It really depends on what you mean by big games. Darksiders 2 is a big game for me but it might not be for other people. On the other hand I couldn't care less about GTA V or Max Payne. If you wanna look at the majority of the games coming out this year though check this out: [en.wikipedia.org]
"I actually LIKE just going through the combat in the game versus it being a chore that I grind through for story. I'm not against turn-based RPGs or ones with slower more analytical intelligence instead of spatial intelligence for action games...but this is just the example of the action/rpg where they get the "action" part right instead of just the "RPG" part"
Exactly! I have a terrible time playing some of the other "action" rpgs because the combat is so awful. This game looks to have a lot of promise. At first I was thrown by the "destinies" system thinking of the cards as classes and that I needed to try to stick to them but once I realized they were just bonuses (or buffs as you say, probably the best description of them I've heard) it really opened things up for me. I also struggled with the weapon selection at first thinking that I needed to stick with the bow as my secondary weapon because I'm so used to games giving us "secondary weapons" that can only be used in the secondary slot. Amazing variety available in this game. And the chakrams! How awesome a concept is that for a mage? Completely blown away by this demo once I stopped thinking in the box other games had built for me.
Oh yeah, I loved it. I played for an hour or two my first sitting when I was expecting to play for maybe 15 minutes. The demo totally sold me on the game, especially with the $20 bonus Amazon is offering.
If it helps I'm the same way. I'm tempted to have two saves for each relationship just to see the difference between "cheating" in ME2 and not.
I'm right there with you. This Syndicate demo is quite possibly the best demo I've ever seen. Who ever heard of a demo that allowed for unlocks and stat progression? I'll be playing the crap out of this demo until the full game is released
I've been replaying ME2 in anticipation of ME3 but the Kingdoms of Amalur demo and the Syndicate demo are likely to distract me for most of the weekend. Just played the Syndicate demo yesterday and I see that taking up a lot of time. I'm amazed at how good this game looks to be.
That's an absurd amount of content in the best possible way. The demo was nice, I've been dieing to get back to it, but I was actually worried there wouldn't be enough content. I felt like I was breezing through the begining of the game too fast but 200 hours? Given how much time I spend crafting, collecting, etc that makes the content at least 400 hours for me. Apparently I was just breezing through the extremely small sliver of the game they made available in the demo. After I finish ME3 this game should keep me busy till the fall.
Actually money is being injected into the economy as a whole. Some money may be injected back into the game market but plenty of times people sell all their stuff and go buy diapers. This does nothing beneficial for publishers. I get the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it's statistically significant.
I actually like the renting idea. I think that'd be a better solution. I don't think that makes what they're doing now invalid, just not the best solution available.
I get that. I was responding to the "rightful ownership" comment you made. And I can see how it's possible this could have a positive impact for the developer. What I doubt is that the impact is large enough for them to consider and that even if it is that large that it is larger than the impact the sale of these Online Passes.
If you're using it to help you make purchasing decisions then what's the issue? You get to try out most of the game minus the Online Pass content? If it's a multiplayer-centric game that could be an issue but you still get to play the single player to see if you like the gameplay.
You become a customer as soon as you buy the DLC. Aren't you arguing that used game buyers opinions should matter when they don't buy such content? cause that's what I getting here.
While the point about other media putting restrictions on their markets is valid I would also point out that no other media has national chain stores devoted to selling their used products. I think video games are a different beast altogether. Consumers treat them that way trading in used games all the time. I don't know too many people who trade in all their old books or movies on a regular basis. If consumers see the market differently why shouldn't publishers?
The point there is just that if you aren't buying the product from them then why does your opinion matter? I hate Coke so I doubt they give a shit if I like their commercials.
You mean to download the content again? Well yeah, obviously. That sucks for anyone who hasn't done so already. Guess if you like it that much you'll have to keep it. But that'll be true for Steam as well. Look, I'm not saying it's great that it works this way but I'm having a hard time understanding the difference here.
And again, Ubisoft can go to hell. I'd hate to be one of the players about to be effected by just this kind of thing starting next week I think? They deserve every bit of vitriol they recieve these days.
I disagree. The content works just fine if you play disconnected from the internet. I've specifically tried to prove that point. Unless there's something built into the software that requires you to connect every so many days to maintain access, there is no issue. And if such a feature exists I've never heard of it and I'd be shocked to find out they've hidden it this long. ME2 connects to the Cerberus Network to offer you new content. There's no need to check in with origin/EAs servers to play the games.
I didn't say they didn't own the game, I said they weren't a consumer. In this context that means someone who paid the person who made the product for the game.
I absolutely disagree with you. Unless the used purchase happens during a period when used copies are difficult to find, which is only true early in the life of an extemely popular game, the person buying the game isn't likely to purchase a new copy of a game when they'd originally intended to purchase a used copy. In fact, when purchasing games at GameStop the employee will often try to convince you to buy a used game instead of a new one. To say buying a used copy of a game increases the probability of another new sale is like saying I decrease the volume of the ocean when I swallow a mouthful of ocean water.
No, I'm aware of Ubisoft's practices. Those I am quite unhappy with. That is most certainly the exception rather than the rule though. And public outcry has caused them to change much of that DRM. I see DRM as rather different than DLC. Also, I own many Ubisoft games for consoles where this is not an issue. I can't speak for PCs I certainly don't want this to become a normal practice and would strongly argue against it.
That being said, isn't that basically what steam does? Only they're nice about it?
Understood. Whether the ranter cares or not I do like to hear examples of how this is effecting people who are buying the games new. I still support the online pass idea but only because I haven't seen a better available option and I don't see taking no action as a legitimate possiblity. Hopefully they will eventually find a solution that doesn't hurt original buyers.
That works with the assumption that the used market is small enough for that to ever be an issue. Far more used product is purchased than can ever be resold. This elusive new copy may be sold early in the life of an extremely popular game but rarely thereafter. Also, you're making the assumption that the person won't wait till that game is available used.
And ultimately you're still wrong. The person who eventually buys the product new is a consumer. The person who buys the product used make no direct contribution to the person who created the product. At best they potentially cause someone else to make the decision to be a consumer. This is not guaranteed and there enough alternative products out there that the used sale may never translate into the purchase of a new product ever.
Potential customers is an entirely different argument. They are not currently customers. You absolutely can't tell a paying customer to kick rocks. What philosophy you take with "potential" customers is a different story. Assuming they'd ever buy a game new anyway which is as much of an assumption as any of the things you're arguing against.
Yes, it benefits the publisher. The publisher will keep track of that found money. They'll use it to judge a number of things and help determine what games to make, how to fund them, etc. Also, the majority of the companies I see delivering the day one DLC/Online Passes are both the publisher and the developer. Making the distinction between them isn't necessary.
It wouldn't be those games, it would be the future funding and developement of future games. And I can't. But it's not hard to connect the dots between the found money and more and better games when it's a company that publishes it's own games like EA. It sure as hell can't hurt anything for the developers in that example.
Understood, just pointing out what appear to me to be holes/flaws.
I can't think of too many titles that are $25+ a year later. First party titles I guess? Most revenue on a game is made in the first 3 months or so. If a person buys the game used for $50 then I'd say that's a person who would have bought the game for $60 new if GameStop didn't give them the used option. If they buy it for $30 (in the same 3 month period) then I'd be ok saying they would not have bought the game new in a statistically significant period of time.
Maybe the publishers are just being stingy and trying to make money off of any sale period. I think it's more likely that they're trying to recapture the sale they would have made from that $50 purchaser. Or trying to get a little profit out of it which is probably all that they would have made off the new purchase anyway.
Alright, is see the complaint. I wish there was an easy solution for you. All I can say is that you aren't the average player and that they're playing a numbers game here. It's shitty but I doubt it'll ever change.
I get where you're coming from on that. I think you have a right to complain. I'm not sure I agree with you completely but you aren't the person this post is talking about. He makes blanket statements but they only apply to people who buy the game used and expect to recieve the full game.
I empathize, I've been in that situation. I think it's unfortunate. On the other hand, if it's not an online multiplayer game you're not missing out on that much and if you really want the content it's fairly cheap. I don't blame you for not buying it, I can just see where the developer/publisher are coming from. And to be fair, you're not giving them any money so they're not too worried about your happiness. Now if the rental companies were kicking down some extra cash so their customers could play that content...
