This is a rather pointless attempt at a solution to this "problem," as I doubt this will stop many people from buying it used. This won't stop me from buying it, though.
Rage Cuts Single-Player When You Buy It Used
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, good luck with Rage. Ya know, because it's such an expected game, more so than MW3 or Battlefield or even GoW. Because surely people will spend their 60 bucks on this unknown game, knowing that they got the best deal in their lives. And no sane person ever will sell this game because it would be like shooting the Pope; an unbearable thought. [/sarcasm]
Look, when you buy used games, developers DO see a profit. How? When a game is on demand (whether used or new), stores like Gamestop request more copies in order to satisfy people's needs. They get both used and new copies. The new copies will allow the used copies to keep coming and by requesting new games, the developers realize their game is selling and they send in more copies. It's a circle.
But anyway, I'm tired of that bullshit about how used games are a crime and whatnot. People who think otherwise are hopeless. So getting back to the main topic, Rage is not that big of a game yet in order to try that. When RE: Mercenaries did something similar to that, everyone thought it was a big deal because it was a Resident fucking Evil game. but Rage? Sorry, I know it looks awesome and whatnot but so did Brink before it came out. That's a dick move that it's only gonna backslash.
If they truly want to reward people who buy the game brand new, how about adding unique guns? Or suits? Maybe an extra map pack for reservation? Something that will say "Hey, I got this game brand new so I got this flashy outfit and a gun and all you got is that generic suit. Boo!". Modnation Racers did that by releasing a Sackboy kart and avatar if you bought the game brand new and they gave a Kratos kart and avatar for reserving it. Up until today, I still get asked online about my avatars. And I think I got a good deal. So learn from that, developers.
Look, when you buy used games, developers DO see a profit. How? When a game is on demand (whether used or new), stores like Gamestop request more copies in order to satisfy people's needs. They get both used and new copies. The new copies will allow the used copies to keep coming and by requesting new games, the developers realize their game is selling and they send in more copies. It's a circle.
But anyway, I'm tired of that bullshit about how used games are a crime and whatnot. People who think otherwise are hopeless. So getting back to the main topic, Rage is not that big of a game yet in order to try that. When RE: Mercenaries did something similar to that, everyone thought it was a big deal because it was a Resident fucking Evil game. but Rage? Sorry, I know it looks awesome and whatnot but so did Brink before it came out. That's a dick move that it's only gonna backslash.
If they truly want to reward people who buy the game brand new, how about adding unique guns? Or suits? Maybe an extra map pack for reservation? Something that will say "Hey, I got this game brand new so I got this flashy outfit and a gun and all you got is that generic suit. Boo!". Modnation Racers did that by releasing a Sackboy kart and avatar if you bought the game brand new and they gave a Kratos kart and avatar for reserving it. Up until today, I still get asked online about my avatars. And I think I got a good deal. So learn from that, developers.
Care not, this game is a BUY, unless Pray2 comes out close to this and it's got better gameplay, not likely...
People that live under a rock with stuff like not knowing the developer of rage ... have very little credibility in this thread ... especially all the complainers.
The point is nobody will sell this game after they bougt it ... maybe some fanboy idiot kid who doesn't know who IDSoftware is and doesn't know to play the game.
The point is nobody will sell this game after they bougt it ... maybe some fanboy idiot kid who doesn't know who IDSoftware is and doesn't know to play the game.
That?s what bothers me about schemes like this. All they do is affect the people who don?t have as much money but still try to be legitimate consumers anyway. It?s not going to affect the pirates or the retail chains that take advantage of their monopoly on used game values. All things like this will do is encourage people with less money to start pirating.SgtFoley said:
If they really want to combat used game sales and pirating, then they have to figure out a way to make new games cheaper. It could?ve been done by making games shorter and shallower but they?ve already done that without altering the prices at all.
It?s too bad, this game looked very purchasable but something like that is usually a sign of desperation which for me is a sign to rent.
This. People frothing at the mouth over this just diminishes whatever credibility gamers' as a community have.ZeroDotZero said:
Hell, this is even LESS of a deal because it is only cutting a PART of the single player game, instead of the WHOLE multiplayer. ID is "locking out" a much less significant part of the game than Project $10 ever has.
First of all, legitimate customers are affected by this EXACTLY as much as by one-time validation(because that is essentially what it is).SgtFoley said:
Secondly, you realize this has nothing to do with pirates right? It's about the buying of used game disks, not illegal downloading of the game.
Has it now become the norm that Project $10 is ok? I don't think so. What you fail to understand is that this "less significant part of the game" is merely a foot in the door. Next time there will be crucial single player parts removed and eventually the entire single player game will be locked out. It will be just like PC games where the used market no longer exists.fundayz said:
It's not a slippery slope since these same publishers have already done it for PC games and they ARE trying to do it with console games. So yeah, people should object before it's too late.
Well, I guess I won't be buying this game.
To be honest, I probably wasn't going to buy it anyway.
I'm one of those "criminal degenerate scum" who occasionally purchases a game used. "Rage" might've been one of those games. Then if I really like the game, I'm all the more likely to buy the next one new.
I bought the following games used:
Gran tourismo 4
Assassins creed
Grand theft auto: San Andreas
Tom Clancy's Splinter cell.
Tomb raider.
Max payne.
I have either purchased or plan to purchase a sequel to all of these games NEW!
Well I guess id or whoever the hell can forget about that.
To be honest, I probably wasn't going to buy it anyway.
I'm one of those "criminal degenerate scum" who occasionally purchases a game used. "Rage" might've been one of those games. Then if I really like the game, I'm all the more likely to buy the next one new.
I bought the following games used:
Gran tourismo 4
Assassins creed
Grand theft auto: San Andreas
Tom Clancy's Splinter cell.
Tomb raider.
Max payne.
I have either purchased or plan to purchase a sequel to all of these games NEW!
Well I guess id or whoever the hell can forget about that.
Meh. I've seen stuff sorta like this before. I think this is just a failure of wording on id's part. When you buy the new game, you get a card with a code on it, and you get some sort of bonus doohicky.
The right way to pitch that is as a bonus: if you buy the game new, you'll get access to this special extra stuff. The wrong way to do it (what he's doing here) is to pitch it as an anti-piracy and anti-used game measure: unless you buy the game new, we're cutting down the single player content.
The right way to pitch that is as a bonus: if you buy the game new, you'll get access to this special extra stuff. The wrong way to do it (what he's doing here) is to pitch it as an anti-piracy and anti-used game measure: unless you buy the game new, we're cutting down the single player content.
I don't think they are trying to stop people from buying it used. I think the approach is more based around an idea that if one likes the game (singleplayer story mode and multiplayer) that they can then maybe kick some cash to the developer.ultrachicken said:
From reading the article it seems more like the free DLC that sometimes comes included with a pre-order. It isn't banned forever or even necessary, but it is just a reward for people who follow a certain path. A kind of reward for brand loyalty or supporting the game. I'm honestly okay with this idea, rather than the more strong armed tactic of literally locking an entire mode that is a major part of the experience behind a closed door.
Basically I see it as the difference between a cover charge to be a sort of VIP member of a club. Rather than having to pay a cover charge once to gain access to half the building then yet another charge to be a VIP member. So, if I have a choice between the two options, I would personally take the first.
I'm obviously some kind of Neanderthal, but I don't have my 360 connected to any kind of internet connection. So even if I buy a lot of these games brand-new, I still lose out on stuff whenever they try the "use this code online to unlock your content" technique. I mean, i know connecting to the net will solve that issue, but I don't feel like I should be punished for not wanting to spend money on a function I have little interest or time for. Perhaps I'm just some Luddite who needs to be drop-kicked into the modern gaming era.
Your definition of "used game" is a little off. It doesn't mean just the second-hand games sold at GameStop, it means ALL second-hand games. I bought a new copy of Dragon Age: Origins for the 360 and after a year of playing it I sold it to a friend of mine for $40. You see where I'm going with this? HE now owns a USED COPY of DA:O; all because he wanted something I didn't want anymore. Now thankfully, DA:O doesn't have this DRM crap on it, but what if it did? My friend would have been locked out of a part of the game just because of a mutually beneficial arrangement among friends.Scizophrenic Llama said:
I actually place the blame squarely back on the Publisher for being idiotic. Has anyone actually looked at the prices for used games there or the trade in values?newfoundsky said:
Why don't the publishers just beat those prices themselves? It wouldn't be too hard.
If the consumer wants to trade in Oblivion, Bethesda could offer a better trade in value; especially if the consumer wants to put said trade in towards their Skyrim preorder. Then they could sell those used copies of Oblivion (again, cheaper than gamestop) and make the profit off of it.
Either way this practice of punishing the legitimate consumers who (probably have to for financial reasons; that's why I used to) buy used has to stop. It's just going to end up hurting the industry overall when those gamers find something more cost effective (and less insulting) to take part in.
I would like to point out that the Publisher/developer of any game doesn't actually have any say in what Gamestop or other retailers charge the consumer for the game so if the publisher was to charge less to Gamestop for the game Gamestop could just continue to charge $60 and pocket the extra profit.