Poll: Boycott Rage

[Woodsey]

Its a menial piece of content that most won't see (reportedly). Not worth boycotting over.

If someone starts physically removing stuff from their game to give an "incentive" to buy new, then there's an issue. What developers actually seem to be doing is making some rather minor content to fulfill that role instead.

If you buy used you're still going to get it cheaper than buying it new if you pay for the missing content too.

THere are games that take away content if you buy it used. Homefront will not let you get past level 5 for example

Alright well, does anyone care about that game? But still, I'm pretty sure they charge another £5 or whatever for their online pass, so still cheaper, and that's a multiplayer thing, which a fair few people do.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I don't need to boycott, i'm already not buying.

this,

not buying RAGE, Diablo 3, skyrim, and a bunch of other 'big games' coming out i didn't care about before hand, and won't after ward.

 

[sharpsheppard]

wow i have seen this before lets hear you and and bunch of other people rage then fold 10 mins after it comes out and buy it

 

[blizzaradragon]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

 

[GraveeKing]

[
im a huge fan of DLC, having bought all of the dlc for oblivion (with the exception of the horse armor). i makes me happy that devs can pump out content for their older games. but what im talking about is stuff they already made, but decide to keep away from you for not buying their game new. preorder items, higher than basic content for games are a good way of getting people to buy new. if the game is good enough, ill buy it new. but not giving us content that was supposed to be in the game in the first place... it's just not right.

Without being rude to you. You see a reply on a post on a discussion of 'Boycott Rage' and expected the worse. I am pleasantly surprised so thank you for being of one of the few more kinder gentlemen, I tip my hat to you sir!

In my view, it's the developers loss and choice if they pluck things out of a game. Core game play like duel wielding as you mentioned before, would probably never and should never be taken out. It's just minor things - like in fallout New Vegas, you got a MINOR pack when starting, which is easily found online these days and not too hard to 'add' to the game files.

 

[ExplosiveTiger]

The Blockbuster I live near actually leaves the codes in the cases, so I think I'll just rent it. Either that or just take the code and buy it later.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I was going to buy this game new, but due to this bullcrap I'm not buying it at all. And I am never purchasing an I.D game again.

 

[Aprilgold]

I use Steam, so do I care? Actually, yeah I do car. I mean, to be honest, people who plays consoles are already being bumm fucked all around by the console ITSELF, let alone need publishers joining in.

 

[Vault101]

all I will say is this is better than always online...ANYTHING is better than always online

I was thinking of buying it on PC

anyway boycotts never work...people will still buy it and this doesnt change my mind..Im hoping rage will be the first decent length FPS in a while

the way I see it shit like this is going to become standard...

 

[Snotnarok]

They're not doing anything exactly wrong here, they just want to be paid for the game they made and if you're buying it used, you're not paying them, you're paying gamestop.

It's a simple choice, want the extra features? Buy it new. It's a lot like buying the special edition to a game, are you going to boycott them for not giving you that stuff too? You get what you pay for, that's how a lot of things work.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not even about taking sides really, you're simply not paying the guys who made the game so why should they care what you want? So you want to help them and get your game features well I think buying it new is for you. Besides you get shrink wrap to open and who doesn't enjoy opening a new game?

Also, it's not like they're stripping out the ability to play or save more than one file.

 

[Siege_TF]

People have been buying used games since games were availible used, it's just that technology has only recently allowed developers to punish players for doing so. The question is; who are they to punish anyone? I'll not be buying Diablo III for it's DRM because I don't like what it may lead to; DRMs becoming the norm in the same manner that withholding content on used games has.

This crying over Rage is different from DRMblo however because instead of marketing the sewers as bonus content they marketed it as regular content that's being withheld. This is like comparing the fatigue system in FFXIV against bonus exp weekends in WOW. Same shit in vastly different packages, and it's the package that makes all the difference from a marketing perspective.

People complaining over Rage is essentially complaining about that package, rather than the content, and I can't take that seriously.

 

[Kirtap]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

Well apparently Id decided that when you buy the game new you get all the content but if you don't buy it new you wont be able to go to certain places

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

The buyer did not run the program, and had no knowledge of the EULA. The courts said he was not bound because he did not click "I Accept".

You're conflating two separate points from the case: "[1] Judge Pregerson ruled that Adobe had sold its software instead of licensed the software. Thus under the first-sale doctrine, Adobe can not control how SoftMan resells those particular copies of Adobe software after the initial sale. [2] The Court also found that SoftMan had not infringed on the EULA because SoftMan had never run the program and therefore never assented to the terms."

Vernor assented to the EULA and accepted it.

No, he didn't. Have you read the case you keep citing?

"In 2005, Mr. Vernor purchased an authentic, used AutoCAD package at a garage sale and put it up for auction on eBay."

"In 2007, Mr. Vernor bought four authentic, used AutoCAD packages from an office sale at Cardwell/Thomas Associates (?CTA?), a Seattle architecture firm." (He put those on eBay as well.)

The seller tried to sell a non-working copy with their EULA. Of course that wouldn't fly.

Vernor did not sell broken copies.

You're missing the point of SoftMan, which is that the court ruled that the EULA printed on the box didn't constitute a valid contract.

As to this case, I can't find a copy anywhere. Care to provide me with a source?

This one I'll give you; I don't have LexisNexis access here, but the only references I can find group it with SoftMan in First Sale Doctrine-over-EULA cases.

In any event, the point is that Vernor in no way represents the complete final word on the subject. It's not law--it's barely precedent until and unless the Supreme Court rules on it--and there are many, many conflicting legal opinions on it.

 

[internetzealot1]

Am I against what id is doing? Yes. Is it worth a boycott? Depends on how good the game is.

 

[Lunar Templar]

They're not doing anything exactly wrong here, they just want to be paid for the game they made and if you're buying it used, you're not paying them, you're paying gamestop.

It's a simple choice, want the extra features? Buy it new. It's a lot like buying the special edition to a game, are you going to boycott them for not giving you that stuff too? You get what you pay for, that's how a lot of things work.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not even about taking sides really, you're simply not paying the guys who made the game so why should they care what you want? So you want to help them and get your game features well I think buying it new is for you. Besides you get shrink wrap to open and who doesn't enjoy opening a new game?

Also, it's not like they're stripping out the ability to play or save more than one file.

as i understand it, its not extra stuff they're taking out, its a whole chunk of the single player

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112247-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used

case you missed what the fuss is about.

 

[health-bar]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

 

[Epona]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

But they still made a fucking sale in the first place.

They made money on that physical copy of the game, they aren't exactly entitled to more fucking money. When you buy used computer, you don't have to send a check to dell lest they remove a stick of RAM, or drivers, or whatever part you want to use in the analogy.

Well like I've been saying, all they are doing is encouraging elevated levels of piracy, because it's less about it being free and more about the pirates offering a better fucking product.

This. You want to know how to discourage used game sales? Reward consumers who buy new, don't punish those that buy used.
Example:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004TMGZ9K/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_g63_i4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0DK183ARV59BAKT2H1TH&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846
Disgaea 4 is selling for 50$.10$ below retail. They have a version of the game that is 60$ that comes with goodies. That is how you combat used sells. With the carrot, not the stick.

 

[Epona]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

 

[Moeez]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3457/boycottescapistmagazine.jpg

Really, this is a big enough issue to boycott? These are just sewers that you're not likely to see. In this game's case, I don't see a huge devaluation.

Isn't this just giving an added incentive to not buy the game used, of which no money is going to the developer/publisher, and helping the customer in the end? Seems like a win-win situation. It's not like new copies of a game will ever run out except for 20+ year old games, of which case then there is digital distribution e.g. GOG, Steam, etc.