Kingdoms of Amular locks content for second hand users.

[omicron1]

Here's where I stand on this:
Either the publisher is selling me a physical copy of the game, or he is selling me a license to use the game.

If I buy the physical copy, I can resell it however I want, at any point in the future.

If I buy the license, I can download it whenever I want, and play it as often as I want, forever.

Either way, the bonus content better stay part and parcel with the original purchase. Twenty years down the road, it had better still be there. 'Cause like it or not, you put it in the box and you're selling it to me. I own that content, and I will have it out of you, one way or the other.

So, EA, listen closely: If this thing breaks, doesn't work, or gets deactivated by you in the future (and do note that I have had paid-for products backfire on me TWICE so far), I am going to download it via other methods. And if some freeloaders hitch a ride, tough luck. That's your individual idiot tax. Wear it proudly.

 

[jklinders]

Makes perfect sense to me. No one is outlawing second hand games here and new copy buyers are getting a little something extra for actually giving the developer a slice.

A second hand game buyer is getting it cheaper not not getting all of it. I think that is fair since the developer is getting nothing for a second hand copy. Maybe if retailers were kind enough to share a bit more in the second hand market these type of things would not happen.

 

[boag]

If this indeed is DLC and not locked content on the disc, im all for it, if its not, then EA can go suck it.

Im still not convinced on this game, so i will be waiting for more info before I consider purchasing.

 

[AppleShrapnel]

I don't understand the mentality of some of you...

If the day-1 dlc content is non-essential quests or something, that's cool, right?

But if it's already on the disc, just locked, somehow it's instantly the bane of all existence? I don't follow. :S

 

[TheRookie8]

I don't see how this statement by itself should create "user hate". What they ask is reasonable, and true based upon what I've learned of the industry.

The only people who might get rubbed the wrong way about this statement are people who misunderstand its intent. I get this funny picture of people surrounding Shilling with pitchforks and torches while he hands out free stuff, ready to hang him for treason. Doesn't make much sense, but very funny.

As for the game, very excited about it. Reminds me of Dragon Age, but with a fresh setting and glorious combat. Will be getting it new, for sure.

 

[Stormz]

Well at least they aren't pulling a Bioware and announcing 20 DLC packs before the game has been released. I can at least deal with this.

 

[Innocent Bystander]

What? How do I imply that every retail copy is a used copy? If my statement doesn't make sense to you, maybe you're to blame. I didn't exactly use any big words, did I?

And no, day 1 DLC gets unlocked on every copy they approve of.

"They're punishing people who buy used. Day 1 DLC should ALWAYS be unlocked and free on every copy of the game, digital or retail."

Since there is no used market on the digital scene this two sentences imply that retail consists of used only. Because otherwise it makes no sense to bring this up...

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here either man, I don't see how he's implying that all retail sales are used.

 

[Innocent Bystander]

If it's extra content that's not already on the disc, it means it's a freebie that they're throwing in. If its already on the disc but locked, it means that they've actively blocked off a portion of the finished game. For a somewhat extreme example, what if in the Mario games on the SNES they made it so that you had to pay real money to get into secret rooms and shortcuts?

 

[Arkley]

I honestly have no problem with this. In fact, I approve of it. The content in question is apparently a small, extra string of quests that has no significant bearing on the rest of the game. Giving a little something extra like that to people who take the plunge and buy a game new is a great way of rewarding and thanking them.

Other games have done this too, and done it well. RAGE & Sonic Generations for example.

RAGE included a dozen little well-hidden sewer hatches throughout the landscape (you'll never find them unless you're very lucky, or purposely looking for them). Under each of these hatches is a brief succession of rooms with some mutants and a little pile of loot at the end. They're brief, fun, and a nice little distraction. They're also wholly unnecessary for the game and you won't miss them if they're not there.

Sonic Generations did it even better with the Casino Night Zone DLC. It's a couple of pinball table levels with a great remix of the original Casino Night Zone theme. No achievements or trophies related to it, just a cheerful little distraction from the main game that detracts nothing from the experience if it is absent.

This is the right way to give gamers incentive to buy new. It is not even remotely comparable to the practice of hacking out half of the experience and hiding it behind a code. If I were releasing a game at retail, I would do something very similar - not to discourage used sales, but to thank those who bought my game new by giving them a little something extra.

 

[Fishyash]

Movies and books are still comparable markets, it's just that their distribution- and business model doesn't get affected that much by second-hand sales. Which was pretty much my point.

I'm also a bit on the fence about your point when it comes to music, but I'll concede that as I'm tired and can't manage to formulate a decent answer to that :V

Not really the case for books. Maybe nowdays with more ways to sell them (online PDFs, kindle, ipad etc.) but I always assumed novelists have another source of income to help them with making novels. Obviously when it comes to autobiographies and the like those people get their money from their actual profession.

In regards to movies and music, I don't think you can compare either of them to gaming due to the ability to make money before dvd/record sales.

I'm not well versed on movies, but most interviews I hear about in regards to successful music artists, they don't really care about pirating music. They get WAY more money from concerts and t-shirts than from record sales. I don't know if it's the case for a top 40 artist, but even then concerts & t-shirts are a sizeable income for them.

 

[Naeras]

Not really the case for books. Maybe nowdays with more ways to sell them (online PDFs, kindle, ipad etc.) but I always assumed novelists have another source of income to help them with making novels. Obviously when it comes to autobiographies and the like those people get their money from their actual profession.

In regards to movies and music, I don't think you can compare either of them to gaming due to the ability to make money before dvd/record sales.

In terms of movies, it's the theatre -> dvd-model that protects movies here. Obviously that's not really a model the games industry can copy(unless we go back to only releasing games on arcades first, which would be dumb), but I still think it serves the point of how the problem here is the distribution. As it is, the majority of first-hand games sold through retailers happen to be from a retailer that also offer second-hand trade-ins and purchases. Here in Oslo, GameStop outnumbers all the other game-selling stores combined with about three to one. Of course people are going to trade in used games.

I'm not quite sure how to fix this, though. Digital distribution and giving clear bonuses to first-time buyers rather than punishing second-hand buyers are probably where to start. Antagonizing your customers just isn't a good idea, especially when they're not the problem here.

I'm not well versed on movies, but most interviews I hear about in regards to successful music artists, they don't really care about pirating music. They get WAY more money from concerts and t-shirts than from record sales. I don't know if it's the case for a top 40 artist, but even then concerts & t-shirts are a sizeable income for them.

Agreed, a lot of artists even use piracy actively for marketing(cough cough megaupload) and ultimately use that to earn more money than they would otherwise. The record labels, on the other hand, hate this, as it means they don't get money they'd want.

 

[weker]

Can't blame them, it's an easy way to make an extra load of money. Pre owned games tend to rarely be worth it now as the price only tends to be about 5 pounds difference as long as your not to lazy to shop well for it.

 

[RJ 17]

As a number of other people have already pointed out, my main problem with this will be if it's clear that whatever the DLC is was already on the disc and all you're really downloading is the ability to unlock it...which I really can't help but think that's what all day 1 DLC really is. And what about people who actually buy a new copy of the game a week after it's already been out? Do they have to pay just because they weren't there on day 1? How is it fair to them?

In the end, I fully endorse the idea that if you make a product you have all the right to get money for said product. But comparing used games to pirated games is just plain wrong. Pirating implies some variation of theft. Someone broke into the 38 Studio's warehouse and stole a bunch of boxes filled with games. Or someone hacked the gibson and directly stole all the programing and is now pumping out games from his super computer. That is pirating.

This is the same as Wal-Mart launching a campaign to crack-down on garage sales. Someone originally bought your game for which you got paid. That's the end of the transaction on that disc. You shouldn't be expecting to get money every time that disc changes hands. Do pawn shops have to pay the original jeweler every time they buy/sell a ring?

I understand it's a down economy and we all need whatever we can get, but I'm getting rather sick and tired of this war on used games. If you don't want people buying your games used then you might as well go full-nazi on us and resurrect the good ol' fashioned cd-keys and stop pussy-footing around with this "Ohhhh we're going to give the full real version of the game to those who buy it on day 1, everyone else only gets 90% of the game." I mean seriously, if your game does so poorly that used game sales actually cut into your profits, the game was a crap game to begin with. Launch day is when you make all your money. If you have a good product that was well marketed then you're still going to sell x million copies and make all your money right there...going after the used sale dollars just seems petty to me.

I'm not trying to justify actual piracy with this example, but from a monetary standpoint it makes the same point. It's like Lars from Metallica bitching about people downloading Metallica songs for free and eating into his profits as he turns around and snorts another rail of coke off a stripper's ass as she's lounging by his gold-lined inground olympic swimming pool.

Point is that I know game studios make plenty of money as it is, enough to get buy and make a profit if their product is well received. If its not well received, then that's a failure on their part. All these anti-used-game policies seem to me as nothing more than studios trying to make all the money they can in a down economy. "Companies are trying to make money on the games that they make when they are bought. Is that wrong? If so please tell me how." I'd be happy to. You've already made the money on the game that you made...you made it when someone bought that copy first-hand. What it all boils down to is the game companies feel they are being cheated because they're not getting paid multiple times for the SAME game.

I know it's not a perfect argument, I know there's the hole of "Well why should people bother buying a new game at all when they can get it used?" To which my best response is simply that games don't come out used, as such it goes back to the point that I made that if your product isn't good enough to make people anticipate it and WANT to go out and buy it immediately once it's released then that's your failure as a developer. I don't see Activision complaining about people buying CoD games used. Why? Because their product is like crack, they know they're going to sell 200 quadrabuhzillion on day one and make all their money right there.

Make a game that people can't wait to play and they'll buy it new. I just find it very hard to believe that while developers don't get paid on used games, those games can't be eating into profits to the point that you have to start holding content for ransom.

 

[Domehammer]

As long as I don't have to put in any code for buying pc version I'm fine with it. If I have to put code in for dlc on pc then I won't buy the game. Unless I'm wrong on assumption I cannot trade in all the old pc games I have.