Amentep

Lionheart is great in Barcelona. After Barcelona itis a pure hack and slash game where the hackin' and slashin' ain't so fun (unfortunately I don't think they balanced the system very well so for my money the stuff outside of Barcelona is just an incredible pain in the rear. Mobs of enemies and for the most part no easy way to deal with them).

A trailer for an announcement?

ME2 is Mass Effect 2? It just had downloadable content, yes? I've never had a problem with paying for additional downloadable content or expansions and the like (as mentioned before). I see now I kinda missed the point a bit; I guess the idea of buying a new game for $10 less never made sense to me. I know other people do that, but first few weeks a game is out, if I really want it I buy it new.

ME2 is Mass Effect 2? It just had downloadable content, yes? I've never had a problem with paying for additional downloadable content or expansions and the like (as mentioned before).

But you do when game publishers do the same thing? I don't get it... I think we established a few pages back that I was under the mistaken impression that the online content being locked out was not server based.

Well that certainly puts a different face on things, I suppose. Of course as I mentioned way back in the begining I was being a bit of an alarmist; taking things to a scary extreme (and yeah I'd be rather put out to be locked out of offline content which was my alarmist reaction). Does seem like there's a legitimate point to the additional fee that wasn't obvious to me. No. When I reinstall WoW I no longer need my CD Key because I already have an account. YOu need a CD Key in order to create a new account. But couldn't you give the entire account over to someone? Or is your personal information locked into the account in a way that makes it, essentially, something you could never "blank out" and give away?

Interesting about WoW. I suppose you can't clear your personal information out and sell the keycode access as well then?

The cost of buying games has continuously decreased since games came out, especially in my neck of the woods when NES cartridges were $60-$70 upon release. Games DID get cheaper when the conversion was made to CD (see: N64 vs PSX) moving to their $50 price point. They then returned to $60 price point again in the 2000s. Maybe it's different where you are. Hmmm, there were only a few cartridges that were super-expensive here that I recall Phantasy Star IV for example being $100. Most cartridges of the SNES/Genesis era was $50 here though. PSX games started around $50 as did Saturn games. There was, I recall, a rather large debate over this fact on rec.arts.games.video.* heirarchy on USENET complete with a breakdown of the costs to make a cartridge at the time and a CD and based on those numbers it was much cheaper to make the CD without any resultant difference in the price of games to the consumer (but perhaps it was the game seller's markup as opposed to the publisher?) Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself. Actually I was asking a question.

It did. Adjust your costs for inflation. Furthermore, factor in the cost of game development compared to what the end user pays. I'm not sure how games being $50 dollars as a cartridge and then in months being $50 as CDs (which was the case with the PSX generation of games) is actually adjusted for inflation as I don't think there was THAT much inflation in a years time. This is the slippery-slope logical fallacy. If this is actually as big of an issue as you are indicating that it will be, wouldn't this cause people to buy less games and see a significant reduction in revenues for the game devs, leading to them rethinking the actual policy? Perhaps, but if the horse is already out, its a bit late to close the barn door. But as I said, I was being a bit alarmist. I may be completely off-base on the effect of this on the consumer, and as mentioned I think a predicted move to digital distribution for all games will render it a moot issue eventually. The entire online component is not covered with the resale of a used game. Take an extreme example. I buy a game, and create my online user profile that the game uses to log my match history, statistics and so forth. I resell this game and this game continues to be resold a million times. The online servers still log each and every individual profile that was created and keeps track of a million times more data than they were originally compensated for. The only cost is not just bandwidth and the matchmaking service. Your scenario would only make sense if upon being resold, the game's online profile was now in possession of the new owner as well. This is not the case. Why wouldn't the company clear the server of inactive accounts (I know Battle.net cleared mine 4 or 5 times)? Sure, but I don't really see that as the same thing, particularly given that Live and a MMORPG require subscriptions to cover the maintanence of the servers (I have no clue how STEAM works). And I have no problem with that kind of fee. My problem is player A buying something with access to content that is - to him - free for the life of the product, but player B who buys the game from player A now has to pay for that same content. This wouldn't apply to additional content bought by player A, profiles and subscriptions bought by player A, etc. In a WoW scenario, player A could uninstall the game and sell the discs to player B, but player B would still have to subscribe to play the game. Makes sense to me.

Because they're not selling a transferrable license. Most people will not utilize the servers 100%. If the game keeps getting transferred, that means much higher utilization of the servers in reality, something the publisher is not compensated for. Thus they have a right to charge extra for the transfers. I see what you're saying; I'm not actually sure it really means higher utilization of the servers though unless the companies are only looking at a very short shelf life for the game (ie not like Diablo 2 was with Battlenet) but its a valid enough point. There's no reason a publisher should be obligated to sell a transferrable license to their game. They could very well sell a single user license (as is commonly done with other software) and they'd be on solid legal and ethical ground. Hmmm...an interesting point, but I'd think it'd be impossible to enforce a Single-User License for console game as long as the games are on physical media (eventually they'll go to a totally digital distribution and much of this will be a moot point, I suspect). It'd also pretty much ensure that once a game was bought, if the player didn't like it they were stuck with it (using the game as a coaster) which has been my concern about this policy all along. I'll buy a lot less games in general if I have to live with them or toss them as my only options. As an example I buy a lot more console games than I do PC games because I've got no real recourse to unload PC games I don't like. Certainly the publishers can do what they want - just as Gamestop can as long as they have customers. But it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it (heck as I pointed out none of my consoles are connected online so at the moment this doesn't even effect me).

True, but as pointed out this seems to be a way to make double money off of one purchase. If it was a truly reflective market, the price point on games would have went down when they switched to CDs since the cost to produce cartridges was higher than CDs. Anyhow, incentives I don't mind. DLC, expansions etc. Sure no problem. Great stuff. If Player A buys a game and a DLC but only sells the game, sure player B who buys that used copy has to buy his own dang DLC.

Explain to me why nobody bothers to read when I write things like "Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it." That said, if player A has bought a game for which he would always be able to access the servers as long as he wanted to or as long as the publisher supported the game and then sells it to player B, as player A can no longer access the servers, what justification is there that player B should not be able to access those servers? The net use on the servers hasn't changed. The only justification is its a new revenue stream for the publishers. Yay for them. My worry - as pointed out above - is that this will not stick to limited, optional, and/or online server-based content.

And that may well be...but...so what? It seems to me that the "solution" the publishers want is to punish the retail stores (who carry their games) by passing on certain extra fees to the consumer. I'm not talking about DLC; DLC, expansions and the like are a different kettle of fish. What I'm talking about is the ability to access the online component of the game; EA has said that used buyers of their game can't access the online content unless they pay an additional fee. My misunderstanding was that the online content was a player-to-player connection, but I've been corrected in that this is actually a player-to-EA server. Now comes the murky bit; technically if person A buys a game for $50 and is given a redeemable code to access the games servers, in theory either part of the price of the $50 should cover their access to the online server or the company is offering the service free to the consumer with the understanding that the consumer will take advantage of it. When person A sells their game to Gamestop they are now no longer accessing the server. Person B comes along and buys the game from Gamestop used. The company now wants Person B to pay to access the servers; except Person A's purchasing price on that disc "covered" that access (ie if Person A kept the game he'd be able to access the online content as long as that service was available from the company). The argument is that player B didn't buy it new so didn't pay the company to cover the cost of the servers; however what it seems that the game companies are doing is, in essence, finding a way to get extra money out of a single purchase. So who loses in this scenario? Gamestop? The used-game buyer? Both? Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it. Not really avoiding it. I'm just not sure why Gamestop making a huge profit entitles the publisher to go down a path that could eventually shaft the consumer. I'm not entirely convinced that even the argument that online content has extra infrastructure costs makes it make sense either (see above). When the difference is $10 I always buy it new. Unless it something I really want and there's no new copies available, I usually only buy used when its below $20.

You can't have more used games than you sell new; If retail stores buy 30,000 copies of a game across the country, the most used games that could exist is 30,000 (ie every game sold and is now in the position to be bought back) Even in your example, the "other 8" they buy back/sell used had to have been bought previously somewhere (and thus the publisher was paid for them already). True, if there is only 30k copies across the US there can't be more than that, but you can resell that item via gamestop 20 times, compared to the publishers solitary sale. So one game could be owned by many people earning Gamestop (or other retailers) a huge amount of money compared to what they paid for it. Right, but the publisher has still been paid for the copies bought. It doesn't matter if the copy is in the hands of 20 different people (one at a time), the publisher has already been paid (when the retail store it was bought at ordered it from the publisher) and someone has already paid that retailer for that copy. I don't believe if the 20 people who bought it used did not have the option to buy it used it would magically become +20 orders from the retailer to the publisher for the item new. Sure it *might* lead to an increase in orders. It might not as well. The content wasn't free and now locked out. New copies sold of the game have a code bundled with you that purchasers can redeem to get the content. The entire process is the same as if you were buying the content, except instead of entering your credit card info, you're effectively clicking the "redeem code" button. It most definitely is an incentive for people to buy the game new. It is "Thank you for buying a copy of the game and directly supporting us. To show our gratitude we have granted you a key to enable you to acquire some paid downloadable content." Unless you're suggesting that the better idea, (and I suppose it'd be "fair") is for the publishers to just outright charge everyone for the content. I don't know why you'd want those that get new copies of the game to lose this incentive though simply because you don't think it's fair for used game buyers. My thought is that prior iterations of these games did not have the code system; that the code system was created as a way to cut out the used game market now. Also if you weren't being charged extra for it (ie if the cost of Madden XX without the code was the same as Madded XXI with the code), it was free. But again, I said that I could be mistaken (I personally don't pay attention to online content as I have no way to access it so I'm not sure what is the case; any clarity that can be offered is appreciated).

You can't have more used games than you sell new; If retail stores buy 30,000 copies of a game across the country, the most used games that could exist is 30,000 (ie every game sold and is now in the position to be bought back) Even in your example, the "other 8" they buy back/sell used had to have been bought previously somewhere (and thus the publisher was paid for them already).

I'm having flashbacks to 1982. (Obviously this is a horrible murder, but in looking for motives they should be examining the subject).

I don't see why there is "confusion". Buying an item that has been previously owned is from its current owner is not stealing. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, even when you buy a new game from a game store you're not buying it from the publisher - that's already been done by the store. Whether you buy used or new the money goes to the store (just more of it goes to the store if you buy used). Publisher sells to retailer, retailer sells to public. Publisher already has the money for the games sold to retail (I'm a bit hazy about the returnability of unsold games since most game stores seem to dump overstock into sale bins; if there is returnability on unsold games it seems to be something that isn't a total return policy). So as I understand it, if the local game store buys ten copies of a publisher's GAME X and they sell 7 copies the publisher is paid for 10 copies. If the retailer buys back 5 of those games and then resells them, it doesn't take away from the publishers bottom line because they already sold the 10 copies that store was going to buy. What the store does with their inventory isn't the business of the publisher, IMO. The game publishers though seem to be thinking "Hey we sold 10 games to the game store, but they've bought back 5 of those and sold them again...if we can kill used game sales the store will have to buy 13 games from us to accommodate demand." My position is that the 5 people who bought the game used wouldn't have bought it at the new price, so the increase in new game sales isn't going to happen. So to get around that, the game publishers are locking content away from users (online only content for now; I guess this is fair enough if its server related since the used sales aren't going to support the servers) to encourage them to buy new. My alarmist worry is that they'll start locking away all game content to encourage people to buy new and thus force the retail store into buying more copies of the game from them and the end user is left with an expensive coaster if they buy a game they ultimately don't like.

How far is a dragon's flight from Lac Dinneshire?

I think the issue for some is that locking out content that (and perhaps I'm mistaken) was free for people previously doesn't seem like an incentive so much as a money grab. Has PC gaming ever been as large as consoles? I think there might have been a boom of PC exclusives in the 90s when home PCs dropped dramatically in price, but even then I recall consoles were more numerous. Even in 2010, more people have TVs than PCs and a new PS3 is less expensive than a (gaming) computer. Back in the C64, Apple IIe days it certainly seemed like it was. The games sections were just as large for the C64 as they were for the Atari 2600 a few years earlier. But back then buying a gaming computer was just as easy as buying a console.

I guess my fear is that this is all part of the same spectrum; that the THQ's guys comments are indicative that they, EA and Activision are going to the same point just at different speeds and coming at it from different directions. I could be wrong, of course.

I don't have a way to connect my consoles to online anyhow so its a moot point for me (and probably why I don't pay much attention to the online content of games). Still weird to me that Madden uses servers (I guess it helps keep track of stats so you can compare with your friends/enemies or something)?

I'm not quite sure how it would even be possible to nerf the offline content. I don't have my PS3 hooked up to the internet, it would be pretty difficult for a publisher to get at it without going into my house and smashing the DVD with a hammer. By making it so you have to connect online to use it, I'd guess, so that once a disc has been activated for use once it can't be used again and always being online to use it. Again, its the alarmist in me talking. So I may be wrong/crazy.

Why not? Because the game company decided you shouldn't? No, because online content is an extra. If you folks want to stick with the car comparison, think of it as a manufacturer's warranty. There are a lot of reasons for this. If we are talking about multiplayer games with servers, that is an extra cost for the developer/publisher to run. They work that into the price of a new game. They have no obligation to provide that service to people who do not buy the game from them. Why would Madden 2010 or SvR have multiplayer servers? Seems to me if you're going to use servers and charge to use them, you'd be better off using a MMO model (which I don't have a problem with). But again my BIG protestation over this (just like with EA) is that I don't think its going to just stay on "extra" online content.

I care...damnit...I care... Well given that I think they'll find this policy won't lead to a big bump in their sales, maybe that will learn them. Or I could be wrong and everyone will just go with it and one day in the future you won't be able to play a game unless you bought it new. And if you buy it new and don't like it your only option is to add it to your stack of worthless discs that you use as a coaster.

Never said they could. I still don't see that as a reason for nerfing used games (and again, I don't think this will stay at nerfing online content; if this persists its inevitable to this alarmist in me that they'll start doing this to offline content). The parts is a fair point BUT cars also have a longer life than the average game (as DLC/Expansions for most games still don't seem to be common). It seems to me the appropriate model would be for the game companies to, you know, make stuff that consumers would buy new for their used games as opposed to trying to discourage them buying used games. But that would require work when instead they can just cut out online content to used buyers without having to lift a finger. Media Play's model seemed similar to Gamestops at the time from the outside looking in (but I didn't work at either store so can't really argue the mechanics). Mind you since Media Play eventually failed totally and Gamestop didn't, it could have been down to the companies involved.