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

[SL33TBL1ND]

I don't see the problem with it. You get the full game for it's full price, or a fraction of the game for a fraction of it's price. And it stops devs losing money from pre-owned games.

Its not for the devs its for the publishers...

How do the devs get payed hmmm?

 

[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.

We're talking about EA's new business model here, which is sure to spread. It keeps you from playing online if you don't have the DLC which comes with the purchase of a new copy. You're damn straight that's crippling.

I'm not a fan of any DLC, because for the most part it turns out to be stuff that was supposed to be included in the game to begin with, but instead people are charged extra for it. Normally I just ignore it and move on, but THIS type of BS is worth complaining about.

Ah, the online passes. So, you think the publishers/developers have an infinite obigation to support the online capacity regardless of cost or time? You must have been really annoyed when Microsoft dropped Halo 2 then.

But back to the metaphors. Lets say, you had a cable box (cable isn't used over here, so if there is no 'box' for decoding the signals, my bad) - if you sold the cable box to someone else, would you expect the cable company to use your last payment to run his box for the time that remained, or would you expect them to charge him for the new subscription and/or hook up?

Now, with XBox Live, I don't know how much obligation the publisher has in terms of support - I imagine that whilst the game servers are handled by Microsoft, the game publisher has to support servers like statistical storage or online match making themselves. i.e. they have to maintain a service for a period of time. Now, traditionally, we've got it free as a perk, but if the publishers decide that they can't provide that anymore, fair enough in my book - unless they lie on the box and say 'online multiplayer supported free to the owner of this disc for the lifetime of the disc'.

Very few games use dedicated servers any more. They use P2P connections, which services like XBL and PSN pay for. Not the devs/publishers. The few dedicated servers that do remain are paid for mostly by advertisement and players themselves. So that's a moot point.

Online play has been a part of most full games for at least a decade. Telling us we have to pay more for it now is bullshit. No other way to describe it.

If online capability costs developers/publishers so much, why can I still play games from the 90s online for free? Because it costs jack shit, that's why.

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

 

[TPiddy]

Customer? You mean, second hand customers who provide nothing to the company in the first place? I would have an issue if this was affecting people who where their customers, but the second hand market is not their customers. They are GameStop's customers or whichever second hand seller they buy from.

Exactly this... people who buy used games are not the customers of the developers and have no right to make any demands of them. If I buy a used car and it breaks down, I head to the used car dealership, not the manufacturer's dealership.

Car manufacturers have been providing incentives to buy new for years now.

However, not allowing online play to people who buy used is definitely total dick. That's like buying a used car and finding out it costs extra to drive it on roads with 4 lanes.

 

[Plurralbles]

I might not get civilization 5(only game I'm interested in other than Starcraft2).

There's just too much Steam bullshit.

 

[shadow skill]

I don't see the problem with it. You get the full game for it's full price, or a fraction of the game for a fraction of it's price. And it stops devs losing money from pre-owned games.

Its not for the devs its for the publishers...

How do the devs get payed hmmm?

They get paid as part of the cost of development. They won't be seeing very much if any of the money the publisher would get from moves like this.

 

[DividedUnity]

Personally I'm all for Project Ten Dollar. I feel as if I should be entitled to some thing extra for going out and buying the game full price on release.

For that there are extra contents and stuff like what gamestop gives when you buy the game in advance. This is something else completely, 5 bucks to BE ABLE to play the game online is ridiculous.

Youre forgetting the fact xbox live does basically the same thing. You pay money each month to be able to unlock the online service that is there anyway

 

[OrdinaryGuy]

I'm all for Project Ten Dollar so long as it includes DLC, not features that should have been in the game in the first place. If it means more people will buy games new, then more power to them.

The main issue here is that both the company and the consumer believe they are being treated unfairly. Gamers shouldn't have to miss out on bonuses for buying a game used, and companies shouldn't lose profits on used game sales. Unfortunately, you really can't have both.

 

[Doug]

I might not get civilization 5(only game I'm interested in other than Starcraft2).

There's just too much Steam bullshit.

.....right....I think you've commented on the wrong thread, matey, but your opinion is still valid - myself, I'll still be getting Civ 5 because, well, I use Steam alot and don't mind it.

Customer? You mean, second hand customers who provide nothing to the company in the first place? I would have an issue if this was affecting people who where their customers, but the second hand market is not their customers. They are GameStop's customers or whichever second hand seller they buy from.

Exactly this... people who buy used games are not the customers of the developers and have no right to make any demands of them. If I buy a used car and it breaks down, I head to the used car dealership, not the manufacturer's dealership.

Car manufacturers have been providing incentives to buy new for years now.

However, not allowing online play to people who buy used is definitely total dick. That's like buying a used car and finding out it costs extra to drive it on roads with 4 lanes.

Thanke - though I'm more on the field about the online capacity, I am lending towards the publishers on this one.

 

[Doug]

I don't see the problem with it. You get the full game for it's full price, or a fraction of the game for a fraction of it's price. And it stops devs losing money from pre-owned games.

Its not for the devs its for the publishers...

How do the devs get payed hmmm?

They get paid as part of the cost of development. They won't be seeing very much if any of the money the publisher would get from moves like this.

Tell that to Infinity Ward. They where due to get a hell of alot of cash from CoD as royalities. And if you believe their law sues, Activison sacked the top two guys to avoid paying up the millions they where owed.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

 

[Burck]

snip

You also have to remember Servers aren't cheap, with the current state of Console games online, you're lucky if the servers are on still on 3 years from now.

Most multiplayer console games don't use servers: particularly the popular ones i.e. CoD and GoW

On topic, I have no grievances with PTD as applied to BC2, so I would encourage the game industry to follow BC2 as a model.

 

[shadow skill]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

 

[Tinneh]

Not really much we can do about it since nobody has the RIGHT to video games per ce...just another industry joining the ranks of greedy assholes. It blows, but that's capitalism for you.

If we flood the customer support it should at least let them know that we won't buy games that have THAT sort of measures and that it's not something tolerable, shouldn't it?
I've already sent a couple of messages via http://support.thq.com/thq/consumer/question.asp

Incidentally, that never works!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but, this crap never goes through. You actually think they read customer support letters? This is a large corporation we're talking about, kid, they have no souls.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

 

[DaOysterboy]

Customer? You mean, second hand customers who provide nothing to the company in the first place? I would have an issue if this was affecting people who where their customers, but the second hand market is not their customers. They are GameStop's customers or whichever second hand seller they buy from.

Exactly this... people who buy used games are not the customers of the developers and have no right to make any demands of them. If I buy a used car and it breaks down, I head to the used car dealership, not the manufacturer's dealership.

Off topic, but the car dealership would probably love it if you brought your used car in to get it fixed... probably at about double the cost most other mechanics would do it for, but that's beside the point. Just saying. They were paid for the original purchase and most are more than willing to order parts or do labor for your used product if you pay for said parts and labor. That's how I see project $10. You didn't buy from the original manufacturer, but they'll still provide services if you pay them for it. Also, my sensibilities run more strongly in the vein of "capitalist" than "gamer". If Gamestop or EB found a working legal business model (resale of used goods), more power to them. It's up to publishers (and I suppose devs indirectly) to beat their deal. Which they're trying to do with Project 10 Dollars. I don't see why people get up in arms about this... I think it's a beautiful system and the economy gets better whether it's via EA or Gamestop. I don't "owe" anything to a company so they can make "Space Marine Shoots Aliens for Fun and Profit 8". They can take their business, liquidate the entire operation, and pay out their stockholders any time they want. They don't because it's less profitable. I can choose to buy or not buy their games any time I want. I act on a per game basis. The system works in my opinion.

 

[tehroc]

Day one DLC is a product that is made after the process of Going Gold. Nothing new can be added to the disc at this point, since printing as already started. In the pre-dlc days, designers and coders were either laid off or transferred to a new project because the current one is done. DLC is a way for the same group to continue working and for long term support on a game.

Yet how does that explain DLC that is already on the disc, but requires cash to unlock it? Most of your Day One DLC is already on the game you own.

Ok, let's take Resident Evil 5 for an example, there was an public outcry about the versus mode when it was added as DLC. The main complaint was the size of it. It seemed to small to be anything substantial and most people assumed it was just a key, myself included. What was in the DLC was simply the matchmaking tools for the versus, but it used data that was on the disc, like the maps for Mercenary mode, and character models. All DLC uses data on the disc.

Although, you may be referring to the alternate costumes for Street Fighter 4. You wanna know how to tell the difference between the two. A key is only a couple of kilobytes. If you can't be bothered to look at the size of the file you're about purchase, you deserve to be ripped off.

For the record here, I rent all my games because my family can't afford to purchase them new or used.

One specific example, BFBC2, the first VIP map pack required absolutely not ounce of bandwidth. It didn't even download a 8 kilobyte file. Put in your code and viola 2 more maps

I also rent a majority of the time, most games just are not worth $60 or $40.

 

[shadow skill]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

 

[ravensshade]

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.

sorry for my ignorance but you're supposed to buy it new anyway so only people who take a roundabout way of acquisition get something less which is quite within reason since it's not a truly official way of getting a game now is it? and the 5 dollars you say is (currently) only for people who acquire it in this round about way... if you buy it new and THEN have to pay 5 dollars? then it'd be a rip off