know, just fucking ask them. Like, on your site. Put up a big poll, ask "why do you buy used?", and maybe figure out the reasons people buy used, and work towards improving yourselves so they start buying new.

I'm pretty sure developers already have an answer to that question, it's cheaper and maybe a few people in there that are to lazy to properly boycott something, but mostly just because it's cheaper.

I don't mind this practice and if were lucky Gamestop may do what they did with Arkham City and just use the extra money from what they buy used to buy extra DLC codes.

 

[Deathmageddon]

This is how to get people to buy new, !