Curt Schilling Defends Kingdoms of Amalur Online Pass

[Ziggy]

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.

there is a demo on steam

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I don't know why we're using the used car analogy here in defense of used games. If you buy a used car, it's not going to be as good as a new one...there will be certain things it doesn't have: like, not 50,000 of wear on the tires/engine or rust in places you can't see.

If you're willing to save money to purchase a lesser version of a car, why won't you pay less money to purchase a lesser version of a game? You're not supporting the company who produced it anyways, so it's not like you deserve that extra swordnquest.

 

[Vrach]

Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

 

[Something Amyss]

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

Yes, he was talking about that clearly ridiculous line of thought and not the more likely and sensible "day one DLC/Online pass" deal.

Your scoffing is justified.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

Yes, he was talking about that clearly ridiculous line of thought and not the more likely and sensible "day one DLC/Online pass" deal.

Your scoffing is justified.

If the content is locked on disk, I wholeheartedly agree, it's a lousy move, but if it's just a little something extra they made on the side, nothing major, then I don't see what the issue is.

 

[Cgull]

I'm sure I'm not the only one (it's the internet, no-one's EVER the only one) who's getting sick to the back teeth of the clamour to cash in on second-hand game sales by some of the companies out there.

Whilst I actually have no issue with companies offering 1st day DLC free to those that buy a brand new game (call it an incentive if you like) I do have concerns with the current trend of limiting access to features (multi-player usually) for those that buy a game second hand. I don't understand any company that has profited by selling a game once believing it has the right to continue profiting from it once that transaction has taken place.

If a similar approach were to be taken in...say...DVD sales (yes, I know, different rules, but not enough to make it an unreasonable comparison) I can imagine there would be far higher levels of negative kickback from the general public as it would be seen as money-grabbing.

Of course, you have to then consider that gaming is still thought of as a niche pastime (a niche pastime that can cost £45 a pop depending on game/retailer) and so trying to take more money from gamers is unlikely to stir much in the way of public revolt. Sadly.

I now gleefully await a well-written and, ideally, non-abusive rebuttal from a fellow Escapist

 

[Epona]

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.

...and devaluing the product after purchase. People who wish to resell will get less than they would without an online pass. They are the people hurt the most.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

Not really, because in the end every game that is out there, excepting pirated copies, has been paid for. That used game had it's initial sale go directly to the company, and the game being sold used doesn't actually put more units out there, or stress the support that was already being offered.

It's an indefensible position because it comes down to pure greed. Your dealing with a multi-billion dollar industry that is looking down from it's giant, constantly growing pile of money, and deciding that their pile of money could be growing faster if they could somehow make even more money off of each unit they sold. They look at Gamestop's used sales and dreamily envision all of that money going into their pockets, or at least being able to take a percentage of it on a product they already sold.

I suppose it can be defended in the sense of "I want more money, and should be able to profit off selling my product more than once" but that's kind of unreasonable, and what the games industry is ultimatly doing.

Like any business companies come and go, no industry has every participant being a big success. Overall though the gaming industry is very successful, it's making billions of dollars in profit every year, and steadily growing despite the existance of both used games and piracy. All of these attacks on free information, and consumer rights are entirely driven by greed. Whether developers and publishers ultimatly answer to a board of directors or not the basic situation is absolutly ridiculous because the gaming industry does not actually need any of these things for any other purpose than to line it's own pockets no matter what arguement it happens to make.

Right now I see the biggest problem being that nobody has ever challenged EULAs the right way, nor has that entire practice ever been looked into by the goverment in comparison to current realities. A lot of what we're seeing is only possible because of a system that allows someone to sell you a product you can't return, force you to sign a contract to use the product (once they already have your money which you can't viably get back), and that contract basically says that your only borrowing what you paid for, with the actual owner pretty much having the right to revoke your usage at any time or do whatever they want
with it at any time, for any reason. This is the springboard from which most gaming
industry ridiculousness is launched, and this "right" being what they are trying to exploit for profit at the expense of the general citizenry.


While it's a tangent it's interesting to note most challenges to the EULAs have taken place over the contract itself, rather than questioning it's validity. I was a Criminal Justice major and while this wasn't anything close to what I studied, some civil law and contract law was covered. The big way I feel EULAs should have been challenged is in how the product is sold before the contract is presented, which questions how binding it is (as opposed to just text). Technically your supposed to sign a binding contract as you purchuse something. Likewise there are laws intended to limit the power of "fine print" that limit how complicated contract can be, including things like length and the prescence of all relevent and referanced documents. In the case of business deals that can be very lengthy and complicated there are typically neutral witnesses and notaries present to testify that everyone actually understood something that complicated, and also to testify their understanding in the case of questions. I would argue that many EULAs which go on and on and do things like referance California state law in many cases without actually providing that law and any nessicary precedents, are beyond the understanding of a general schlub to begin with. Technically under the current system to buy a game they should have contract lawyers and notaries present at Gamestop (or wherever) to have you sign the paperwork and make sure yoyu understand it, and then witness it, before they take your money.

Like a number of things I mentioned, I'm not even entirely sure that the basis from which the gaming industry has been acting is legal, and would stand up to a proper challenge on the right grounds. There are some things relatively straightforward enough (like telling someone they don't own or have control over a product they already paid money for and can't return without loss once it's opened and you see the contract) that if approached properly I doubt even the highest priced lawyer could defend. The problem being that your typical schlub can't afford legal action at all, and as the current situation gets more intense there are efforts to be made to prohibit (or convince people they are prohibited from) class action suits, largely because I think the gaming industry knows that it's best defense is to prevent certain issues from ever being raised through pre-emptive intimidation.

All tangents aside, I understand the other side which is pretty much "we want more money, billions aren't enough!!!!1!!11one!" in the end there isn't anything else to it, no matter how they try and dress it up. The guys doing "Kingdoms of Amalur" are going to see a decent return if they sell a decent product, their current actions however are to try and manipulate things to get an even bigger return from the product, at the expense of consumers and their rights. They don't NEED this kind of thing to stay afloat, they just WANT more money.

 

[CoL0sS]

Oh, so it's a Day 1 DLC. I thought there was a quest-line and a whole faction locked behind that online pass. I hate it when publishers throw in those "unlock multiplayer" codes and doing it for a single-player game is absolutely despicable. However I have no problem with this. I think giving away free DLC to people who buy new is a nice little incentive that doesn't leave those who can't afford it on day 1 feeling neglected. Furthermore, Curt Schilling handled this well; he was calm and reasonably tried to explain his stance. While I won't buy this game (demo was kinda off-putting) I really want it to have good sales.

....I plan to buy it soon after release, although it clashes with the Darkness 2(Dammit)

Gonna go a bit off-topic here, but how awesome was that demo? Made me regret spending my money on MGS:HD Collection. Really an amazing improvement over first.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Not really, because in the end every game that is out there, excepting pirated copies, has been paid for. That used game had it's initial sale go directly to the company, and the game being sold used doesn't actually put more units out there, or stress the support that was already being offered.

It's an indefensible position because it comes down to pure greed.

Correct. It does. Greed from both the consumer (who rationally always wants more for less; a fact we constantly overlook in maintaining our Underdog mentality), and Greed from the Publisher.
That's economics.
And it's up to the market to find a solution that both sides will agree to; and that isn't happening as smoothly as we want it to because the consumer is being badgered into making do-or-die decisions.

Your dealing with a multi-billion dollar industry that is looking down from it's giant, constantly growing pile of money, and deciding that their pile of money could be growing faster if they could somehow make even more money off of each unit they sold. They look at Gamestop's used sales and dreamily envision all of that money going into their pockets, or at least being able to take a percentage of it on a product they already sold.

In economics, no matter the reasoning, that's simply called "arbitrage", and it's just the exploitation of one market for the benefit of another. Simply put: Arbitrage is ultimately a bad thing for any market (good for consumers and the middleman in the short term...very bad in the long term), and the nature of games leaves it in a very odd place, because information goods don't behave quite like other goods (once initial development is complete, reproduction is amazingly cheap, and this is universal to ALL digital goods, not just a few like with Regular Goods).

I consider this mentality the result of a strong prior economy that consumers and publishers could take advantage of both and profit. That isn't the case normally (an arbitrage market is an anomaly), nor will it be now.
But people PRETEND that it's the normal mode of a market.

For now, things are stable, but the raw revenue reports don't tell the whole story.
Look at all the layoffs in the gaming industry that have been made in the last 3 years alone.
It's kind of scary.

Like any business companies come and go, no industry has every participant being a big success.

Correct. It's up to customers to accept/reject what's being offered, and for Supply to adapt to that.

A lot of what we're seeing is only possible because of a system that allows someone to sell you a product you can't return, force you to sign a contract to use the product (once they already have your money which you can't viably get back), and that contract basically says that your only borrowing what you paid for, with the actual owner pretty much having the right to revoke your usage at any time or do whatever they want
with it at any time, for any reason. This is the springboard from which most gaming
industry ridiculousness is launched, and this "right" being what they are trying to exploit for profit at the expense of the general citizenry.

And that's a big part of my point. There are no true securities for the consumer, and this is something that needs to be addressed. We're moving towards an era where gaming is becoming more-service-centric, and if history is any indication that's a very bad thing for the consumers.

I will skip the boring details (they aren't sufficiently relevant to this topic), so I'll just say that I believe it could cause the next major gaming market crash.

While it's a tangent it's interesting to note most challenges to the EULAs have taken place over the contract itself, rather than questioning it's validity... The big way I feel EULAs should have been challenged is in how the product is sold before the contract is presented, which questions how binding it is (as opposed to just text).

This is an issue that must also be addressed.
The contracts you've stated are Contracts of Adhesion, and they are dubious by their very nature (I have studied some Contract Law, due to the requirements of my employment, but I am by no means a lawyer).

The guys doing "Kingdoms of Amalur" are going to see a decent return if they sell a decent product, their current actions however are to try and manipulate things to get an even bigger return from the product, at the expense of consumers and their rights. They don't NEED this kind of thing to stay afloat, they just WANT more money.

They may not make that much if more customers realize what cheaper options lie before them.
Heads roll even when a developer produces a good product, but sales don't stick.
Outsourcing for development is becoming increasingly common, unfortunately.

 

[Vrach]

Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

No other industry has a problem with second hand sales (or at least is not so aggressive about it) that I can think of and no other industry withholds content from the user for not buying it new. Especially not the entertainment industry.

Moreover, this really cheapens games as a medium imo. If someone came over to me and said "Hey, see this book? It's really great, a fantastic read. You might wanna buy it new though, there's a few chapters missing in used copies - don't worry though, they're not part of the main story!", I'd call bullshit (same for movies) and I see no reason not to do it here.

You want to incentivize sales, don't put quests, story and gameplay elements behind it. Throw in vanity items, different skins and bullshit like that. It still interests people, it still boosts your sales, but you don't put actual content out of the hands of potential players.

Besides, we've been over this argument PLENTY of times. This is money lost to the publisher, who's already got the brick and mortar stores bent over the counter 24/7. So don't try to pass me off the bullshit "we need more money to make games" argument, you need to talk to the fucking publishers and ask for a bigger cut if that's what the issue is.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

No other industry has a problem with second hand sales (or at least is not so aggressive about it) that I can think of and no other industry withholds content from the user for not buying it new. Especially not the entertainment industry.

Moreover, this really cheapens games as a medium imo. If someone came over to me and said "Hey, see this book? It's really great, a fantastic read. You might wanna buy it new though, there's a few chapters missing in used copies - don't worry though, they're not part of the main story!", I'd call bullshit (same for movies) and I see no reason not to do it here.

You want to incentivize sales, don't put quests, story and gameplay elements behind it. Throw in vanity items, different skins and bullshit like that. It still interests people, it still boosts your sales, but you don't put actual content out of the hands of potential players.

Besides, we've been over this argument PLENTY of times. This is money lost to the publisher, who's already got the brick and mortar stores bent over the counter 24/7. So don't try to pass me off the bullshit "we need more money to make games" argument, you need to talk to the fucking publishers and ask for a bigger cut if that's what the issue is.

Except it's already been stated that this content isn't unlocked, it's brand new content that's been made while the game went to print.

To use your book analogy, it's more like if you buy the book new, you get a free book mark.

 

[Vrach]

Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

No other industry has a problem with second hand sales (or at least is not so aggressive about it) that I can think of and no other industry withholds content from the user for not buying it new. Especially not the entertainment industry.

Moreover, this really cheapens games as a medium imo. If someone came over to me and said "Hey, see this book? It's really great, a fantastic read. You might wanna buy it new though, there's a few chapters missing in used copies - don't worry though, they're not part of the main story!", I'd call bullshit (same for movies) and I see no reason not to do it here.

You want to incentivize sales, don't put quests, story and gameplay elements behind it. Throw in vanity items, different skins and bullshit like that. It still interests people, it still boosts your sales, but you don't put actual content out of the hands of potential players.

Besides, we've been over this argument PLENTY of times. This is money lost to the publisher, who's already got the brick and mortar stores bent over the counter 24/7. So don't try to pass me off the bullshit "we need more money to make games" argument, you need to talk to the fucking publishers and ask for a bigger cut if that's what the issue is.

Except it's already been stated that this content isn't unlocked, it's brand new content that's been made while the game went to print.

To use your book analogy, it's more like if you buy the book new, you get a free book mark.

Wow, I'm actually in two minds over which of your statements I'm more shocked by. Comparing game content to something that can be replaced by a used condom or that you actually seem to believe this content was developed "while the game went to print".

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I'm also very upset that I had to buy Dragon Age 2 when clearly they were holding back that content that should've been on the Dragon Age: Origins disk.

Shame on you Bioware, where's my free copy of Mass Effect 3 with purchase of ME 1&2? I know you're holding out on us!