This is nothing new. Microsoft has been locking multiplayer content from gamers for years. They have this pass called a XBL Gold Subscription thingy.
Gamers against locking out single player content!!!!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I didn't mind it too much when they started locking out multiplayer (that is where most of the replay value comes from, after all; only fair the developers make something off that), but single-player content? I can't support that. It sets a bad precedent.
This does affect people who buy new, You purchase the game and you get ONE code, what if you have more then one console or you want to lend it to somebody?And when if you go to sell the game you won't be able to sell that extra 10% of the game which will only decrease the value of what you bought.
You never really OWN it completely even if your buying new.Either way your being screwed over.
I'll echo what others have said. If I were on the fence about the game, this would make me withhold my money. Bottom line is that B:AC, according to the reviews, is totally worth the $60. Sorry, I'm not missing this one. I hate the practice, but I'd hate not playing the game more.romans828_2002
You will still be able to play it eventually, just because the game is good doesn't justify what they are doing, if we can cause a stir now we can show them who's boss and other publishers won't try and pull this again because they know people won't stand for it!
Sorry to rain on your parade TC.
http://kotaku.com/5849828/dont-fret-used-gamers-gamestop-has-catwoman-codes-for-preowned-arkham-city-purchasers
This topic is now about pancakes.
Disagree. This would solve the issue in a very narrow sense. It solves the issue ONLY for GAMESTOP used game purchasers and ONLY for THIS game. It does nothing to resolve the issue either for people who buy the game used from companies that don't have Gamestop's clout or prevent future abuse by other developers without Gamespot's golden parachute. The precedent and concept of charging extra for people to get the full game if they buy it secondhand has not in any way been resolved.Sorry to rain on your parade TC.
http://kotaku.com/5849828/dont-fret-used-gamers-gamestop-has-catwoman-codes-for-preowned-arkham-city-purchasers
This topic is now about pancakes.
8-bit-16-bit
I am absolutely against this nonsense and have no intention of buying this game (maybe second hand) as well as this stupid Online pass thing, and I always buy my games brand new but instead of just saying its not going to affect me as I get all the content I see things from a larger perspective & realize it is just harming gaming as a whole in the long run. The Online pass was just the start, this is the next step and things will get worse as time goes by.
We have to make a stand against industry greed, it makes me laugh theres always these idiots who say we should just support the developers/publishers by shutting up & buying it new while bowing down to whatever demands they force on gamers. If its so necessary then why don't popular games like Dark Souls have it & why is it only now a problem? lol they have to make money as they get nothing from second hand sales though.. yea when I buy a second hand car I don't pay 10% extra to ford before I'm allowed to drive it around town, why is it only the gaming industry thinks they can double dip into second hand sales???
They make their money on the initial sale & are attacking people who don't have internet access & the majority who share games with their friends & those who rent games too & of course the second hand gaming market will take a dive, but the thing that really annoys me about this game in particular is the fact they withheld important information about catwoman mere hours out from the games release.
I do consider it...but I also consider the fact that the secondary market exists for pretty much everything from used cars to libraries for used books. It hasn't stopped car manufacturers from making new cars or authors from writing. Companies that build customer loyalty will get customers willing to support them with new game, and even special edition, purchases.
Example: I love what CD Projekt is doing these days. I sprung for the hideously expensive super collector's edition of The Witcher 2 for, if I remember right, something like $120. I looked at the extra collectables for a few minutes, put the Geralt statue up on my mantleplace, and then forgot all about them. Not a whole lot of value for a $70 premium on a $50 game...but I still don't mind because I like how they go the extra mile, do their best to give their customers little extras, fix problems, patch games, and aren't doing things like trying to abandon me to chase after multiplayer gamers (hello Bioware!). The right way to build loyalty and new purchases is to ENTICE it...not to enforce it like a prison warden.nocoolnamejim
I don't disagree with you that this solution by WB is a mistake but my point remains that comparing other used markets to the gaming market is a mistake because what is happening with used software is entirely different than used cars, films, etc.
There is no comparable secondary market with which to compare gaming. Cars are not purchased new and then a week later traded in and sold for 95 percent of their value by a dealership. Major chains like Barnes and Nobles and Borders aren't selling used books and offering trade-in programs while turning around and re-selling the newest Clancy or King novels at moderately reduced prices. And the used market for CD's and DVD's has become regulated almost entirely to the mom and pop shops because the used model is no longer viable.
By contrast, everyone, including massive retailers like Wal-Mart and Target, are getting into used gaming because the markup on used software is so incredibly high. A new game will nab, at most, 25 dollars trade in for the consumer and can be resold for 55 dollars. To ignore the reality that the used market for games is dissimilar from other secondary markets is to ignore reality.
As to enticement and consumer loyalty, I'd argue that Rocksteady earned that with Arkham Asylum, which is one of the best games of this generation. And now with Arkham City getting even better reviews, I think Rocksteady and WB has given most people plenty of incentive to purchase their game.
Also, let's keep in mind this entire thing is probably being helmed by WB, not Rocksteady, yet there are a small but very vocal segment of gamers who are willing to punish a great software company because of an annoying but ultimately very minor transgression.
Look man if your not for this and your trying to defend this then quit posting here, this thread is for people who don't want to sit back and let themselves take it in the bum by these publishers.
Vickman178
I've been a contributing member of this forum for a decade so I'll keep my own council on what and where to post, thank you very much.
Also, I'm not defending this move by WB but I'm also not going to blow the issue out of all reasonable proportion while sprinkling in rape analogies.
All hyperbole aside this is looking like one of the best games ever made so if you want to miss out that is your prerogative.
Must...play...Batman...
Who am i kidding I will buy this game whether it has locked out single-player content for used games...
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]there is something he can do, not buy it, if you think about it, this is how it begins, soon i bet if you don't buy it new you have to pay 10 bucks to access the second half of the game. Stuff like this might not seem like a big deal to you but man this can and will get out of hand very fastYou do know that there is nothing you can do, right?
Chris_Williams
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
there is something he can do, not buy it, if you think about it, this is how it begins, soon i bet if you don't buy it new you have to pay 10 bucks to access the second half of the game. Stuff like this might not seem like a big deal to you but man this can and will get out of hand very fast[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
You do know that there is nothing you can do, right?
anthonycg
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
I thought Crackdown 1 was a pretty crappy game, but I'm sure that's not the point you are trying to make.
Ive been in the camp of if a game has a code that locks out content, of any sort, regardless of how good the game itself is, I refuse to buy it. Because I refuse to support BS business practices like this.
More people need to wake up and realise these things are in place because past games that had codes that locked out the online still sold well. Now more and more games are going to lock out part of even the single player content unless we send the message to the publishers/devs that these practices are wrong.
Naysayers should really watch this mini series http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4568-Online-Passes-Are-Bad-For-Everybody
Contains some explicit language and content, just FYI.
Have a question. This is a "one time" use? So say I use the code and am able to play as Catwoman. Ok, it's all good. But what if I buy a new HDD or buy a new system if my old one dies? Do I then have to pay $10 to reunlock her content? MirkoS77
Yes you will have to pay again. You never completely own that 10% of the game.Even if you buy it new your code can only be used once.It might make more sense if that your code lasted forever but unfortunately no.
Have a question. This is a "one time" use? So say I use the code and am able to play as Catwoman. Ok, it's all good. But what if I buy a new HDD or buy a new system if my old one dies? Do I then have to pay $10 to reunlock her content? MirkoS77
One time use means: You use the code and it is done; someone else cannot use that same code again. IT DOES NOT MEAN the original user cannot download it again from his/her downloads list on either PSN or XBL. Let's not make this topic even more ridiculous by claiming otherwise.
Vote with your wallet.
I don't pay money for things I don't like.
They have a right to do it, but they won't get any love from me.
I'm amused by people who claim they buy games new but whine so hard about disincentives being attached to used games that its clear they are lying.
CarnageHeart
Even if you buy games new, it means your purchases won't have resale value.
ie no "escape" from bad games, you bought it you must keep it, even if it sucks.
I understand the profit motive.
I also understand that if a certain percentage of us don't buy games that do it, then online codes become lose/lose for the developer and better for gamers.
It's a very simple thing.
I want the right to be able to sell games that I don't like, to people who might like them better.
Devs are saying "No, you bought it, don't undercut my sale, let them buy new."
But then I'm screwed out of resale value of something that I don't enjoy.
Why can't gaming be like movies?
If I rent a movie from Netflix or Blockbuster, it's 2 hours of my life wasted, I send it back and lose nothing else.
But with games, they expect a $60 committment up front with no backsies.
Given that they pay actors $20 mil to be in movies, and 100's of millions in production costs, I fail to understand why games are so different and so much more expensive.
I subscribe to Gamefly.
I definitely want devs to get paid, but I don't want the burden of buying very expensive games and being stuck with them.
I want a Netflix experience.
With single-use codes and the like, they are simply making the purchase even MORE of a committment and driving away people like me.
Just stop buying used games. Why do you people think it's ethically wrong to lock out content ? But I would say if you want them to stop this you guys should actually do something about it. Start writing emails and boycotting their products. I hope more stuff like that could get started.
"locking out content and acting like it's apart of the game" ? I'm confused. Are you saying their tricking you in to thinking your buying the whole game when really your not ?Is it ethical to support those that are unethical?
Selling games with content lock away and acting like it is apart of the game is more unethical than buying or selling games used.
wiouds
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]
I do consider it...but I also consider the fact that the secondary market exists for pretty much everything from used cars to libraries for used books. It hasn't stopped car manufacturers from making new cars or authors from writing. Companies that build customer loyalty will get customers willing to support them with new game, and even special edition, purchases.
Example: I love what CD Projekt is doing these days. I sprung for the hideously expensive super collector's edition of The Witcher 2 for, if I remember right, something like $120. I looked at the extra collectables for a few minutes, put the Geralt statue up on my mantleplace, and then forgot all about them. Not a whole lot of value for a $70 premium on a $50 game...but I still don't mind because I like how they go the extra mile, do their best to give their customers little extras, fix problems, patch games, and aren't doing things like trying to abandon me to chase after multiplayer gamers (hello Bioware!). The right way to build loyalty and new purchases is to ENTICE it...not to enforce it like a prison warden.Grammaton-Cleric
I don't disagree with you that this solution by WB is a mistake but my point remains that comparing other used markets to the gaming market is a mistake because what is happening with used software is entirely different than used cars, films, etc.
There is no comparable secondary market with which to compare gaming. Cars are not purchased new and then a week later traded in and sold for 95 percent of their value by a dealership. Major chains like Barnes and Nobles and Borders aren't selling used books and offering trade-in programs while turning around and re-selling the newest Clancy or King novels at moderately reduced prices. And the used market for CD's and DVD's has become regulated almost entirely to the mom and pop shops because the used model is no longer viable.
By contrast, everyone, including massive retailers like Wal-Mart and Target, are getting into used gaming because the markup on used software is so incredibly high. A new game will nab, at most, 25 dollars trade in for the consumer and can be resold for 55 dollars. To ignore the reality that the used market for games is dissimilar from other secondary markets is to ignore reality.
As to enticement and consumer loyalty, I'd argue that Rocksteady earned that with Arkham Asylum, which is one of the best games of this generation. And now with Arkham City getting even better reviews, I think Rocksteady and WB has given most people plenty of incentive to purchase their game.
Also, let's keep in mind this entire thing is probably being helmed by WB, not Rocksteady, yet there are a small but very vocal segment of gamers who are willing to punish a great software company because of an annoying but ultimately very minor transgression.
I can see your argument, but I don't 100% agree that there is no comparison anywhere to the secondhand market for video games. Using the book analogy, yes, there's no profit for folks like Barnes and Nobles and therefore there isn't really chains that specialize in used books. However, there are libraries where people can get access to used books virtually 100% free. One could argue that's a step BEYOND what game developers face because nobody, if they don't really want to, has to pay for a book EVER. Just wait for a little time to go by and a library somewhere will have it. Similarly, using your car analogy, while it is true that most people don't trade in their new cars a week after buying them, that doesn't necessarily mean that the second hand market there doesn't have a huge impact on car manufacturers. Cars depreciate in value faster than just about anything else. You can get a year old car from thousands of dollars less than a brand new one if you shop used. That's a comparable price drop to what happens with games. Look at how much the price of a "Madden" game drops if you buy the one a single year old versus the brand new one. Basically, again, I think your claim that the secondhand market that game developers face is utterly unique that no other industry has equivalent or larger challenges isn't completely true. I also disagree with your claim that this is an "annoying but very minor transgression". Removing 10% of the single player experience is "minor"? Not in my book. Nor is it "punishing" game developers by drawing a line and saying, "I'm not buying the game because of this." Developers will push as far as they can until they get push back. That's their job. Gamers define how far they are willing to be pushed by when they push back. To me, this is pushing things too far and I switched from planning on buying the game to NOT planning on buying the game. There are plenty of other good games coming that I can support instead. You obviously disagree. I'm sure somewhere there's a bean counter running the numbers to determine whether pissing off enough of people like me is worth it because there are enough people like you. My guess is that I'm in the minority here. I see three groups. 1. People who hate this very concept enough that they won't get the game as a result. 2. People who dislike it but not enough to not get a likely very good game that they've been looking forward to 3. People who see no issue. I'm thinking that the combined number of people in #2 and #3 outweigh #1 and I find that sad, but oh well.[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
I'm amused by people who claim they buy games new but whine so hard about disincentives being attached to used games that its clear they are lying.
ZombieKiller7
Even if you buy games new, it means your purchases won't have resale value.
ie no "escape" from bad games, you bought it you must keep it, even if it sucks.
I understand the profit motive.
I also understand that if a certain percentage of us don't buy games that do it, then online codes become lose/lose for the developer and better for gamers.
It's a very simple thing.
I want the right to be able to sell games that I don't like, to people who might like them better.
Devs are saying "No, you bought it, don't undercut my sale, let them buy new."
But then I'm screwed out of resale value of something that I don't enjoy.
Why can't gaming be like movies?
If I rent a movie from Netflix or Blockbuster, it's 2 hours of my life wasted, I send it back and lose nothing else.
But with games, they expect a $60 committment up front with no backsies.
Given that they pay actors $20 mil to be in movies, and 100's of millions in production costs, I fail to understand why games are so different and so much more expensive.
I subscribe to Gamefly.
I definitely want devs to get paid, but I don't want the burden of buying very expensive games and being stuck with them.
I want a Netflix experience.
With single-use codes and the like, they are simply making the purchase even MORE of a committment and driving away people like me.
:shock: I don't subscribe to Gamefly, but if they charge you $60 to rent a game, then I'm going to keep on not subscribing.
[QUOTE="wiouds"]"locking out content and acting like it's apart of the game" ? I'm confused. Are you saying their tricking you in to thinking your buying the whole game when really your not ?Is it ethical to support those that are unethical?
Selling games with content lock away and acting like it is apart of the game is more unethical than buying or selling games used.
dkdk999
I am talking about how on the box they will say a game have MP but you need to unlock. It does not matter if they are tricking you or not. I do not conceder any part that you needs to be unlock or downloads as part of the game so advertising that those parts are apart the game unethical.
My point is that what they are doing is more unethical than buying or selling used games.
I do not have a problem with day 1 DLC. There is a different between extra content that would not be apart of the game and what they say is apart of the game, but you need to unlock it.
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] there is something he can do, not buy it, if you think about it, this is how it begins, soon i bet if you don't buy it new you have to pay 10 bucks to access the second half of the game. Stuff like this might not seem like a big deal to you but man this can and will get out of hand very fastCarnageHeart
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
I thought Crackdown 1 was a pretty crappy game, but I'm sure that's not the point you are trying to make.
Haha no. It was the first game to introduce the bright idea of charging for in-game content.
Just stop buying used games. Why do you people think it's ethically wrong to lock out content ? But I would say if you want them to stop this you guys should actually do something about it. Start writing emails and boycotting their products. I hope more stuff like that could get started.
dkdk999
A comparison would be to sell you a car and charge extra for air conditioning which is actually done along with a multitude of other fees that your average consumer is oblivious to.
I can see your argument, but I don't 100% agree that there is no comparison anywhere to the secondhand market for video games. Using the book analogy, yes, there's no profit for folks like Barnes and Nobles and therefore there isn't really chains that specialize in used books. However, there are libraries where people can get access to used books virtually 100% free. One could argue that's a step BEYOND what game developers face because nobody, if they don't really want to, has to pay for a book EVER. Just wait for a little time to go by and a library somewhere will have it. Similarly, using your car analogy, while it is true that most people don't trade in their new cars a week after buying them, that doesn't necessarily mean that the second hand market there doesn't have a huge impact on car manufacturers. Cars depreciate in value faster than just about anything else. You can get a year old car from thousands of dollars less than a brand new one if you shop used. That's a comparable price drop to what happens with games. Look at how much the price of a "Madden" game drops if you buy the one a single year old versus the brand new one. Basically, again, I think your claim that the secondhand market that game developers face is utterly unique that no other industry has equivalent or larger challenges isn't completely true. I also disagree with your claim that this is an "annoying but very minor transgression". Removing 10% of the single player experience is "minor"? Not in my book. Nor is it "punishing" game developers by drawing a line and saying, "I'm not buying the game because of this." Developers will push as far as they can until they get push back. That's their job. Gamers define how far they are willing to be pushed by when they push back. To me, this is pushing things too far and I switched from planning on buying the game to NOT planning on buying the game. There are plenty of other good games coming that I can support instead. You obviously disagree. I'm sure somewhere there's a bean counter running the numbers to determine whether pissing off enough of people like me is worth it because there are enough people like you. My guess is that I'm in the minority here. I see three groups. 1. People who hate this very concept enough that they won't get the game as a result. 2. People who dislike it but not enough to not get a likely very good game that they've been looking forward to 3. People who see no issue. I'm thinking that the combined number of people in #2 and #3 outweigh #1 and I find that sad, but oh well.nocoolnamejim
The reason these different markets are not comparable is because of the concerted and aggressive manner in which used games are being sold.
The book analogy falters because if you wait long enough for practically anything, it will depreciate to a very small percentage of its initial value. Retail outlets like Gamestop are selling games that have been traded in mere days after the initial release, thereby encroaching on new sales in a way something like eBay or Craigslist never could. Trade-ins and used sales have become a fundamental part of the retail market and these products are being sold right beside their factory sealed counterparts.
The car analogy also doesn't apply because cars are 15,000 dollar or more products designed to be used for years and with the expectancy that they will often exchange owners. The used car market is an accepted part of the industry but even assuming the analogy holds consider this: used cars do not enjoy the full breadth of protections and features often given to a new buyer. Sound familiar?
That isn't to assert there are no parallels between different used markets because clearly there are. However, the game industry is facing a relatively unique paradigm: they are literally being forced to compete with their own product for a lower used price tag and this practice is being implemented by just about every major retailer that sells videogames. This isn't the same type of market that one sees when using eBay, Glyde, or Craigslist but rather major retailers essentially using a model that cuts the developer and publisher out of their own profits by using used wares against them. Again, the used model may be nothing new but the widespread and concerted manner with which it has been implemented is very different than any other secondary market. That is the crux of my argument and one that many people seem to ignore.
Lastly, there is no proof or verification that what is being omitted is ten percent of the game. As far as I can tell that number was pulled from thin air because from what I've read the Catwoman segments are mostly optional and have little bearing on the main game. Until I get some credible source that can verify this 10 percent as factual, I'm calling it conjecture.
I also don't think the whole "there are plenty of other good games coming out" argument holds much water when this particular title looks to outscore them all. If the issue here is as profound as you and other proponents of this boycott claim, I'm curious how you reconcile the damage done to a fantastic developer like Rocksteady. Even if this tactic works (which you've already admitted it probably won't) all you would accomplish is damaging the integrity of a studio that is making some of the best games on the market. I mean, do you seriously think you will damage WB with this move? Those corporate shills will blame the developer and close the studio before admitting they made a mistake so ultimately, what will you accomplish? Ensuring that the next Batman game is a FPS made by Monolith?
And please understand, I take these issues very seriously.
I don't agree with what WB is doing but I also think gamers need to think about the long term health of this industry and how many developers are being marginalized by the widespread practices currently in use. The used market isn't nearly as benign as some claim and there have been some very respected game makers who have decried it for good reason. Boycotting a stellar game is something that could backlash in a way many of you haven't even begun to think about. If you think you're sad now, wait until all the best minds and talent in this medium abandon it and we're left with Facebook gaming and lots of FPS.
there is something he can do, not buy it, if you think about it, this is how it begins, soon i bet if you don't buy it new you have to pay 10 bucks to access the second half of the game. Stuff like this might not seem like a big deal to you but man this can and will get out of hand very fast[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
You do know that there is nothing you can do, right?
anthonycg
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
This isn't a DLC issue. It's a DRM issue and the notion of codes and lockouts has been around for decades so hindsight or a lack thereof really has nothing to do with it.
The face of used game sales has shifted radically in the last decade and while consumers have every right to buy and sell used software it is naïve to think publishers and developers won't respond.
If somebody really wants to save five bucks on a copy of Arkham City while simultaneously cutting out the developer and publisher of any sales then perhaps getting the game home and discovering that they will have to shell out an additional ten dollars to get the Catwoman content is fair recompense.
I don't personally condone it but I understand why it's happening and it's not merely an issue of greed.
[QUOTE="dkdk999"]
Just stop buying used games. Why do you people think it's ethically wrong to lock out content ? But I would say if you want them to stop this you guys should actually do something about it. Start writing emails and boycotting their products. I hope more stuff like that could get started.
anthonycg
A comparison would be to sell you a car and charge extra for air conditioning which is actually done along with a multitude of other fees that your average consumer is oblivious to.
Again why is it unethical to lock out content ? Sorry I'm really looking for a simple answer. Not some made up example. I also think we should avoid the car comparison in this disscussion as a whole. It's a bad comparison because cars are something you use. Where as when you buy video games your paying for the intellectual property.
I know your still going to buy Batman Ak. Most people who do this petition stuff end up buying the game anyways.
I know your still going to buy Batman Ak. Most people who do this petition stuff end up buying the game anyways.
Gibsonsg527
Of course they will. Everyone needs a cause to get behind... or at least sit in front of their computer and "support."
I officially dub this one: "Occupy Gamespot."
QUOTE="Gibsonsg527"]like the guys who made a petition against Left 4 Dead 2? do we really have to turn everything here into an argument ? He said most people.I know your still going to buy Batman Ak. Most people who do this petition stuff end up buying the game anyways.
doubalfa
You make a lot of compelling arguments with a number of really good points. This is turning into a very fun little debate. I think you abandon the book analogy too quickly. It isn't like you need to wait ten years to find a new book release at your local library and be able to read it for free. We're talking a matter of months at most in nearly all cases. How did the industry respond? Well, they came up with the concept of hardcover and paperback. Not a bad idea actually. You don't punish people who don't feel the need to have a new book right away, but you also get to charge a premium to people who do. But in both cases, the full book is included. I do think you're onto something with the "accepted part of the industry" analogy with regards to cars. And that's where I think the video game industry needs to head. It needs to understand that there IS going to be a secondhand market and come up with POSITIVE incentives to get gamers to choose not to go that route. Punitive/negative incentives are not the way to go about this. The 10% I referenced comes from Gamespot itself. [quote="Gamespot"] As noted in GameSpot's preview from E3, Catwoman is playable for only a small portion of the main storyline, with her narrative making up about 10 percent of the whole game. However, her abilities are required to access a number of unique Riddler trophies within the game. These trophies play into an optional side quest involving the quizzical villain. As for the health of Rocksteady, to be honest that's not MY primary concern here. I figure companies, developers, etc. can take care of themselves. It's not up to individual gamers to do so. Like you, I am ALSO thinking of the long term health of the industry. But I view that long term health of the industry a little differently. Could a lot of people choosing not to buy Rocksteady's latest game hurt them in the short term? Possibly. But in the long term, if publishers notice profoundly negative consequences to trying to do this, then they'll stop trying to do it. Basically, publishers are going to act in their own self-interests. If that is shown, through repetition, to involve NOT doing things like this then they won't do them. Lastly, I DO think that the argument "there are plenty of other good games out there" holds water. I liked Arkham Asylum, but not as much as some other games I played last year. Even if Arkham City does end up being the highest rated game, that doesn't mean either 1) That it's the game that my personal tastes will most like or 2) That it will be head and shoulders above other alternatives. It wouldn't bother me that much to play a 9.5 average critic reviewed game over a 9.7 one.The reason these different markets are not comparable is because of the concerted and aggressive manner in which used games are being sold.
The book analogy falters because if you wait long enough for practically anything, it will depreciate to a very small percentage of its initial value. Retail outlets like Gamestop are selling games that have been traded in mere days after the initial release, thereby encroaching on new sales in a way something like eBay or Craigslist never could. Trade-ins and used sales have become a fundamental part of the retail market and these products are being sold right beside their factory sealed counterparts.
The car analogy also doesn't apply because cars are 15,000 dollar or more products designed to be used for years and with the expectancy that they will often exchange owners. The used car market is an accepted part of the industry but even assuming the analogy holds consider this: used cars do not enjoy the full breadth of protections and features often given to a new buyer. Sound familiar?
That isn't to assert there are no parallels between different used markets because clearly there are. However, the game industry is facing a relatively unique paradigm: they are literally being forced to compete with their own product for a lower used price tag and this practice is being implemented by just about every major retailer that sells videogames. This isn't the same type of market that one sees when using eBay, Glyde, or Craigslist but rather major retailers essentially using a model that cuts the developer and publisher out of their own profits by using used wares against them. Again, the used model may be nothing new but the widespread and concerted manner with which it has been implemented is very different than any other secondary market. That is the crux of my argument and one that many people seem to ignore.
Lastly, there is no proof or verification that what is being omitted is ten percent of the game. As far as I can tell that number was pulled from thin air because from what I've read the Catwoman segments are mostly optional and have little bearing on the main game. Until I get some credible source that can verify this 10 percent as factual, I'm calling it conjecture.
I also don't think the whole "there are plenty of other good games coming out" argument holds much water when this particular title looks to outscore them all. If the issue here is as profound as you and other proponents of this boycott claim, I'm curious how you reconcile the damage done to a fantastic developer like Rocksteady. Even if this tactic works (which you've already admitted it probably won't) all you would accomplish is damaging the integrity of a studio that is making some of the best games on the market. I mean, do you seriously think you will damage WB with this move? Those corporate shills will blame the developer and close the studio before admitting they made a mistake so ultimately, what will you accomplish? Ensuring that the next Batman game is a FPS made by Monolith?
And please understand, I take these issues very seriously.
I don't agree with what WB is doing but I also think gamers need to think about the long term health of this industry and how many developers are being marginalized by the widespread practices currently in use. The used market isn't nearly as benign as some claim and there have been some very respected game makers who have decried it for good reason. Boycotting a stellar game is something that could backlash in a way many of you haven't even begun to think about. If you think you're sad now, wait until all the best minds and talent in this medium abandon it and we're left with Facebook gaming and lots of FPS.
Grammaton-Cleric
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
[QUOTE="dkdk999"]
Just stop buying used games. Why do you people think it's ethically wrong to lock out content ? But I would say if you want them to stop this you guys should actually do something about it. Start writing emails and boycotting their products. I hope more stuff like that could get started.
dkdk999
A comparison would be to sell you a car and charge extra for air conditioning which is actually done along with a multitude of other fees that your average consumer is oblivious to.
Again why is it unethical to lock out content ? Sorry I'm really looking for a simple answer. Not some made up example. I also think we should avoid the car comparison in this disscussion as a whole. It's a bad comparison because cars are something you use. Where as when you buy video games your paying for the intellectual property.You pay for the content when you buy the game. You pay an additional fee to use what you already payed for.
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] there is something he can do, not buy it, if you think about it, this is how it begins, soon i bet if you don't buy it new you have to pay 10 bucks to access the second half of the game. Stuff like this might not seem like a big deal to you but man this can and will get out of hand very fastGrammaton-Cleric
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
This isn't a DLC issue. It's a DRM issue and the notion of codes and lockouts has been around for decades so hindsight or a lack thereof really has nothing to do with it.
The face of used game sales has shifted radically in the last decade and while consumers have every right to buy and sell used software it is naïve to think publishers and developers won't respond.
If somebody really wants to save five bucks on a copy of Arkham City while simultaneously cutting out the developer and publisher of any sales then perhaps getting the game home and discovering that they will have to shell out an additional ten dollars to get the Catwoman content is fair recompense.
I don't personally condone it but I understand why it's happening and it's not merely an issue of greed.
Crackdown's DLC was already on the cd so I group the problem with DRM. The problem with this is that it ultimately punishes the customer in order to lower used game sales.
Truth. what's next. buy the game and then get charged to unlock the levels as you play. or go the MMO route. Buy the game and then get charged $15 a month to keep playing? Who knows but it'll never stop until we stop buying. Money talks.I don't care that it was relatively unimportant, 10% is still 10%. What's next? That is the real question.
greenskittles
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]You make a lot of compelling arguments with a number of really good points. This is turning into a very fun little debate. I think you abandon the book analogy too quickly. It isn't like you need to wait ten years to find a new book release at your local library and be able to read it for free. We're talking a matter of months at most in nearly all cases. How did the industry respond? Well, they came up with the concept of hardcover and paperback. Not a bad idea actually. You don't punish people who don't feel the need to have a new book right away, but you also get to charge a premium to people who do. But in both cases, the full book is included. I do think you're onto something with the "accepted part of the industry" analogy with regards to cars. And that's where I think the video game industry needs to head. It needs to understand that there IS going to be a secondhand market and come up with POSITIVE incentives to get gamers to choose not to go that route. Punitive/negative incentives are not the way to go about this. The 10% I referenced comes from Gamespot itself.The reason these different markets are not comparable is because of the concerted and aggressive manner in which used games are being sold.
The book analogy falters because if you wait long enough for practically anything, it will depreciate to a very small percentage of its initial value. Retail outlets like Gamestop are selling games that have been traded in mere days after the initial release, thereby encroaching on new sales in a way something like eBay or Craigslist never could. Trade-ins and used sales have become a fundamental part of the retail market and these products are being sold right beside their factory sealed counterparts.
The car analogy also doesn't apply because cars are 15,000 dollar or more products designed to be used for years and with the expectancy that they will often exchange owners. The used car market is an accepted part of the industry but even assuming the analogy holds consider this: used cars do not enjoy the full breadth of protections and features often given to a new buyer. Sound familiar?
That isn't to assert there are no parallels between different used markets because clearly there are. However, the game industry is facing a relatively unique paradigm: they are literally being forced to compete with their own product for a lower used price tag and this practice is being implemented by just about every major retailer that sells videogames. This isn't the same type of market that one sees when using eBay, Glyde, or Craigslist but rather major retailers essentially using a model that cuts the developer and publisher out of their own profits by using used wares against them. Again, the used model may be nothing new but the widespread and concerted manner with which it has been implemented is very different than any other secondary market. That is the crux of my argument and one that many people seem to ignore.
Lastly, there is no proof or verification that what is being omitted is ten percent of the game. As far as I can tell that number was pulled from thin air because from what I've read the Catwoman segments are mostly optional and have little bearing on the main game. Until I get some credible source that can verify this 10 percent as factual, I'm calling it conjecture.
I also don't think the whole "there are plenty of other good games coming out" argument holds much water when this particular title looks to outscore them all. If the issue here is as profound as you and other proponents of this boycott claim, I'm curious how you reconcile the damage done to a fantastic developer like Rocksteady. Even if this tactic works (which you've already admitted it probably won't) all you would accomplish is damaging the integrity of a studio that is making some of the best games on the market. I mean, do you seriously think you will damage WB with this move? Those corporate shills will blame the developer and close the studio before admitting they made a mistake so ultimately, what will you accomplish? Ensuring that the next Batman game is a FPS made by Monolith?
And please understand, I take these issues very seriously.
I don't agree with what WB is doing but I also think gamers need to think about the long term health of this industry and how many developers are being marginalized by the widespread practices currently in use. The used market isn't nearly as benign as some claim and there have been some very respected game makers who have decried it for good reason. Boycotting a stellar game is something that could backlash in a way many of you haven't even begun to think about. If you think you're sad now, wait until all the best minds and talent in this medium abandon it and we're left with Facebook gaming and lots of FPS.
nocoolnamejim
As noted in GameSpot's preview from E3, Catwoman is playable for only a small portion of the main storyline, with her narrative making up about 10 percent of the whole game. However, her abilities are required to access a number of unique Riddler trophies within the game. These trophies play into an optional side quest involving the quizzical villain. GamespotAs for the health of Rocksteady, to be honest that's not MY primary concern here. I figure companies, developers, etc. can take care of themselves. It's not up to individual gamers to do so. Like you, I am ALSO thinking of the long term health of the industry. But I view that long term health of the industry a little differently. Could a lot of people choosing not to buy Rocksteady's latest game hurt them in the short term? Possibly. But in the long term, if publishers notice profoundly negative consequences to trying to do this, then they'll stop trying to do it. Basically, publishers are going to act in their own self-interests. If that is shown, through repetition, to involve NOT doing things like this then they won't do them. Lastly, I DO think that the argument "there are plenty of other good games out there" holds water. I liked Arkham Asylum, but not as much as some other games I played last year. Even if Arkham City does end up being the highest rated game, that doesn't mean either 1) That it's the game that my personal tastes will most like or 2) That it will be head and shoulders above other alternatives. It wouldn't bother me that much to play a 9.5 average critic reviewed game over a 9.7 one.
I'll concede the ten percent issue because I too have read that number at some other sites. I also still agree that WB's strategy here is not the best solution and it comes off as both anti-consumer and a bit harsh for those who may not have reliable broadband.
I also agree that developers and publishers should come up with positive incentives rather than measures that reek of a punitive backlash. When you look at something like RAGE, which grants new buyers free DLC and essentially upgrade everyone to a special addition, such ideas seem like a more viable solution than making everyone download content that was advertised as a main feature of the game. Your mindset is a healthy one and, in my assessment, a fantastic way to gain consumer good will.
As to the issue of those other fantastic games, yours is a myopic viewpoint but to be honest, so is mine.;) Personally, I think very few people who have been anticipating this game with the same fervor as me are going to put it on the backburner but regardless, I respect your stoic adherence to your principles even if I don't necessarily agree with your solution in this particular case.
I do strongly believe that the health of this industry (and subsequently the medium) is our collective problem because we do vote with our wallets and while I don't actually anticipate anything less than stellar sales for this title, I do worry that boycotts and campaigns attempting to derail sales of quality software could potentially flip back on us later. However, that is purely speculation. We must all do what we feel is necessary to preserve our personal integrity and values.
To be fully honest, while I think the used market is a larger threat than you acknowledge, I prefer your solutions to the vast majority of those being offered by publishers. Looking back at the last few months and examining fiascos like the RE: Mercenaries nonsense, it becomes clear just how ridiculously far some companies are willing to go to dissuade consumers from buying used. Your philosophy may seem a bit optimistic to some but I actually find it refreshing because too many corporate shills and Gordon Gekko wannabes have forgotten that quality and good value trump just about everything else. They want brand loyalty but aren't willing to ante up to get it and believe that punitive measures will garner consumer acquiescence.
Here's hoping that the GOTY edition removes this requirement so you can nab a copy guilt free.
And thank you for the excellent discussion.
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
[QUOTE="dkdk999"]
Just stop buying used games. Why do you people think it's ethically wrong to lock out content ? But I would say if you want them to stop this you guys should actually do something about it. Start writing emails and boycotting their products. I hope more stuff like that could get started.
dkdk999
A comparison would be to sell you a car and charge extra for air conditioning which is actually done along with a multitude of other fees that your average consumer is oblivious to.
Again why is it unethical to lock out content ? Sorry I'm really looking for a simple answer. Not some made up example. I also think we should avoid the car comparison in this disscussion as a whole. It's a bad comparison because cars are something you use. Where as when you buy video games your paying for the intellectual property. Most products start out as intellectual property. It just happens that digital media wants it to stay that way so they have control over the product after sale. The car for example, starts out as nothing but concepts, paperwork, blueprints, models and cad drawings. Those are all intellectual property owned by the auto mfg. Once it's produced though, the finished product stops being an intellectual property while games don't. However the concepts, blueprints etc continue to be.[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
That's exactly what will happen. People simply lack hindsight but that's alright. It will get worse because at the end of the day it's all about money. Remember Crackdown 1 for the Xbox and how everyone said it wouldn't be a big deal? What now sheeple?
anthonycg
This isn't a DLC issue. It's a DRM issue and the notion of codes and lockouts has been around for decades so hindsight or a lack thereof really has nothing to do with it.
The face of used game sales has shifted radically in the last decade and while consumers have every right to buy and sell used software it is naïve to think publishers and developers won't respond.
If somebody really wants to save five bucks on a copy of Arkham City while simultaneously cutting out the developer and publisher of any sales then perhaps getting the game home and discovering that they will have to shell out an additional ten dollars to get the Catwoman content is fair recompense.
I don't personally condone it but I understand why it's happening and it's not merely an issue of greed.
Crackdown's DLC was already on the cd so I group the problem with DRM. The problem with this is that it ultimately punishes the customer in order to lower used game sales.
It's bad form to be sure and it does punish the following consumers:
Those who buy the game new and don't have broadband access.
Those who want to resell their copy but lose money because the game has been de-valued due to this measure.
The rest of us are untouched by the measure and to be fair, you can't expect any publisher to be overly concerned with resell value given their animosity towards the used market. As to those who purchase used, they are afforded no rights as their choice negates any type of expectation beyond caveat emptor. (buyer beware)
That's simply the nature of used merchandise.
Again why is it unethical to lock out content ? Sorry I'm really looking for a simple answer. Not some made up example. I also think we should avoid the car comparison in this disscussion as a whole. It's a bad comparison because cars are something you use. Where as when you buy video games your paying for the intellectual property.[QUOTE="dkdk999"]
[QUOTE="anthonycg"]
A comparison would be to sell you a car and charge extra for air conditioning which is actually done along with a multitude of other fees that your average consumer is oblivious to.
anthonycg
You pay for the content when you buy the game. You pay an additional fee to use what you already payed for.
I would say your paying for the disk. Not the content. The same way if I pay someone money to let me to download a game off their pc with a torrent, I'm not really paying for the content. I'm paying for the service. If that makes sense. Your not supporting them in any way. I mean you might be supporting them somehow. The same way pirates do. But it's not the same.Most products start out as intellectual property. It just happens that digital media wants it to stay that way so they have control over the product after sale. The car for example, starts out as nothing but concepts, paperwork, blueprints, models and cad drawings. Those are all intellectual property owned by the auto mfg. Once it's produced though, the finished product stops being an intellectual property while games don't. However the concepts, blueprints etc continue to be.
Gen-Gawl
Videogames, film and other media are different than most goods however. The way these items can be used is actually limited by copyright law because of the nature of the products.
For example, you can't legally show a film on Blueray at your home and charge admission for others to watch it.
You can't legally set up an XB360 at a business and charge people money to play Gears 3.
Ownership of media, while still governed by fair use doctrine, is limited in how that media is used under certain circumstances. Just because you own a game or film doesn't give you the right to copy, distribute or display it with impunity.
Digital media is the future but that future will only come when we as consumers are granted a large enough financial incentive to abandon physical ownership.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment