Hitman: Absolution May Require "Purchase" of Free Online Pass
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
And...it's already cracked. I betcha'. Really, this is stupid. You know nobody wants to deal with this shit, and that there's a million folks out there waiting to undo what you poured money into. And it'd REALLY be ironic if the game turned out to be bad or something. So...why not just make the game better?
See this? This is bullshit.JEBWrench said:
If someone buys a used copy, they're not playing 'without paying.' They're not even playing without the publisher being paid.
That copy, that license, HAS been paid for, and the company doesn't lose anything for someone else using it.
The idea that they are means that they're not at a war with used game-players--they're at a war with their primary customers as destroying the resale value of a product is actually an attack on basic consumer rights. If I own it, I can sell it, and if you sabotage the resale value of something I have bought from you, then you might actually be engaging in something illegal.
Standard affair, not sure why this is news, ME3 did the same thing, it's a good job that I don't care about multiplay-Cognimancer said:
Wait, What?
Huh.
Um... Go us? Maybe? Is Square Enix trying to guilt-trip pirates or something? Or are they just being deliberately obtuse?
I'm confused.
They must be getting people used to the idea of online passes without annoying them too much so they are doing it for free.
Maybe also a good way to monitor used copies.
I wouldn't mind a small reasonable fee to unlocked a small online portion of a used SP game. If I don't have friend's with the game to 'social game' with then I just won't pay it.
Maybe also a good way to monitor used copies.
I wouldn't mind a small reasonable fee to unlocked a small online portion of a used SP game. If I don't have friend's with the game to 'social game' with then I just won't pay it.
Sounds likely to me that they may have changed their minds in the last second or so about wanting to use online-passes.
Good for them AND the consumers I guess.
Although what sounds a little worrying about this is that the article seems to suggest that this was only going to be implemented in copies outside of North America, I mean what the hell?
This might be them realizing what a terrible idea this is and are making it free for everyone buying it to avoid the backlash it would cause.
Good for them AND the consumers I guess.
Although what sounds a little worrying about this is that the article seems to suggest that this was only going to be implemented in copies outside of North America, I mean what the hell?
This might be them realizing what a terrible idea this is and are making it free for everyone buying it to avoid the backlash it would cause.
It?s pretty likely that this is somewhat connected with all the controversy and flack they got with the pre-generated paths and the nun incident. The game was already made so instead of having more people storming their offices with torches and pitchforks or going to all the time and trouble of reworking game codes, they just handed out the passes for free.
Pretty much this, assuming that this whole free online pass thing happened because they planned to make people pay for them but ducked out too late to actually remove the passes (as opposed to the game developers having all lost their minds). It's better than the alternative of having to pay, of course, but the fact that this occurred at all is symptomatic of the state the gaming industry's in right now; in this specific case, it's a dumb annoyance more than a problem, but it's very much a problem in virtually every other case of the online pass system due to that system owing its very existence to the monetary exploitation of consumers. So while my first instinct may have been to hesitantly applaud Square Enix despite my head being cocked at a ninety-degree angle, I can't quite bring myself to grant them even that much credit upon reflection. Like someone almost cheating on their significant other before deciding against it, you can hardly criticize the act in itself, but at the same time you shouldn't really give that person credit for refusing to do something that common decency dictates they not do in the first place.CardinalPiggles said:
Treating IP as real physical property, will only lead to faulty reasonings.DracoSuave said:
If a game would only consist of a finite amount of "copies" that a liciense can "give" to you, then even piracy would be entirely harmless, since no copy is being taken away from the publisher, just a new one made. And that's what copyright forbids. It's not about "taking away" something, but a monopoly that says that only a certain company is allowed to create or sell you more copies.
If you "buy" a piece of music, and then play it loudly in your restaurant, the IP holder can persecute you for not paying the extra licenses that you would have to pay for public performances. Because you don't OWN that piece of music, the IP owner does.
Or rather, the problem is, that NO ONE can "own" data, once it is out in the public. Creators can demand more copyright monopolies that allow them to make you pay for certain activities, consumers can demand more rights to share it, the public can demand Fair Use rights or lower Public Domain limits, but neither of these is about exclusive ownership of the data, they are all just lobbying for their own benefit.
It's essentially make a custom hit. You finish a mission and then challenge others to do better. Pretty nothing is taken away without it.ExtraDebit said:
Considering the direction DRM is going, a "one step forward, two steps back" isnt all a bad thing.Braedan said:
I think you've got this twisted. It's not a way to stay profitable, it's a way to gain more income if anything. Often it's just a way to try and strong-arm people in to buying new instead of used.Cognimancer said:
If the game was considered "not profitable" it wouldn't even have been made. Simple as.
This specific instance is really strange though. It's just forcing people to jump through hoops for no reason what so ever.
People who buy the game new have to jump through hoops just to play online. Why the fuck would you do that to your paying customers!? (Jim will hopefully have a friggin field day with this one)
The customer is being inconvenienced just for the sake of. How bizarre.
How dare they give something for all players to enjoy for free? Do they seriously expect me to pay zero to get what I should have for nothing? Unbelievable. I won't spend so much as a penny for this free pass, mark my words! It's completely overpriced.
How do you keep track of your customers? Through sales (where you have income that shows how many copies of the games you sold) and through information acquisition (where the customer tells you who he is and where he is).
Folks, Square and Io just found a way to see how many unique players are using online mode and, since the infrastructure to do a global check cost extra, they passed the cost onto the consumers outside of North America.
Effectively, this is a video game census. The codes are a system that's already in place so consumers don't get confused by a new system. It's no more inconvenient than any other game out there and it's a one-time hoop to leap through.
What are Square and Io going to do with this newfound info about their customer base? That's what we should be asking ourselves. My money is on getting concrete stats on just how big the used game market is and determining the viability of long-term server commitment.
Something else to think about: Given that Absolution's online mode is players posting "kill x, y, and z on map 4 using only a chainsaw and without being seen and don't tell me you can't do it because I did it already" and variations on that theme, the strain on servers is going to be a good deal less than for games with multiple players interacting in real time on maps, as you'd get in COD or FF. Wouldn't it be interesting if Square could hold up something concrete that says, "We can save server space and keep our customers happier by changing the format of our online content and we'll make a better profit if we do." at it's next shareholder meeting? That would be lightning in a bottle for them: happier customers and higher profits simultaneously.
Folks, Square and Io just found a way to see how many unique players are using online mode and, since the infrastructure to do a global check cost extra, they passed the cost onto the consumers outside of North America.
Effectively, this is a video game census. The codes are a system that's already in place so consumers don't get confused by a new system. It's no more inconvenient than any other game out there and it's a one-time hoop to leap through.
What are Square and Io going to do with this newfound info about their customer base? That's what we should be asking ourselves. My money is on getting concrete stats on just how big the used game market is and determining the viability of long-term server commitment.
Something else to think about: Given that Absolution's online mode is players posting "kill x, y, and z on map 4 using only a chainsaw and without being seen and don't tell me you can't do it because I did it already" and variations on that theme, the strain on servers is going to be a good deal less than for games with multiple players interacting in real time on maps, as you'd get in COD or FF. Wouldn't it be interesting if Square could hold up something concrete that says, "We can save server space and keep our customers happier by changing the format of our online content and we'll make a better profit if we do." at it's next shareholder meeting? That would be lightning in a bottle for them: happier customers and higher profits simultaneously.