Jimquisition: Limited Collector's Complete Edition

[ablac]

I love how they call them "Complete edition". This is essentially admitting the game they sold originally wasn't complete and that a large amount of the content sold for extra could have been in the game.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also by waiting for Skyrim, you have a better chance of it not being broken.

Yeah, that too. I'm assuming by the time a GOTY is out, it'll be patched into a workable game.

I just rent everything now. That way I know if it will suck or not. I already have Amalur in my Q.

I really should. I'm probably just going to wait for reviews, though.

The problem with Gamestop is that by "gaming" the system of used game market and effectively gouging it, their profits were really really high while their gouging actually did a disservice to consumers. If they provided better used prices to consumers and took that cut to their obscene profits, they would get a lot less complaints.

The problem here isn't so much that they're "gaming" the system. They're providing a service, one people willingly flock to and only THEN complain about. You can get stuff cheaper elsewhere, but people keep going to Gamestop, despite lower trade-ins and higher used prices.

Gamestop has moved more to a model that provides money for them. Game sales are a pretty poor source of revenue, largely the fault of the industry itself. Box stores can handle it as part of a loss leader program. Smaller stores have been on the out since before the Gamestop model. Dedicated game stores can sell accessories, but that doesn't necessarily even sustain them, much less make them money.

Gamestop's model is the only viable one dedicated game stores seem to have hit upon. As gamers, we should want gaming stores to continue to exist. Otherwise, we're stuck with whatever Wal-Mart decides is commercially viable. As for prices, if we weren't so willing to abuse ourselves, there wouldn't be a problem here. Trade-ins would be higher and prices lower if we had any measure of restraint as a whole. The same is true with game content. We are very much our own worst enemies on both fronts.

I don't mind DLC when it's a good value expansion of a game that was already a good value but that's rarely the case so its usually a better idea to just wait for the Complete edition. I don't think this would be a problem at all if people felt they were getting a good value for their $60 in the first place.

It would also help very much with the problem of resale. If people thought they were getting something of value, they'd be less likely to sell.

As it is, this is another case where the industry has conditioned us to act against their interests. They have conditioned us to treat titles as disposable, to be rendered obsolete when the next (often yearly) iteration comes out. Since online is such a huge part of the industry now, shutting it down is a guarantee to diminish the value of a game. One they oft want us to continue playing so we'll buy DLC.

And yes, I agree with the picture. I mostly omited it for size. Saints Row the Third was the ONLY game I bought retail in 2011. There were indie games, XBLA games, etc., but the only one I bought on a disc at a store was SRTT. And I'm not going to buy any more of them from Ubisoft. Between the online pass and pretty much cutting the game in half, they have lost me as a customer. I'm also avoiding the DLC, because I'm not going to pay them to extend a shallow experience.

Still, to get their sales back to last gen levels, they have to get more consoles into peoples homes; there are still a hell of a lot less PS3s & 360s out there than there were ps2s at this point in that cycle. That's another big reason for low sales.

Someone recently posted a picture charting the gaming industry's profits over the last few years and projecting to next year. They're "losing sales" all the way to the bank. Record overall profits and, lest we forget, numerous games are breaking previous sales records. And this is with a smaller install base. They're really not suffering "low sales." They're suffering from "not high enough profits." A condition that usually leads to unsustainable cycles.

 

[loudestmute]

Let's see...Fallout: New Vegas, Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire, Mortal Kombat, Skyrim, Deus Ex:HR (come on, you know the "complete editions" for those last two are inevitable)...

Why was I so adamant about getting these games at launch? Probably because I still had a regular source of income and stopped going to gambling excursions on a monthly basis, so I had to find some way of setting my money on fire. Well, that and I was supporting an independent game retailer I'm friends with, so there's that bit of self-trickery going on there.

Now that I'm unemployed and have more free time than free money, I'm looking forward to seeing my gaming habits change. Rather than "buy 1-3 games per week," I'm hoping for more along the lines of "one per month, and that's after making a sizable dent in the unfinished games pile".

...Oh, right. Praise and glory befall our benevolent overlord, Jim Sterling.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Interesting thought about new games and collectors editions. If I myself see that a new game gets a ton of editions... I just don't buy it. I wait a year or two until I can get the proper edition, with every bit of worthwhile content.
And you know, even if you have fans, you can piss them off. I liked Uncharted 2, bought it on launch (well, 2 weeks before launch, good times in Russia when every store competed to break the street date earlier), special edition, bought DLC as soon as they came out... Then Unchrted 3 came out... And it was a drastically inferior game + $30 "season pass".. Really? No more Uncharted games for me.

There is one franchise I worship almost religiously and will buy any DLC or most expensive CE day 1... It's Mortal Kombat. I'm sure many people have that one game series they adore and are ready to spend as much as are asked. But numbers of such fans are very limited, this is something to consider.

 

[katsabas]

Jim may be right on this one. I have been patient on 3 games this far. Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and Wipeout. It seems like a standard and I have gotten used to it. The only instance I caved was with Arkham City but I do know all they are gonna add are challenge maps.

Is it bad that one gets used to stuff like this?

 

[Electric Alpaca]

Completely agree with this, and I certainly have been put off purchasing games based on multiple pre-order bonuses being present; giving the impression of an "incomplete" game even though I'm purchasing Day One. Not to mention being put off buying games such as Fallout because I know the marketing model:

1. Base game - 2. Months of DLC - 3. Re-release.

Then a funny thing happens, I have no desire to buy the game at all when the "All Bells and Whistles" version comes out. My interest has died - undoing the slew of advertising that is done prior to game release. Out of sight, out of mind.

I may be a minority, but when an industry is alienating a staple consumer who's been a patron for years questions are raised.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 is fast becoming a skipped game for me, due to the fact I can't have the entirety of the game when I buy it - which is an absolute ridiculous result for one who has bought (or had bought in the younger years) every Final Fantasy Day One (since VII.

Desperate money grab techniques really have a greater impact than what publishers realise, although I have no idea whether there will be enough lost revenue from alienated fans compared to revenue generated from retailers purchasing these exclusive items to ever break this hideous new trend that has arrived.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Also by waiting for Skyrim, you have a better chance of it not being broken.

Yeah, that too. I'm assuming by the time a GOTY is out, it'll be patched into a workable game.

I just rent everything now. That way I know if it will suck or not. I already have Amalur in my Q.

I really should. I'm probably just going to wait for reviews, though.

The problem with Gamestop is that by "gaming" the system of used game market and effectively gouging it, their profits were really really high while their gouging actually did a disservice to consumers. If they provided better used prices to consumers and took that cut to their obscene profits, they would get a lot less complaints.

The problem here isn't so much that they're "gaming" the system. They're providing a service, one people willingly flock to and only THEN complain about. You can get stuff cheaper elsewhere, but people keep going to Gamestop, despite lower trade-ins and higher used prices.

Gamestop has moved more to a model that provides money for them. Game sales are a pretty poor source of revenue, largely the fault of the industry itself. Box stores can handle it as part of a loss leader program. Smaller stores have been on the out since before the Gamestop model. Dedicated game stores can sell accessories, but that doesn't necessarily even sustain them, much less make them money.

Gamestop's model is the only viable one dedicated game stores seem to have hit upon. As gamers, we should want gaming stores to continue to exist. Otherwise, we're stuck with whatever Wal-Mart decides is commercially viable. As for prices, if we weren't so willing to abuse ourselves, there wouldn't be a problem here. Trade-ins would be higher and prices lower if we had any measure of restraint as a whole. The same is true with game content. We are very much our own worst enemies on both fronts.

I don't mind DLC when it's a good value expansion of a game that was already a good value but that's rarely the case so its usually a better idea to just wait for the Complete edition. I don't think this would be a problem at all if people felt they were getting a good value for their $60 in the first place.

It would also help very much with the problem of resale. If people thought they were getting something of value, they'd be less likely to sell.

As it is, this is another case where the industry has conditioned us to act against their interests. They have conditioned us to treat titles as disposable, to be rendered obsolete when the next (often yearly) iteration comes out. Since online is such a huge part of the industry now, shutting it down is a guarantee to diminish the value of a game. One they oft want us to continue playing so we'll buy DLC.

And yes, I agree with the picture. I mostly omited it for size. Saints Row the Third was the ONLY game I bought retail in 2011. There were indie games, XBLA games, etc., but the only one I bought on a disc at a store was SRTT. And I'm not going to buy any more of them from Ubisoft. Between the online pass and pretty much cutting the game in half, they have lost me as a customer. I'm also avoiding the DLC, because I'm not going to pay them to extend a shallow experience.

Still, to get their sales back to last gen levels, they have to get more consoles into peoples homes; there are still a hell of a lot less PS3s & 360s out there than there were ps2s at this point in that cycle. That's another big reason for low sales.

Someone recently posted a picture charting the gaming industry's profits over the last few years and projecting to next year. They're "losing sales" all the way to the bank. Record overall profits and, lest we forget, numerous games are breaking previous sales records. And this is with a smaller install base. They're really not suffering "low sales." They're suffering from "not high enough profits." A condition that usually leads to unsustainable cycles.

Sure certain aging franchises have gained more and more fans over the years and I think that has led to record breaking sales for a few titles but overall there are less people out there TO purchase a CoD game now than there was at this point last generation. I know I didn't get into CoD until recently when my wife got me into it. It also has the added quality of being primarily an online game and people don't want to have too steep a learning curve.
I agree with you completely about Saints Row 3 but THQ is the one that's responsible for the butchering of that title. Some people have already paid for the DLC with the Season Pass scam.
As an investor, I know that Gamestop needs to keep it's investors happy but they also have a responsibility to their consumers. You're right that it's up to the consumers to make it clear that they don't like being taken advantage of but gamers (lets face it) aren't good at that kind of thing. You have to admit that Gamestop has quite a racket when they've bought up all the other game stores then require the consumer to either pay them ahead of time for their game OR pay $2 short of the new price for a used copy.
I respect myself enough to just not shop there but some people are limited to what's local and some people just dont know any better.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The heroic Jim Sterling is back once again to champion the rights of those too weak to champion themselves, and bask in the very palpable gratitude that he most assuredly deserves.

I just wanted to say: Thank you, Jim Sterling. I do indeed thank the gods for you. Well said, my friend. Well said.

Thank you, Jim, for a wonderful and insightful video.

[sub][sub]Note: The above is said with some amount of humor, but no irony. Just in case anyone thinks I'm just kidding - I'm not.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Drakey]

Thank You Jim, /blush. I pretty well link your show most (not every) time to my facebook feed. Your a star. and most of all we love you. There there, hugs and kisses. Thanks for being the conch we all love and adore!

 

[Gunner 51]

After this video, it hit me. The best way to protest is not to boycott or *insert other means here*. It's to wait for the price to drop. Publishers like to boast about first day/week/month sales. If we wait for the price to drop - usually a year or so - it's like poking them in the eye legitimately.

The hard part is the waiting I guess.

I think you are very right on this, but the hard part is where most people including myself fall down upon. It is quite difficult to resist a game when all your chums are playing and mentioning how much they love it and you see it advertised everywhere. But you may be interested (or not) to know that I have slowly found myself mustering up the ability to wait for games - it's suprisingly difficult. (I avoided buying MW3 - up to the point where my clan purchased it for me because they didn't like seeing me on my lonesome while they were playing it. Bless 'em! XD)

But I also think that Jim is right that the publishers are chiefly to blame for the way things are now with 'complete' editions. Perhaps anyone who paid full price is surely entitled to the full and complete game seeing how they paid the full price for the game upfront. I'm not just talking a sliver of DLC - but all of it, for no extra charge.

But two things are for sure. Firstly the whole thing stinks of the publisher's greed and secondly, things cannot continue like this without inevitable collapse.

 

[Bluecho]

Wait, part of the DLC for Arkham City was a Batman Beyond alternate costume? What the hell? Don't get me wrong, I like Batman Beyond, but it certainly doesn't work here. Terry McGuinness was not Bruce Wayne. While Bruce is muscular, Terry is lean. A beefy Batman wearing that costume simply doesn't work.

And before I forget, I thank God for Jim Sterling. Bless you sir.

 

[CapitalistPig]

hehe. special editions. i laugh at the concept. But hey I'm a consumer that thinks (hear the brain pulse.) Oh Jim don't get so high and mighty or else you might be thought of as a professor "teaching" us then we will all learn to hate you for "teaching" us. love it love the show keep doing it.

 

[Homebrewdm]

Thank you, and thank god for you.

 

[Satosuke]

So what if a special edition or 'game of the year' edition of a game is released a good chunk of time after the game's initial launch, with all the DLC included? That's a great way to get new players interested. And no, you're not stupid for buying the game when it's first released; all that means is you wanted to play the game now instead of later. And to be honest, unless it's a game-changing piece of DLC, I don't really give a fuck if there's retailer-exclusives offered at launch. If it doesn't effect the game, why would you care?


Jim spouted a lot more DERP than he normally does this week.

Frankly I'm surprised you're not more willing to wait till a price drop or for the "real" edition to come out with all the money you must spend on deviant art commissions. Ah, that was a cheap shot, I just can't stand watching deerunicorngiraffewolves gratifying the publishers who hate them.

Though, more to the point. By your argument, you're not even paying for the game anymore when you buy it new. You're paying for the dubious privilege of playing it first. And, oh boy, if publishers catch onto people like you, there's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Next thing you know they'll start having an "early access" fee you can pay to get the game a few weeks before everyone else and, sadly, people would pay for that.

You're also willingly paying more for less content. Take the people who bought MvC3. They dropped $60 on that game then, less than a year later, UMvC3 came out with more modes and characters. With that one, the way Capcom worked out the DLC is that buying the DLC as stand-alones cost almost double what it was to just buy UMvC3; basically taking a huge dump on the face of everyone who paid to play it first.

On to your new player point, if you are indeed just paying for the bragging rights of playing it first, shouldn't someone who buys the game new, even later on, get all the added DLC for free anyway rather than have the need for multiple "editions"? That would even give the publishers an excuse to keep the game at full price. Sure its 6 months later and still $60, but you're getting access to 6months of DLC at no additional cost. But no, instead you're left to deal with what are effectively a beta version of the game, which you paid full price for, and the complete edition of the game, which you now have to pay full price for.

Or, do the reverse of that and most, if not all, future DLC is included in the price of the game. You bought it on day 1? You get all the DLC forever for free. But, if someone buys it 6months later, used or otherwise, then they have the option of buying that backlog of DLC, thus allowing the publisher to recoup some losses from time,etc.

As far as retailer specific DLC, an increasingly high amount of it DOES affect the game. FF13-2, for example, has either in game weapons, a new in-game unit, or a real world book depending on where you purchase and for what system. Fortunately, this isn't very common practice yet, but it quickly might become so and would be a tool for publishers to dissuade people from buying from Gamestop cause they have the less appealing unique DLC. It also discourages people from buying from local, independent shops since they can't offer that little extra; in short, it is especially harmful to small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, why do you want them to fail? Why do you hate America, comrade?

I actually don't use deviantart, but that's besides the point. To be honest I thought people would catch onto the furry thing sooner, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I don't go bandying it around on normal sites like some socially inept schmuck. That would be what we call furfaggotry, and that's bad. Keep one's weird shit to oneself, I say.

And actually, nowhere did I say I want to play the game first. Hell, I'm one of the guys who normally waits for the price drop or for those sweet GOTY editions. I just don't look down on anyone who buys the game for full retail.

Yeah...did you even read my post? I said I don't care about retailer-DLC as long as it doesn't affect the game. If it's a superweapon in multiplayer or in-game bonus credit or something that actually affects gameplay, I'm not so hot on it. But costumes and inconsequential tibdits like that? Whatever; let 'em do it.

 

[Don't taze me bro]

I'll still buy new games, and then occasionally get the DLC if it interests me. However, I simply WILL NOT, buy another Capcom fighting game on release. They have screwed me too many times. Yes, Capcom vs Tekken looks awesome, but what I have learned from Capcom, is that there will be Super / Ultimate version down the track, that will be cheaper but include a bunch of extra characters.

So no. I won't buy it, and I'm sure others won't too. I hope Capcom will be left scratching their heads wondering why it hasn't done as well as SF4 / MvC3.

 

[Mangod]

Since you feel so underappreciated, I've taken the liberty of making this for you:

 

[Frankster]

Any chance we can get a Limited Collector Edition of Jimquisition? Basically if we preorder the next episode for 60$ we get to see the episode 1 day in advance and get a soft cuddly toy version of Jim and an exclusive behind the scenes art book showcasing the very best of Jim's artistic muscle. Also fridge magnet with jim's face.

It would be worth it for the plushie alone.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

I think you are very right on this, but the hard part is where most people including myself fall down upon. It is quite difficult to resist a game when all your chums are playing and mentioning how much they love it and you see it advertised everywhere. But you may be interested (or not) to know that I have slowly found myself mustering up the ability to wait for games - it's suprisingly difficult. (I avoided buying MW3 - up to the point where my clan purchased it for me because they didn't like seeing me on my lonesome while they were playing it. Bless 'em! XD)

Well I did end up buying Skyrim because I seemed to be the only gamer I knew in my circle of friends who wasn't playing it.

But Skyrim seemed to be the exception to the rule since most of my friends play a variety of games and there is rarely that need to buy a game to fit in. I've got some friends who played the new Batman game and praised the game to no end but I didn't feel the need to rush out and buy the game. Or I seem to be only one of my friends who was playing Space Marine so there wasn't peer pressure for my friends to play.

When my friends say a certain game was so fun to play I really don't get the impulse to rush out and buy it but I file it away under look for the $20 complete edition when it gets released.

 

[Gunner 51]

Well I did end up buying Skyrim because I seemed to be the only gamer I knew in my circle of friends who wasn't playing it.

But Skyrim seemed to be the exception to the rule since most of my friends play a variety of games and there is rarely that need to buy a game to fit in. I've got some friends who played the new Batman game and praised the game to no end but I didn't feel the need to rush out and buy the game. Or I seem to be only one of my friends who was playing Space Marine so there wasn't peer pressure for my friends to play.

When my friends say a certain game was so fun to play I really don't get the impulse to rush out and buy it but I file it away under look for the $20 complete edition when it gets released.

I wish I had your iron will in waiting for games to come down in price. I'm the kind of guy who will always buy new - to support the developer as best I can and to play with my chums using a full and complete game.

But impulsiveness is a funny thing, but I think that marketing and peer pressure (even when they don't want to pressure you) are surely major contributing factors to someone caving in early. *Edit* Oh, and having the money in one's bank account, too! *Edit*

Again, I salute your ability to wait until a game goes on sale, sir.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sure certain aging franchises have gained more and more fans over the years and I think that has led to record breaking sales for a few titles but overall there are less people out there TO purchase a CoD game now than there was at this point last generation. I know I didn't get into CoD until recently when my wife got me into it. It also has the added quality of being primarily an online game and people don't want to have too steep a learning curve.

The thing is, the industry as a whole is making dynamic strides in terms of profits. It's not just "aging" franchises, it's not even necessarily top-tier titles. They're screaming that they're going broke but are posting record profits.

I agree with you completely about Saints Row 3 but THQ is the one that's responsible for the butchering of that title.

I have no excuse with that one, save that my mind wandered. I'm aware of the actual publisher and have used their website to register complaints. To be sure of that, they have a convenient product pull-down. But yeah.

As an investor, I know that Gamestop needs to keep it's investors happy but they also have a responsibility to their consumers.

I'm not particularly with you here. While I believe the "consumer" should stand up for themselves, I don't see why Gamestop or anyone else has the responsibility to hold the hands of a consumer base that will not stand up for itself.

You have to admit that Gamestop has quite a racket when they've bought up all the other game stores then require the consumer to either pay them ahead of time for their game OR pay $2 short of the new price for a used copy.
I respect myself enough to just not shop there but some people are limited to what's local and some people just dont know any better.

See, I've never seen this in play. Plenty of places around here offer used games at better prices. And I live in a tiny town in a tiny state. Maybe this is the case, but I find it hard to believe. I do afford for there being gamers who live in smaller communities than mine, but the larger tendency is for them to exist in larger areas. The areas you're more likely to find Gamestops.

As far as people who just don't look around, that is their own doing. You can tell them to go elsewhere. People not strictly limited by location have many choices, including half.com/ebay, which has been an INCREDIBLY popular site for ages. Stores only stay competitive if we don't actively reward them for not being competitive. We really need to keep up our end of the supply/demand cycle. If we don't, we kind of deserve what we get.

Meanwhile, if I have the hankering to buy used (I rarely do to be honest, I'd rather buy new), I'll shop elsewhere. Be it locally or through the web. Consider it "leading by example."

Note that this still isn't so much a defense of Gamestop, but an explicit statement that we can't expect any different if we don't stand up to them. Gamers as a whole sometimes cheese me off for that reason. All the outrage at Project Ten Dollar, but people snapped up games like Mass Effect 2. The boycotts against many of the COD/BF games, that never come to fruition because even the ones calling for the boycotts bought the games. The protests of broken titles from Bethesda, but even the PS3 version gets solid sales. The outrage at Origin, but people will buy Mass Effect 3. For that matter, the outrage at multiplayer, etc. We come off as a group prone to throw tantrums at the drop of a hat and possessed of no self control. And maybe we are. The Gamestop deal is no exception. People often scream about how bad Gamestop treats them, but go back. They accept the reported horrible customer service, awful practices, etc.

Maybe it's not just gamers. We as a nation seem to be a little too complacent as a whole, but things seem particularly worse when it coems to gaming.