And you thought Online Passes were bad.

[Nyaliva]

I actually think this is a good idea, however it is done very stupidly.

First, Activision has changed Spyro so much since the PS1, it hurts. The first couple of PS2 games were okay, ignoring terrible controlling, but then they changed his appearance and tried to make him dark and edgy (like just about everything else around today). And now they've changed him again so he's quite literally a shrivelled husk of his former self.

Second, charging $70 for the actual game and then charging an additional $8 per playable character is just utterly retarded. If they charged like $40 for the game, base and one figurine would be acceptable. They're trying to get the parents to buy the game for Christmas and then the kids buy figurines with their pocket money throughout the following year. Also I'm sure kids get a lot more for Christmas than they did in my day. All I know is I certainly won't be getting it but I don't think it's the devil spawn you make it out to be. Heck, tons of games are $100 as it is (at least they are here in Australia) and they come with buyable DLC and Online Passes. So I don't think it's terrible, and I don't think it makes Online Passes look any better (although I don't think they're devil spawn either, certainly annoying and unnecessary), but again, I won't be buying it.

 

[Idsertian]

I'm surprised no one else has said this yet:

Spoiler

Pretty please with sugar on top.

Kthnxbai.

EDIT: Actually, to avoid the possibility of a low content warning, I will say that if this is true, it is a pretty major dick move on the part of Activision. Indeed, pretty bad compared to Online Passes, but that doesn't make them good.

 

[GonzoGamer]

That's pants on head retarded but it doesn't make me feel any better about online passes.
In fact, it only makes me think that because gamers were so accepting of online passes, we're sure to see more obscenely stupid schemes like this... and they're going to get even worse than that.

wow this couldn't be more accurate

That's what I fear.
Of course I hope I'm dead wrong but I haven't seen much that would suggest otherwise.
Some people think it's silly but that's why I refuse to buy any game that has one of these online pass schemes. I'm just glad I have been able to avoid them: even if it means I've only bought two games this year.

 

[The_R3d_Fury]

Bonus content with figurines is totally different than locking out pre announced content.

However, completely restricting the game based on those lockouts is terrible.

If content is announced, it should be a given. Devs shouldn't announce features or content and THEN say LATER that is is a pre-order exclusive or a new game only bonus.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Online passes are good for the industry. If you buy a Used game for less, you should receive less. /quote]

You already do receive less. You get a used product.

I didn't particularly mind them having minor additional content for new buyers (like Shale in Dragon Age), but cutting a major feature of the game is bullshit.

 

[BanicRhys]

The worst thing is that a bunch of kids are going to end up conning their parents into letting them collect them all.

 

[Eccentric_Jon]

That's pants on head retarded but it doesn't make me feel any better about online passes.
In fact, it only makes me think that because gamers were so accepting of online passes, we're sure to see more obscenely stupid schemes like this... and they're going to get even worse than that.

Exactly my reasoning.

 

[Something Amyss]

So we've all heard of the whole debacle with Online Passes, Cerberus Network for example, where game developers would lock you out of content if you bought a game new.

I think CN is a bad example. While it did require payment for later content, part of that was that there was later content. There will little evidence that they trimmed stuff from the actual game as such.

Giving you bonus content as an incentive is not a bad thing. Advertising options which they then pull from you if you didn't buy new is pretty bastardish, but that's not exactly the case here.

Now, the majority of online pass garbage is bullshit, I'm just saying.

And yes, this is worse.

Still doesn't make online passes any better.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's pants on head retarded but it doesn't make me feel any better about online passes.
In fact, it only makes me think that because gamers were so accepting of online passes, we're sure to see more obscenely stupid schemes like this... and they're going to get even worse than that.

PRECISELY.

Companies are profit driven. when they maximised their sales, they needed something else. Online passes, in this case. And they will want more, once Online Passes look to have reached their capacity. Which means they'll need some other way to expand profit. In probability this will be either locking content for new buyers as well, or them trying wilder stunts.

Or, in thie case, it seems a little of both.

This is what you get for saying "I don't mind online passes."

Now, I know a lot of corporate apologists will say "How dare you expect companies not to make a profit," because I get that almost every time I mention this, that's not what I'm saying. There is a point beyond which they no longer need to make more profit, and this trend of attacking the consumer WILL BE progressive as long as we allow it to.

 

[haku1219]

SPYRO DOESNT NEED A GRAPHICAL UPGRADE.... HE NEEDS A DEVELOPER WHO WONT DICK AROUND WITH HIM!!

 

[The_Vigilant]

I think it's been long accepted in the gaming community that Bobby Kotick is Satan.

 

[Joccaren]

I never had a problem with online Passes. There was nothing wrong with them. They were good for the industry. Buy the game from the Dev, get all content. Buy it from a store and give $0 to the Dev who made the game, get cut out of content that the Dev put hard work into making.

This is bullshit, and I noted that the second I saw it on T.V. I can't imagine this will do very well...
And yeah, another seconding to the 'What the hell is that thing its not Spiro' comment(s).

 

[darthotaku]

this won't work at all. there was a reason Lego Star Wars didn't require you to pay eight bucks for each unlockable character. Why bring back Spyro anyway? He wasn't even all that good in the 90's.

 

[Rolf]

When i watched the trailer and saw the figurines i could not believe my eyes. Why would you do something like that? It's the most shamefull way to scam money from you that i ever seen. What kind of demon came up with this idea?

In short i'm never going to buy this game and i hope the game crash and burn so we can get old spyro back.

 

[ResonanceSD]

And that's why no one is buying that game.

 

[darthotaku]

I never had a problem with online Passes. There was nothing wrong with them. They were good for the industry. Buy the game from the Dev, get all content. Buy it from a store and give $0 to the Dev who made the game, get cut out of content that the Dev put hard work into making.

This is bullshit, and I noted that the second I saw it on T.V. I can't imagine this will do very well...
And yeah, another seconding to the 'What the hell is that thing its not Spiro' comment(s).

the thing thats wrong with online passes is that somebody has already paid the devs. somebody did pay $60, and the correct percentage of that money has gone to the developers. you have simply paid that person a smaller amount for their right to ownership. it's like saying that I should send a cheque to mazda for my old car, the money has been paid to them, I didn't steal the car from them by buying it from somebody else. same thing with games. it's all been paid for already, I'm just giving money to somebody else to use it.

 

[Delusibeta]

I never had a problem with online Passes. There was nothing wrong with them. They were good for the industry. Buy the game from the Dev, get all content. Buy it from a store and give $0 to the Dev who made the game, get cut out of content that the Dev put hard work into making.

This is bullshit, and I noted that the second I saw it on T.V. I can't imagine this will do very well...
And yeah, another seconding to the 'What the hell is that thing its not Spiro' comment(s).

the thing thats wrong with online passes is that somebody has already paid the devs. somebody did pay $60, and the correct percentage of that money has gone to the developers. you have simply paid that person a smaller amount for their right to ownership. it's like saying that I should send a cheque to mazda for my old car, the money has been paid to them, I didn't steal the car from them by buying it from somebody else. same thing with games. it's all been paid for already, I'm just giving money to somebody else to use it.

The problem is that before Online Passes, used games and new games were identical (assuming the previous owners didn't carve their name on the disc), except that one type meant that all the profits were going to the retailer, and with major retailers (GAME, GameStop et al.) pushing used games hard and new retailers (Argos, Tesco) joining the used game bandwagon, something had to give. To be honest, from the publishers perspective it's a bloody good idea, and it's already pretty much industry standard a mere two years or so after Mass Effect 2 pioneered the technique. Had retailers not been forcing used games down customer's throats, the games industry wouldn't have reacted in this way.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

To be fair, the whole Skylander thing is in a class all its own. The entire game is based around collecting the little figures. It's not like this is a tacked-on cheap tactic to make more money; the entire point of the game is to buy these dumb little toys to use in the virtual world. I've actually been hearing good things about it, and I'd give it a try if I had the spare money to throw around right now.