F**K Project Ten dollar and others... let's take some actions

[Demongeneral109]

all I can say is that it beats DRM... whats more of a *****, having to pay the $10 dollars for all the content is used, or having to pay full price on the game again if your computer crashes?(or in the near future if you x-box redrings...)

 

[theamazingbean]

There is only one language corporations speak, and that language is money. If you don't like what a company does, don't buy their product. If the company doesn't change its ways or go out of business, it means you are in the minority, as someone is still giving them money.

 

[Durxom]

All that means to me is that I'm paying full price for a full game. I still have no problem with it. I'm contributing money to an industry that I support and getting a game in return.

So you don't mind paying 10 bucks extra for what should have already been in the game you payed 60$ for?

How am I paying ten extra AMERICAN DOLLARS? I'm simply paying normal price.

Plus, it's simply them trying to get money. You're spewing so much anti-corporate stuff that it actually hurts. THEY ARE A BUSINESS. THEY DO THINGS TO MAKE EXTRA MONEY.

Not that I know exactly what I'm saying, but pretty much this person has it down.

Most used copies are 10$ or less than the normal new copies. So for example, I got get Bayonetta used at a price of 30-40$ while the new game is worth 50$ or so, so in fact you are just paying the normal price of a new game, making used and new copies basically the same, and giving the developers some extra cash for you buying it used.

I don't really buy anything used anyway. I have a Wii and a PC, and for both of those for the games I want, are most likely always going to be new, I also have a DS but I found a way around that problem...._>...

 

[mjc0961]

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers.

Except you aren't buying a FULL product when you buy used. You're paying for what's on the game disc. You know what's not on the game disc? Online servers. Bandwidth. And all that other good stuff needed to play online modes. Buying used means the publisher gets no money from you... It seems perfectly fair to me that they should say "Hey, we noticed you didn't give us any money yet. If you just want to play single player, that's cool. But if you want to connect to our servers that we pay for so you can play online, how about giving us a little something to help offset their cost?"

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I don't agree if I completely lose online access to my games if I buy used, but we do in fact get extra stuff from this. Mass Effect 2 as an example. In addition to the day 1 Cerberus DLC, we also had the Arc Reactor weapon and Project Firewalker and I'm still hoping more Cerberus DLC will be produced. Before this, it would all have been paid DLC, which I would not bother getting. With this, I still get some extra content at no real expense to myself besides the time it takes to release the DLC. Sure, I'm still missing out on Kasumi and the new mission pack that they're releasing later, but I see those as privileges to the dedicated paying customers.

As for the case of total netplay lockout, I find it rather disappointing that some are stooping to that idea. I don't often play online though, as I can't get Live at the moment, but it seems a bit unfair to those who would want to play online. Little thing though. I believe you are confusing P:$10 with ability to go online. Every 360 is allowed Live Silver membership as long as you can connect to the net in some way. Playing is a different matter entirely (XBL Gold)

 

[Brad Shepard]

I buy most of my games new anyway, unless they dont make them anymore or its really hard to find a new one, i do this because i dont trust used games all that much.

on that note project 10$ is great, and i hope to see more of it fro mother places.

 

[koriantor]

Project 10-dollar is perfectly fine. I have zero problem with this method of getting sales. Of course, being a PC gamer, I buy everything new anyway so...

Regardless, the DLC they remove isn't all that crucial to the game anyway. The DLC is only a tiny fraction of the game, and it will not hamper your experience while playing the game (unless you make such a big deal out of it). I'm sort of cheering for the developer in this case because it only means more money for them.

Besides, DRM is a worse for the consumer than this is, and apparently DRM is less needed than project 10-dollar. So stop feeling sorry for yourself

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

To those stating that they won't support the publishers that endorse such practices;

a) You weren't supporting them in the first place if this news affects you

b) You're cutting your nose off in spite your face, and handicapping the selection of games that you can play.

I completely agree with this; with brick and mortar rental, Lovefilm and the second hand market running rampant it's about time developers/publishers alike reacted.

I use Lovefilm for games I'm curious about but have no desire to own, and I still agree with what's happening here. To the developer, obtaining the game via other means than brand new is piracy.

I'm personally getting very, very bored of this whiny sub culture we've developed, with everyone expecting everything (or close to it) for free.

Reality check - if a business is no longer viable they cease to trade. So as much as you ***** and moan, this "evil deed" keeps developers in the game and enables them to carry on making products for you to leech.

 

[JuryNelson]

I love Project Ten Dollar. I never get used games, as I have the worst of luck with them. Project Ten Dollar gets me free things.

Plus, it's capitalism. It's a way for the industry to make more money off of you by getting you to buy it new.

It doesn't get free things for you! That is precisely the problem, they take things away from you unless you buy it new... its something else entirely.

It's a way to combat two perceived threats to the industry at once: Piracy and Used games.

EB Games, GameStop and the like make no secret of the fact that they are basically a pawn shop. They make their money by buying and reselling games, essentially cutting publishers and developers completely out of the loop. So what's an EA to do? This. Offer games with content exclusive to those who buy in a way that makes profit.

In a way, your problem with this DLC is that it is implemented TOO well. Such that YOU FEEL like the extra content is core to the experience, when in fact it is totally not.

The bummer is that the way to fight this would be to just not buy those games. Show them that when things become this complicated, the gamers of the world will simply not turn out to buy it. But as long as situations remain the way they are, the games industry needs to make money or it will cease to be an INDUSTRY.

In a very real way, IF you do not want to feel like you are wasting your money on these video games, THEN you should stop buying these video games. There are billions of alternatives to buying EA games, but if you want to buy EA games, they would much rather the money you spend on them go to EA.

 

[VZLANemesis]

All that means to me is that I'm paying full price for a full game. I still have no problem with it. I'm contributing money to an industry that I support and getting a game in return.

So you don't mind paying 10 bucks extra for what should have already been in the game you payed 60$ for?

How am I paying ten extra AMERICAN DOLLARS? I'm simply paying normal price.

Plus, it's simply them trying to get money. You're spewing so much anti-corporate stuff that it actually hurts. THEY ARE A BUSINESS. THEY DO THINGS TO MAKE EXTRA MONEY.

Not that I know exactly what I'm saying, but pretty much this person has it down.

Most used copies are 10$ or less than the normal new copies. So for example, I got get Bayonetta used at a price of 30-40$ while the new game is worth 50$ or so, so in fact you are just paying the normal price of a new game, making used and new copies basically the same, and giving the developers some extra cash for you buying it used.

I don't really buy anything used anyway. I have a Wii and a PC, and for both of those for the games I want, are most likely always going to be new, I also have a DS but I found a way around that problem...._>...

My question is, why should it make extra money for the publishers? they are not making 2 games, 2 bluray discs... its ONE PRODUCT, somebody got tired of it and sold it.
Either make new games cheaper and sell more, or just make more REAL content for it (via DLC or whatever) so people don't feel the need to sell them and therefore making them go into the used market.

 

[elvor0]

So... You buy a new game for £40 and everything is included. You buy a game used for £20 and have to pay £5 to access the DLC that comes with the game when you buy it new, or the multiplayer in THQs case. You got a used game for £25 and would've had to have payed £40 for it new, sounds reasonable to me.

The Multiplayer thing is a complete dick move, but the DLC you normally have to pay for anyway, all they are doing are including an incentive to buy it new, when in fact as I've just shown its cheaper to buy used then buy the dlc anyway.

Oh snap!

Also Im not sure what you're on about about having to find dollars from the land of dreams, you buy M$ points to get DLC anyway or in the case of the Ps3, you just pay for content in whatever region you live in, I'm pretty sure THQ don't want you to make a dollar cheque payable to them.

 

[JuryNelson]

All that means to me is that I'm paying full price for a full game. I still have no problem with it. I'm contributing money to an industry that I support and getting a game in return.

So you don't mind paying 10 bucks extra for what should have already been in the game you payed 60$ for?

How am I paying ten extra AMERICAN DOLLARS? I'm simply paying normal price.

Plus, it's simply them trying to get money. You're spewing so much anti-corporate stuff that it actually hurts. THEY ARE A BUSINESS. THEY DO THINGS TO MAKE EXTRA MONEY.

I'm ok with them making money, I'm not okey with having to pay extra money for unreasonable shit. Look at dante's inferno for example. The game came with an extra map as a reward for buying it new... great, but it also came with the trophies already for the extra two extremely short dlcs they sold afterwards, which means not only they had them planned they possibly had them done, and just wanted to milk you for the rest of the content.
I sell this game right after I've bought it... now at a loss even though I just bought it a couple of days ago, because the new player can no longer play the dark forest map.
If you've already payed for it, its yours and you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, god forsake even sell it to another person, in every other industry is like that. But we're talking about new marketing here, one where greedy fucks wanna make so much money out of the product they actually wanna make money EACH time the product is going to be used. It's absurd.

Not just new marketing, we're talking about a different INDUSTRY. Video games work differently from film, consumables, automobiles?
The fact that they planned to have DLC shouldn't seem weird to you. It takes many, many months to design, build, test a segment of a game, so for them to have everything planned out in advance isn't that devious.

The scenario isn't really as you are describing it. There are games that cost $60. Some of them include the whole game. Some of them include the game plus something you unlock by buying it new. IF you choose not to buy it new, then you are already saving money. (or you are being ripped off by someone on craigslist.)

Do you also get mad at shopper cards at the grocery store? Or promotions that let you save $15 off your purchase at the Gap, but only when you spend $50?

Or is this just another "I don't want to have to pay for the things I enjoy" threads?

 

[VZLANemesis]

So... You buy a new game for £40 and everything is included. You buy a game used for £20 and have to pay £5 to access the DLC that comes with the game when you buy it new, or the multiplayer in THQs case. You got a used game for £25 and would've had to have payed £40 for it new, sounds reasonable to me.

The Multiplayer thing is a complete dick move, but the DLC you normally have to pay for anyway, all they are doing are including an incentive to buy it new, when in fact as I've just shown its cheaper to buy used then buy the dlc anyway.

Oh snap!

Wow... *coughcough* sorry, choking on the cloud of entitlement around this thread.

It is perfectly reasonable to deny online services to those that buy used. Online play requires upkeep and maintenance costs to the company. If you buy used, you haven't contributed your portion of that overhead.

You can still save money buying used, you just have to do better at hunting down bargains so that even with paying the fee for the extra material you come out ahead.

And as for the bull argument "What about people that buy it three years from now and have to shell out a ton of money?" Um... most games drop in price considerable after a year or two. The original COD (which is only 2 years old) has already dropped to $40 new. That's a full third of what it originally cost. Assassin's Creed (only 2.5 years old) is $20. No need to worry about future generations.

As for the rest of those against this, buck up and pay your share. These developers are businesses, not charities. You aren't entitled to anything you don't pay for.

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

 

[Arehexes]

While I do buy games used if it's a game worth getting new I get it new. I mostly buy used games if it's a game I need to replace (i'm losing games and I have no clue where they are going), or if it is like 3 years old and still being sold at a new price *glares at pokemon battle revolution*.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Wow... *coughcough* sorry, choking on the cloud of entitlement around this thread.

It is perfectly reasonable to deny online services to those that buy used. Online play requires upkeep and maintenance costs to the company. If you buy used, you haven't contributed your portion of that overhead.

You can still save money buying used, you just have to do better at hunting down bargains so that even with paying the fee for the extra material you come out ahead.

And as for the bull argument "What about people that buy it three years from now and have to shell out a ton of money?" Um... most games drop in price considerable after a year or two. The original COD (which is only 2 years old) has already dropped to $40 new. That's a full third of what it originally cost. Assassin's Creed (only 2.5 years old) is $20. No need to worry about future generations.

As for the rest of those against this, buck up and pay your share. These developers are businesses, not charities. You aren't entitled to anything you don't pay for.

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

You logic is the poor set here. When you sit in a used chair, or read a used book, how much does it cost the furniture manufacturer? The publishing company? *Nothing*. But online play requires the company to shell out quite a bit of overhead in terms of server maintenance.

Which is why, you'll notice, that most single-player games (where the company has no overhead (or at least very little in terms of patching, which having players who bought used really doesn't impact their costs use completely optional incentives that anyone can enjoy the game perfectly fine without (such as with Dragon Age).

And what $300/month? Do you really have to buy 5 new games every month? If you have poor decision-making skills and can't settle on one new game a month (much less for many others. I only buy 3-4 games a year usually and rely on birthday/Christmas to make up the rest), that's your problem.

 

[Doug]

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

Yes, because all the free DLC leaves the game UTTERLY CRIPPLED without it, just like a missing leg on a chair...oh wait.

This is much more like buying a book on day one and getting another book for free - even if its a crappy short paperback, its still nice for the first customer to get alittle more for buying new and supporting the author. By your logic, if the guy doesn't sell both books together, the publishers are 'screwing over the customer' (inspite of the fact that the second hand buyer isn't their customer).

 

[elvor0]

So... You buy a new game for £40 and everything is included. You buy a game used for £20 and have to pay £5 to access the DLC that comes with the game when you buy it new, or the multiplayer in THQs case. You got a used game for £25 and would've had to have payed £40 for it new, sounds reasonable to me.

The Multiplayer thing is a complete dick move, but the DLC you normally have to pay for anyway, all they are doing are including an incentive to buy it new, when in fact as I've just shown its cheaper to buy used then buy the dlc anyway.

Oh snap!

Wow... *coughcough* sorry, choking on the cloud of entitlement around this thread.

It is perfectly reasonable to deny online services to those that buy used. Online play requires upkeep and maintenance costs to the company. If you buy used, you haven't contributed your portion of that overhead.

You can still save money buying used, you just have to do better at hunting down bargains so that even with paying the fee for the extra material you come out ahead.

And as for the bull argument "What about people that buy it three years from now and have to shell out a ton of money?" Um... most games drop in price considerable after a year or two. The original COD (which is only 2 years old) has already dropped to $40 new. That's a full third of what it originally cost. Assassin's Creed (only 2.5 years old) is $20. No need to worry about future generations.

As for the rest of those against this, buck up and pay your share. These developers are businesses, not charities. You aren't entitled to anything you don't pay for.

In other words, you expect that if you buy a used chair, it should only come with three legs? Or if I buy a used book, it should only come with two-thirds of the pages? Very poor logic, my friend. You are paying for a FULL product when you buy used...the fact that none of that money makes its way back to the developer/publisher does not concern the customer. Nor should it.

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

The DLC is a BONUS product and is an incentive for buying it new. It is not necessary to play the game to its full, as I just said, Used game= £20+£5 for DLC=£25. New game with DLC=£40. You STILL SAVE £15! Bonus content is like a cushion for your chair. BONUS content is not a leg.

Having to pay for Multiplayer is yes a dick move as I just said. but THQ=Bad, Project Ten Dollar=perfectly okay business model

 

[shadow skill]

I like how some people think that it is ok for developers to feel entitled to money they have no right to as if they exist independently of the people who buy games used or new. I would like for all of those people to answer the following question:

Should there be laws that compel people to buy videogames because not buying them has the same effect as used game sales or piracy?

 

[Doug]

Now, if they want to work out some sort of deal with used game retailers which does benefit them, that's fine, but instead they're just screwing over their customers who can't afford to spend $300 a month on video games.

And what $300/month? Do you really have to buy 5 new games every month? If you have poor decision-making skills and can't settle on one new game a month (much less for many others. I only buy 3-4 games a year usually and rely on birthday/Christmas to make up the rest), that's your problem.

I must admit, I spend too much on games myself - but I don't blame the publishers or developers for my poor decision making.