Poll: I'm going to buy Mortal Kombat Used just out of Spite.

[GonzoGamer]

Who's with me?

I'm serious. It's not usually my style but I'm tired of these publishers trying to con the consumer with "online-passes", day one dlc, and crap like that.

I do want this game but I don't need to play it online.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I seem to be missing the context to this post.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Sorry:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108844-Rumor-Mortal-Kombat-Reboot-Locking-Multiplayer-Behind-Online-Pass

 

[Kaytastrophe]

I support your decision. If I was getting mortal kombat I would do the same. If you wanted to do one better. Buy it brand new and sell the online pass to someone buying a used game, or see if gamestop will buy the pass. That is whats going to happen in the future anyways in my opinion.

 

[minnull]

The publishers are doing whatever they can to increase sales and not lose out to the used gaming market. I don't see a problem with this strategy of adding extra content for the people willing to shelf out an additional 10 dollars for the new game. As a publisher I don't see why they should be rewarding people who are not contributing to the success of the game by buying the game used. I say, if you buy the game used then you should be prepared to miss out on certain exclusive content. You really have to think about this from a business standpoint. If the game doesn't sell well (and used game contribute to that) then we won't see a sequel to the game. Promoting the sales of new games by giving the gamer the option to shelf out the extra money for extra content is a good strategy.

 

[Armored Prayer]

Wait, but isn't all that stuff free when you purchased the game new or am I missing something here?

Edit: Just read the linked article and yeah that does sound kind of dumb. Yeah get it used.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

The publishers are doing whatever they can to increase sales and not lose out to the used gaming market. I don't see a problem with this strategy of adding extra content for the people willing to shelf out an additional 10 dollars for the new game. As a publisher I don't see why they should be rewarding people who are not contributing to the success of the game by buying the game used. I say, if you buy the game used then you should be prepared to miss out on certain exclusive content. You really have to think about this from a business standpoint. If the game doesn't sell well (and used game contribute to that) then we won't see a sequel to the game. Promoting the sales of new games by giving the gamer the option to shelf out the extra money for extra content is a good strategy.

I completely agree if they were giving you exclusive content; but they are not. They are simply barring you from something that is on the disk. The fact is when someone sells a game to gamestop they are no longer playing on the online servers and such, so when someone buys a used game they are taking the spot of the original person who did pay full price. There are only so many used games, and those used games were originally purchased new. Now I do agree it is better to buy new if you can, however, its not always feasible (I have certain games I will always buy new). I think a better way is that if you buy your games new you should get dlc free (or at a reduced rate). I think it is a better way because it is rewarding the people who buy it new (as opposed to getting nothing but what they already paid for). Game companies should start rewarding their customers (especially the ones who buy new) as opposed to ignoring them and simply punishing those who may not have 60 dollars to blow on a IP they've never tried (or cant afford period).

 

[ramboondiea]

well seeing as the majority of my games are pre-owned if i ever decide to get this it will be used, they can tempt me all the want with offers i just dont care.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I won't be buying it, apparently out of spite.

 

[WorkerMurphey]

Some of the incentives for buying new work for me. I bought DA:O new to get access to Shale. They provided me an incentive to do something, I did it, they got their money. However, without Shale I would have still enjoyed the core of the game.

I read this MK crap as "punishing a used-game player" rather than "giving incentive to buy new". Multiplayer in a fighting game is, to me, as integral to a "full" game as it is to a sports or fps game. Without it, the game isn't finished.

So, MK gets the same treatment all other "incomplete" games do with me. I don't buy them.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I'm going to buy it new, just to spite you, TC. I don't even want the game.

 

[minnull]

The publishers are doing whatever they can to increase sales and not lose out to the used gaming market. I don't see a problem with this strategy of adding extra content for the people willing to shelf out an additional 10 dollars for the new game. As a publisher I don't see why they should be rewarding people who are not contributing to the success of the game by buying the game used. I say, if you buy the game used then you should be prepared to miss out on certain exclusive content. You really have to think about this from a business standpoint. If the game doesn't sell well (and used game contribute to that) then we won't see a sequel to the game. Promoting the sales of new games by giving the gamer the option to shelf out the extra money for extra content is a good strategy.

I completely agree if they were giving you exclusive content; but they are not. They are simply barring you from something that is on the disk. The fact is when someone sells a game to gamestop they are no longer playing on the online servers and such, so when someone buys a used game they are taking the spot of the original person who did pay full price. There are only so many used games, and those used games were originally purchased new. Now I do agree it is better to buy new if you can, however, its not always feasible (I have certain games I will always buy new). I think a better way is that if you buy your games new you should get dlc free (or at a reduced rate). I think it is a better way because it is rewarding the people who buy it new (as opposed to getting nothing but what they already paid for). Game companies should start rewarding their customers (especially the ones who buy new) as opposed to ignoring them and simply punishing those who may not have 60 dollars to blow on a IP they've never tried (or cant afford period).

They're not punishing anyone! They're simply trying to get their product to sell better. Whether or not it is a good idea to lock content in the game vs. adding additional content is debatable of course. I'm arguing the notion that the game should be boycotted on new sales and everyone should grab up used games in order to make a point. The only point that will be heard from a business perspective is that MORE content should be locked down in order to decrease the number of used game sales. For a company to make additional content for a game increases the budget the game already has so adding additional content will need to be established from the get go and will still act as locked content from the gamer's perspective.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm not buying it because I've never been into Mortal Kombat. I think I have something against the letter K. Maybe because it's not a cookie.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

The publishers are doing whatever they can to increase sales and not lose out to the used gaming market. I don't see a problem with this strategy of adding extra content for the people willing to shelf out an additional 10 dollars for the new game. As a publisher I don't see why they should be rewarding people who are not contributing to the success of the game by buying the game used. I say, if you buy the game used then you should be prepared to miss out on certain exclusive content. You really have to think about this from a business standpoint. If the game doesn't sell well (and used game contribute to that) then we won't see a sequel to the game. Promoting the sales of new games by giving the gamer the option to shelf out the extra money for extra content is a good strategy.

I completely agree if they were giving you exclusive content; but they are not. They are simply barring you from something that is on the disk. The fact is when someone sells a game to gamestop they are no longer playing on the online servers and such, so when someone buys a used game they are taking the spot of the original person who did pay full price. There are only so many used games, and those used games were originally purchased new. Now I do agree it is better to buy new if you can, however, its not always feasible (I have certain games I will always buy new). I think a better way is that if you buy your games new you should get dlc free (or at a reduced rate). I think it is a better way because it is rewarding the people who buy it new (as opposed to getting nothing but what they already paid for). Game companies should start rewarding their customers (especially the ones who buy new) as opposed to ignoring them and simply punishing those who may not have 60 dollars to blow on a IP they've never tried (or cant afford period).

They're not punishing anyone! They're simply trying to get their product to sell better. Whether or not it is a good idea to lock content in the game vs. adding additional content is debatable of course. I'm arguing the notion that the game should be boycotted on new sales and everyone should grab up used games in order to make a point. The only point that will be heard from a business perspective is that MORE content should be locked down in order to decrease the number of used game sales. For a company to make additional content for a game increases the budget the game already has so adding additional content will need to be established from the get go and will still act as locked content from the gamer's perspective.

But today most games do have dlc released eventually. What I am suggesting is that they include a voucher with a pin. This pin grants that user 20% of the price of future dlc. If this makes a problem in terms of cost why not increase the price of dlc while simultaneously include a voucher that rewards loyal customers who take the risk (60 dollars is a lot to risk for a game that might suck where as 20 dollars not so much). Look at fallout, Mass Effect 2, and Call of Duty, they get extensive DLC, thus there would be benefit to getting this voucher. I am not saying that game companies are not justified in trying to get their cut on the market, I think what needs to happen though is there needs to be understanding between the gamer and the developer instead of them being pitted against one another. Why don't they provide incentives for buying new instead of punishing those who might only be able to experience their game used? or may not want to risk 60 bucks on a franchise they've never played? The used market does help game franchises a bit because it makes unfamiliar franchises accessible and creates new fanboys for franchises that are more likely to buy used next round. Thus, I think game developers need to recognize the benefits (however small) of used markets, and instead of punishing them, provide incentive for buying new. And gamers should not defend or attack game developers and what they do blindly; we need to find a means that both can agree on and not be left with a bitter taste in their mouth.

p.s. I do agree boycotting would have the opposite effect. Rather I think it would be better to buy new and boycott the activation of multiplayer. It shows the game is selling but people don't agree with the lock out. However, simply being complacent will also justify their actions as much if not more. My question is why is there no discussion or penalties being placed on the stores that sell used games?

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

So...you're going to (in their eyes, not mine) justify their actions?

OKAY.

I'm not buying it at all, because MK is shit compared to other fighting series.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm not getting MK altogether, I don't like gimmicky mashfests that use gore as their gimmick while pretending they're deep.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

As a tournament player, I don't ever have to play this game online, as there are more than enough people in my area who will gather and play it offline.

I disagree with anyone who supports this shit, I'm not even lying, it's actually offensive. "We're a business" isn't good enough. People who buy your games used still support you through DLC and exposure.

The publishers are doing whatever they can to increase sales and not lose out to the used gaming market. I don't see a problem with this strategy of adding extra content for the people willing to shelf out an additional 10 dollars for the new game. As a publisher I don't see why they should be rewarding people who are not contributing to the success of the game by buying the game used. I say, if you buy the game used then you should be prepared to miss out on certain exclusive content. You really have to think about this from a business standpoint. If the game doesn't sell well (and used game contribute to that) then we won't see a sequel to the game. Promoting the sales of new games by giving the gamer the option to shelf out the extra money for extra content is a good strategy.

Ignoring the fact that games are still pushing anywhere between 1 million (which I believe is the PS360/PC break-even target) and 10 million, they have already announced DLC characters for the game, and how many of those characters do you think will be released before they stop? The problem I have is that they've announced boh this online-pass system, and paid DLC. Do one, or do the other, but don't do both. They will easily make back used game sales from the DLC characters, stages and modes, even through those who bought it used.

I don't care if they are a business, as a consumer I'm not supposed to sympathise to the point where you start charging for everything and I think it's fine. That's when I start getting screwed.

And it's not even extra content! It's content. Extra content is day one DLC and things not on the disc, while online multiplayer most certainly was planned and implemented from the start.