Poll: Personal Issue with Batman: Arkham City

[CM156_v1legacy]

for one, while its hard to believe, rocksteady is not made up of alien wizards. they are humans like you and me, and they need things like food to survive, so they are just trying to rake in some cash. also with the skins they are realising the skins later as DLC, so here's what you do: buy from amazon and save about $20 on taxes & shipping (they discount it once it gets above a certian price, and $60 is high enough)then use all the money you saved to get even more skins than you would have by preordering!

Strangely enough if you buy used rocksteady already got payed for that item, they already had a hearty meal from the sales. They put no extra effort or outlay into the game since it was sold once so they should get no extra money when it's sold again.

So if 500 people buy the game new and 500,000 more people just borrow/buy the game from those first 500 people, all Rocksteady deserves from the game are those first 500 sales? (Obviously they'll sell more than that, but you see my point)

How are 500 new sales going to produce 500k used sales and rentals unless it is a terribly short game with zero replay value or just a crap game no one wants to play leading to a very quock turn around time? If that is the case then yes, they only deserve the 500 sales.

Because used sales don't just stop at second hand. One person gives it to a friend, who sells it to another person, who trades it in at a video game retailer who sells it to someone else and so on. That's just one copy. You don't even have to get that complicated. You could just go 'Buy it new, trade it in, retailer sells it, that person trades it back, retailer sells it again, etc'

Also, it doesn't matter how awesome a game is. It could be so mind blowingly epic that it will literally melt faces. A vast majority of people who own the game will still give it away/sell it/let friends borrow it. No game lasts forever. And let's be honest here- It's a single player game with no multiplayer and a linear story. I'm sure it'll be awesome and I'm actually heading over to Gamestop in four hours to grab my copy, but I'm not expecting the game to last me for months or anything.

I want you to go look at a list of games that made money this year.

...

Go on, I'll wait.

...

*Twiddles thumbs*

...

Back? See a recurring trend? These games were well received. That's generally what happens.

Now, go look at games that didn't make money.

...

See another trend there? Games like CCall of Juarez the cartel were bad games, and thus didn't make money.

Even some games that weren't terribly well received still managed to do well. Dragon Age II is an example of this.

Again, to quote a DToid Poster

Onered

It comes down to one thing, regardless of argument: publishers have zero proof that used games cost them any money. None. Nada. It is all conjecture, and a fair amount of hubris. Again, publishers have zero proof used games cost them money, they are not even actively trying to prove it.

I can, however, prove that Gamestop alone buys $1 billion worth of murchandise from gamers a year, and according the their president, more than 75% of that is used on new product in the same visit, and more than 95% is used in the same visit on everything in general. In simple terms, Gamestop, the evil empire of games retail, adds $1billion to gamer's pockets anually, the vast majority of which is spent on new product before walking out of the store. Numbers.

Publishers cannot prove that used games cost the industry money, they don't want to try. I've said it before, when your weapon of choice is conjecture, you have to keep your image squeaky clean. If big publishers could prove anything, they would have. They know that the second they put the effort into doing just that, they lay waste to the image they've been perpetuating, as the actual numbers would be incapable of perpetuating it for them.

As I said, I've spoken to an economist buddy of mine, and we formulated another plan to "fight" used sales, that revolves around using DLC

Lets say game A is getting released, and they plan to have $35 worth of DLC out over the course of 5-7 months. When buying new, you have a chance to buy a "online pass" of sorts for, say $25, and get all the DLC when it comes out. That rewards people for buying new. If you got it used, you can get the same code for, say $30. Both ways give people a reason to hold onto their disks for the next few months. Thus, at launch, there will be fewer used games competing with the new games. And at the end, when people DO sell off their games, it gives people a chance to play them and buy the DLC at full price if they want. Kinda combine the "Rockstar Pass" with "Cerberus Network". I would be fully behind this plan. If you think ?Oh, but then they would lose money because they wouldn?t make as much money on DLC?, consider this: If I spend $25 on content that is yet to come, I am most likely going to keep the game. This reduces the number of games resold, which will make them more money, because there are fewer copies of the game to buy used. Gamestop can still make money on sales from the kind of people who play a game in 3 days and return it for resale in order to get a new game, and devs/publishers give people more of a reason to want to keep the game if they like it.?

 

[Robert Ewing]

Eh, it's basically just DLC, a sad and unavoidable part of the gaming industry now.

They are easy to make, cheap, expand the experience and sell like hot cakes. Because if they weren't all those things, they wouldn't exist.

 

[crono738]

Why do the pre-order bonuses even matter? They'll all be available as DLC before the year's out anyway...

Side note: Most of the Gamestops in my area are actually offering all of the pre-order bonuses, including Nightwing and Robin for an extra $7 or so.

I wish I lived where you live. (I think Nightwing is yet-to-be-dated DLC and not a preorder bonus though)

Seems I live in one of the lucky areas, where the stores and the folks who work there don't suck copious amounts of ass.

 

[Furioso]

oh my god, different skins?! THE MADNESS, seriously, retailers have been doing this for years, why start your crusade with Arkham City, instead of a game more people would be sympathetic to you about

 

[Rawne1980]

Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that, I figured everyone were getting it, you know, being a generalizing asshole and all (me, that is)

I apologise.

I wasn't trying to sound like an arse just putting across my annoyance that they put the game back a month for PC gamers and are releasing it around the same time as Skyrim.

I was quite looking forward to to the new Batman after the last one turned out better than I thought it would.

It would have been a must buy if not for the November release. Not that i'm saying it's a bad game in any way but I mod so will have my face implanted in Skyrim and it would be pointless buying Batman for it to gather dust.

Would be a damn shame to leave it sat around like that for all i've read/seen of Arkham City it does look really good.

 

[MattRooney06]

Tell me, OP. Did you complain when Soul Calibur II (I believe it was II) had three different exclusive characters depending on which console you bought it for?

Man i remember that!!!!

i wanted Link but i didn't have a gamecube, oh well hehatchi for me ^^

 

[babinro]

Depending on how long you wait out on the purchase you may well win in the end. Odds are Arkham City will have a GOTY edition made.

Wait until that sees the light of day next year (with launch of Wii-U version of the game I'd wager) and you'll get what day 1 buyers couldn't.

 

[darkcalling]

I already preordered it so it doesn't really concern me that much.

I DO hate it when different stores get different preorder bonuses but as long as it's not something that actually impacts gameplay (bonus weapons) or entire game modes I don't think it's a dealbreaker.

What they pulled with Catwoman IS kind of a dick move but like I said I already preordered so it doesn't affect me.

Besides Gamestop has said that they'll be giving out the codes for Catwoman to used buyers. Just buy from them.

 

[Mordereth]

Hey they gotta make money somehow...

Maybe by selling video-games, eh?

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Hey they gotta make money somehow...

Maybe by selling video-games, eh?

Then supplementing that cash with DLC and pre-order bonuses to make more money to make better games with larger budgets?

 

[WindScar]

Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that, I figured everyone were getting it, you know, being a generalizing asshole and all (me, that is)

I apologise.

I wasn't trying to sound like an arse just putting across my annoyance that they put the game back a month for PC gamers and are releasing it around the same time as Skyrim.

I was quite looking forward to to the new Batman after the last one turned out better than I thought it would.

It would have been a must buy if not for the November release. Not that i'm saying it's a bad game in any way but I mod so will have my face implanted in Skyrim and it would be pointless buying Batman for it to gather dust.

Would be a damn shame to leave it sat around like that for all i've read/seen of Arkham City it does look really good.

Glad to hear it

 

[WindScar]

oh my god, different skins?! THE MADNESS, seriously, retailers have been doing this for years, why start your crusade with Arkham City, instead of a game more people would be sympathetic to you about

Because I am the only one?

 

[Mordereth]

Hey they gotta make money somehow...

Maybe by selling video-games, eh?

Then supplementing that cash with DLC and pre-order bonuses to make more money to make better games with larger budgets?

Because milking that one so much last time is what got them the chance to replace Asylum with City and pop another one out with everything turned up to 11?

I'm sorry, but unless you're actually a video game developer\someone with industry inside information, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest DLC/pre-order bonuses are so lucrative and important in being able to create sequels.


As you can see, they simply piss off actual fans who'd keep buying the games after they were the "shinniest newest and bestest thing" because they actually rather liked the series. Trying to nickle-and-dime people isn't a business model that makes you any friends, and you're bold to imply it's necessary.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Hey they gotta make money somehow...

Maybe by selling video-games, eh?

Then supplementing that cash with DLC and pre-order bonuses to make more money to make better games with larger budgets?

Because milking that one so much last time is what got them the chance to replace Asylum with City and pop another one out with everything turned up to 11?

I'm sorry, but unless you're actually a video game developer\someone with industry inside information, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest DLC/pre-order bonuses are so lucrative and important in being able to create sequels.


As you can see, they simply piss off actual fans who'd keep buying the games after they were the "shinniest newest and bestest thing" because they actually rather liked the series. Trying to nickle-and-dime people isn't a business model that makes you any friends, and you're bold to imply it's necessary.

More money for new original IP's and it's not necessary. Not at all and I love being an L4D player meaning i get free DLC and yeah I'm not an industry insider, But I like extra content. Not day 1 content but something to expand the story or add new side stories like with Fallout 3 I don't like what Arkham itself is doing but I was defending DLC in general. Back to the original topic of Arkham only, i hate it. If the content is available day one then I call bull but if it is new content made after a games release then I'm all for it except map packs, Give me a black ops level editor and leave me alone. Again though I'm not an industry insider at least I know that if I had some extra cash flowing around I'd make a new IP but yes that would not the be mindset of most companies...

 

[EvilPicnic]

I agree with the OP, but it might be in part because I have slightly OCD/completionist tendencies. And also that I really want to be able to play as the BTAS and DKR versions of Batman and don't particularly want to buy two copies of the game from seperate retailers in order to do so, so I am slightly vexed.

I also have issues with this because, well, I love old games. And I love buying old consoles off eBay and playing old games. And I realise that the new games of today are the old games of the future.

Why is this relevant? Because 10 years from now someone is gonna buy an old 360 and a used copy of Arkham City off eBay. And they're gonna try to play the game and realise that a big chuck of the content (I'm thinking the Catwoman levels here) is locked behind a dlc pay-wall that is no-longer maintained, and that content will be lost.

And this will be the death of games.

I'm not even kidding. This may seem a valid and understandable business model now, but in the long term it only reinforces the idea that games are disposable, transient and lacking in worth. The trend is to decrease backward compatibility (see the new Wii U) and any attempts at archival are squashed by companies wanting to push their new product and scared of competition from the old one (Goldeneye 077 [the good one] is not resurfacing any time soon).

With publishers deliberately suppressing old games, and sabotaging new ones for further generations, the value of games as entertainment or artistic expression is reduced, and this will unfortunately lead to games never becoming the transcendent medium it so obviously could be.

People still pick up and enjoy old classic books a hundred years later. In a hundred years will anyone pick up and enjoy Arkham City? No. Because you won't be able to play as fucking Catwoman.

 

[Ando85]

I do find the way they are handling stuff like this now annoying. But, it won't stop me from getting an otherwise excellent game. I feel by boycotting games for this reason pointless and all it really punishes is me missing out on a good game. Like mentioned before it is all aesthetics and not a major part of the game, so I will just choose not to fork over the cash for the optional skins and stuff I could care less about.

 

[BristolBerserker]

It's going to be awesome so i'm getting it. Also the dlc skins will be available later on psn/xbla

 

[Snake Plissken]

So if 500 people buy the game new and 500,000 more people just borrow/buy the game from those first 500 people, all Rocksteady deserves from the game are those first 500 sales? (Obviously they'll sell more than that, but you see my point)

Unless you're willing to pose that argument against ALL other second hand sales or loans then, yeah, that's all they deserve, because that's all they sold.

Let's say I buy a power drill for a project I'm working on. I finish the project, and then loan it to my neighbor to use on his. Then another neighbor needs it, and I let him borrow it, too. Eventually, most of the neighborhood has used the drill. I don't have a use for it anymore, so I sell it on eBay to someone who may or may not do the same thing. Would you really argue that DeWalt or Craftsman deserve a chunk of money because of how many people temporarily benefited from their product?

Or, lets say my friend an I want to get some beer for the evening. A twelve pack of our favorite beer costs 15.99, or 8.99 per six pack. We decide to just split a twelve pack. Would you honestly argue that, since we're not technically paying for what we purchased (6 beers each), the brewery deserves more money from us?

 

[FarleShadow]

I hate everyone who buys DLC's for costumes or hats.

Its the same deal with spam, all it takes is 1% of the 99% of the userbase buying whatever is being sold and companies will continue to release something it took a single game designer acouple of hours to knock together.

edit: PREEMPTIVE STRIKE! Yes children, I know it takes them more than acouple of hours for some of the more detailed DLC's [That also add no gameplay features and are totally cosmetic only], so don't bother complaining.