Rage Cuts Single-Player When You Buy It Used

[RevRaptor]

Well I'm not getting this game then, What happens If I get the ich to play it ten years down the track will the online pass still work or will I be forced to play the netuered version?
Was pretty lukewarm about this games anyway, this is just the final nail in the coffin.

 

[stewox]

All you need to know:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150325

 

[hellblazer445]

Next time I want to buy a used Mercedes, I'll call official Mercedes dealership to ask them if they're gonna cut my brakes if I don't give them a piece of that action.

Amen.

Id software seems to be saying some pretty whack shit these days. I think I'm gonna let this game pass.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I actually spoke to an Econ professor who was also a gamer about this. His solution? Cut spending, sell games for less, give people a bounus for buying new, and make fewer games. If a game requires over one million people to buy it new just to break even, something wrong is going on. Secondly, $60 is a bit high of an asking price for almost all new games. Price acorindly. Thirdly, if people got a discount on future DLC when they bought new, not only would that increase people buying new, it would also encourage them to hold on to the disk for future content, and fewer used copies would be floating around. It doesn't have to be much. Making 4 DLC packs 7.50 if you bought new (and, say $10 if you bought used) would still net you $30 at the end. Finally, if pubishers made fewer games, they wouldn't over-saturate the public. Again, I'm simplyfing these points.

That would be perfect. It would reward and encourage consumers to buy games new without punishing people who buy used. Which is why that system would never be put into place. Publishers are greedy and short sighted like that.

 

[sabercrusader]

So I'm wondering how many people actually read the whole article? It only cuts out a completly optional SP part that, as far as I know, isn't important to the story, and they went on to say that some people who buy the game new won't even see the place, it just seems to me like day one DLC that you get with the game for buying it new, and have the chance to buy it later if you got it used. It dosen't cut the SP from the game (although the title sure did suggest that, porbably would want to change that misleading title), it works the EXACT SAME WAY that if you bought Mass Effect 2 new, you got into Cerberus Network for free and got Zaeed for free, and if you didn't buy it new, you chose wether or not you wanted to buy the Cerberus Network and get Zaeed, he wasn't crucial to the story of the game, you could go on without him, it was just nice to have another party member. It's really not bad at all if you think about it. I'd rather have a non-crucial part of the single-player cut out than have to buy an online pass to play multiplayer.

It's still a part of the game! The guy said in the article that it had new missions and enemies, that seems a pretty big part of the experince.
This is just away for them to make more money, thats all they care about. This is why piracy is getting more common.

I torrent a game with some content missing? Oh well at least I didn't pay anything.
I pay for a used game; content missing. Wait what!?

It is Day One DLC, nothing else, and who are you to tell me that's a big part of the game? You don't know how long the part is. And do you not understand that they need to make money too? If you buy a game used, they get little to no money at all. Without money, they can't pay the people who made the game, and they can't make another game. Contrary to what you might belive, these people are doing they're jobs, and they're job is to make a great game for people like us to enjoy, if you can't afford new games then fine. I don't want to ban used game sales by any means, but when they cut something out because you don't buy the game new, I don't really care. I chose if I want to buy it or not.


Try putting yourself in the programmers shoes, or the game testers, or anyone that actually helped in the creating of the game. You create this awesome game and all, it's a completely orginal idea and all the reviews have been great so far, but the game bombs in moneymaking. Why? Most players bought the game used or torrented it so you got little to no money at all for spending countless hours doing whatever you did to make the game. Now imagine hearing that, when economy is so bad right now. Can you seriously tell me that you wouldn't be angry if that happened to you? And do you know what they do to combat that problem? This, they cut out a non-crucial portion of the game and release it as DLC for a price so that they can get some money.




I don't understand why people complain so much about this, do the think that robots make the games? That the people who make the games are rolling around in money? That's only the big ones. Look at it from the point of view of the workers on the game before you condemn the game. You're right, this is a way to get more money, because if they don't do this, they don't get payed, they don't get payed, they won't be able to make more games and people will lose their jobs, just because people like you whine and ***** and complain about them taking out a small portion of a game to try and tempt you into buying it new or paying for it after you buy the game used.



EDIT: Yeah, another giant wall of text, I really need to split these into paragraphs.

 

[Still Life]

However, if I buy a PRODUCT, that product is MINE by law.

That argument might work before the law if you weren't actually purchasing a license. The terms of which you agree to when you install the software.

 

[mstickle]

This is just horrid. Every bloody time my husband and I get a game that has one of these pass things there's always question as to whether we will both be able to access the content or only one of us. Sometimes we both can, others have limited access (Cerberus for example, I can use the DLC but not cerberus itself) and occasionally one is totally locked out from the content (extra content codes in the box for Assasins Creed games are like this). There is no way to be sure until we both try to access the content. We have to decide who the game is more important to and they get to enter the code and the other hopes for access.

We never purchase used so why exactly should we be punished because some do? It's bad enough that games can cost up to $120 dollars in Australia, no wonder people buy used and no wonder people trade in games so they can get new games.

Despite the above I can understand "project ten dollar" type things and I'm okay paying it if I were to buy used, but as a customer that will buy almost every game on release day it's bullcrap to worry that I may have to pay more so we can both have the full experience.

 

[Epona]

This is just horrid. Every bloody time my husband and I get a game that has one of these pass things there's always question as to whether we will both be able to access the content or only one of us. Sometimes we both can, others have limited access (Cerberus for example, I can use the DLC but not cerberus itself) and occasionally one is totally locked out from the content (extra content codes in the box for Assasins Creed games are like this). There is no way to be sure until we both try to access the content. We have to decide who the game is more important to and they get to enter the code and the other hopes for access.

We never purchase used so why exactly should we be punished because some do? It's bad enough that games can cost up to $120 dollars in Australia, no wonder people buy used and no wonder people trade in games so they can get new games.

Despite the above I can understand "project ten dollar" type things and I'm okay paying it if I were to buy used, but as a customer that will buy almost every game on release day it's bullcrap to worry that I may have to pay more so we can both have the full experience.

DRM hurts the paying customers. They have even taken to locking save files on some games because those don't belong to you either, apparently.

 

[Straitjacketeering]

Never wanted to buy this game, now it wonderfully reinforces my decision, which is just delicious...

 

[Apollo45]

Oh my god, they're cutting a side-quest from the game! How horrible!

Seriously, it's not always-on DRM, it's not cutting huge, vital parts of the game out, it's just giving people incentive to give some money to the publishers instead of giving it to the used game sellers. The devs deserve some of the money too; if you can't afford it first hand the day it comes out, give it six months and buy it for $30. So you didn't get it the week it came out, who cares?

I'm thinking this is the way to go about doing it. I feel like they should make players who buy the game used able to purchase the unlock online (or through either of the console marketplaces), but if they don't choose to do it that way then that's their choice. They spend, what, a year plus developing and making this game, and you get it off what is essentially a legitimate black market and complain that they want a bit of cash so you can play it? Especially if you're playing multiplayer, which uses up space on the servers they pay for, they deserve some cash for it.

 

[the_green_dragon]

*sniff sniff* I smell a shit-storm of a boycott coming. Well done id, you've excluded a huge percent of the gaming community because you want to make money. Give them a round of applaud ladies and gents, id has become the biggest dick in the gaming industry! They're not stopping pirates; they're stopping people who come a little to late for the party!

Pirates rejoice!

Ok so let's say you are put in charge of his hypothetical boycott. In order for this to succeed you have to convince people to not buy the game at launch and to cancel their preorders. So let's say I've preordered Rage. What will you say to me to convince me to cancel my preorder and join your cause?

Sure, they're locking out a small part of the single player campaign thats equal to some first day DLC. If this actually increases their profts whats to stop them locking out half the game next time? lets nip it in the bud now

 

[the_green_dragon]

However, if I buy a PRODUCT, that product is MINE by law.

That argument might work before the law if you weren't actually purchasing a license. The terms of which you agree to when you install the software.

u don't install console games... theres no agreement. i buy it, pop it in and play

 

[Still Life]

However, if I buy a PRODUCT, that product is MINE by law.

That argument might work before the law if you weren't actually purchasing a license. The terms of which you agree to when you install the software.

u don't install console games... theres no agreement. i buy it, pop it in and play

Doesn't matter. The licensing would adjust for that; It's still licensed software whether you install on a HD or not.

 

[mrdude2010]

correct me if I'm wrong but won't pirates hack the game anyway so you get the full single player portion? If that is not true then this makes sense. If a pirated version is available though that is better then what you can get from a used version aren't they shooting themselves in the foot?

I think they would be better off getting some type of % of sales on used games (from major retailers at least). Perhaps 10% of the value of any used game sale should go to the original company that produced it.

i really don't get why they're locking the single player- it's a lot easier to crack single player so that it works without the key than it is to get multiplayer working without the key

i agree, if game developers are going to insist on being tremendous assholes, they might as well make it moderately more convenient to us by causing the price to go up at gamestop rather than forcing us to put another 800 microsoft points on the account to unlock half the game

 

[Archangel768]

I wish people wouldn't buy games that used things like this. Too bad so many gamers exist these days therefor meaning that there will be more and more idiots that won't think twice when purchasing games that rip people off like this. No other product on this planet has such ridiculous precautions in place when it comes to the used game market and even the new game market as well (always online etc)

It goes to show how the game developers that once treated their games with respect see them as nothing more than a tool to swindle more and more money out of unsuspecting victims. I only wish there was a way of getting my point across to the masses but, I know that these messages will probably just fall on deaf ears.

Developers have been doing this for years, its called day one DLC. A tiny section of the game is held back for people who buy it new
Christ I wouldn't have to correct everyone if they'd read the f*cking article

Yes, I know developers have been doing that for years and I didn't say otherwise, when I was mentioning the past, I meant games that were older than the whole DLC deal. And I am obviously annoyed at those developers as well. Fortunately it seems as though I have avoided purchasing games that did such a thing, at least brand new as far as I'm aware. Sorry if what I said in my earlier post offended you.

 

[Himmelgeher]

Oh... wow. I was actually going to go pre-order this tomorrow. But now... I'm certainly not supporting shit like this. For the record, I have no problem with devs putting a free DLC code in the box or giving something a bit extra to people who buy the game new (see the Cerberus Network), but this... fuck this.

 

[joshthor]

eh, if i buy it it will be used from work. i will still get the content. how? cause i rent the game on release day and snag a manual! boo ya!

 

[Andaxay]

I can understand the developers feeling they need to earn something from the thousands of pre-owned sales. But what about people that genuinely can't afford a new copy? What about families with multiple PSN/XBL accounts that have to buy MORE THAN ONE COPY just to be able to access the extra parts? I've had more than a few wives and husbands in the store I work in complaining about the fact they have to buy more than one copy of Fifa 11 for their household just 'cause both sons want to play online. Good thing Activision and Treyarch weren't that stupid when they brought Black Ops out and didn't lock the online with a key - complaints would've been rife.

Can't stores and developers just reach some sort of agreement that lets devs take a small slice of the pre-owned profit? Cutting all this bullcrap altogether? Stores have to make money, too, y'know.