Poll: Since when did developers stop caring about the players?

[blizzaradragon]

Developers care about the players. They care about them a lot. Instead, it's the publishers who hate the players, and the players who hate the developers. Publishers are just trying to do what they do: publish games and make money. When you buy a game used, you are essentially giving the publisher the middle finger and denying them their pay. So they go out of their way to ensure that they do get paid. Meanwhile players start hating developers because A) people can't seem to understand the difference between developers and publishers, and B) players are starting to act like entitled 5 year old brats who think they can run a business better than developers. Seriously, look at how many people are getting angry over things like "the free games Nintendo is giving us for buying the 3DS early aren't enough" or "Sony needs to give more after the PSN hacking" or my personal favorite of "I don't like someone hitting on me in Dragon Age, so you should remove all homosexual romances from your games"! Developers and publishers don't owe players a damn thing, so stop acting like they do and enjoy when they actually go out of their way to either listen to you, give you free stuff, or apologize when they mess up!

Also with the example used of Mass Effect 2, you aren't getting charged extra. You can still buy and play the game fine, but if you want extra features and DLC then you have to pay extra.

 

[Stall]

1) Piracy and the used game market have the exact same end impact on developers. In their eyes, one is no different from the other, as each end up cutting them out of a sale. One might be legal, and one illegal, but the ultimate effect of both is equal.

2) The "DRM" hate against D3 is ridiculous. It's a multiplayer game, meaning you have to be connected to the internet to play it anyways. People are complaining because they are entitled, and want D3 to be single player. Since they aren't getting their way, they are making a fuss.

3) DRM as a whole is just an easy target for hatred. I cannot think of an instance where DRM has EVER inconvenienced me in the last 5 or so years. If you look at PC gaming history, then you'd find that DRM is more user-friendly and non-evasive than ever. Old school DRM was entering the third letter in paragraph 8 on page 13 in the manual. If you lost the manual, then you were fucked. Slightly less old DRM was CD keys, and anyone who played PC games during the late 90s/early 00s will tell you how easily you could lose these fucking things. From where DRM began... it's come a long way.

So yes, this is all unjustified.

 

[northeast rower]

Okay, so no one likes piracy. We get it. However, that doesn't mean that supremely dicking the audience you're aiming at is the best idea.

This mini-rant comes with the announcement that "Rage" (which I was hoping to buy until I saw the 22 gig save space) will lock the single-player if it is bought used. This isn't the first time this has happened. Mass Effect 2 charged you $15 dollars extra for a used game, Diablo 3 will only work if it has an online connection, and Battlefield 3 requires a connection to Origin, a not-so-cleverly implemented ploy to have people rally behind Origin to gain some ground on Steam.

Like I said, piracy sucks. But this is the wrong way to combat it. Arkham Asylum did it right, glitching pirated copies so that the cape wouldn't work.

Imagine this: you buy Halo: Reach used. Then you find out that half of the multiplayer playlists are locked because you didn't have the access codes. You borrow Red Dead Redemption from a friend and find that because you don't have an account with Rockstar, you can't mount horses. Pretty exciting future, right?

And it's all thanks to the developers who forgot their audiences. I believe, personally, that piracy has to stop, and that devs are justified in implementing security in their games. In my opinion, though, this is the wrong way to do it.

Seriously, you need to read the story instead of interpreting off the title alone.

And publishers pull this shit, not devs.

Okay, for one thing, I misinterpreted the article. I did read the story, for your information, and I'd seen demos showing off the sewer levels. Naturally, I'd assumed that they were essential to the campaign. However, I missed the quote at the bottom stating that they wouldn't detract from the experience, so ec-fucking-scuse me your royal highness if I missed that precious little tidbit of information.

 

[The Lunatic]

When sales spoke more than reviews and the internet's opinion.

 

[Epona]

It's pretty damn stupid to try and separate the developers and the publishers. The devs may not like DRM but it doesn't matter because the publishers have the power and the devs are getting paid by the publishers.

They are both part of the same machine. If the devs really hate the DRM publishers put on the game, why haven't they found another job? Oh yeah, the devs care...just not THAT much.

Of course it could be argued (like I said above) that devs have no say in the matter, in which case the devs are unimportant in a discussion about DRM. So which is it? Are the devs not caring enough to walk away from abusive publishers or do the devs have no power in the matter of DRM?

You wanna know why publishers are so abusive towards consumers? It's because gamers practically beg for it with statements like "Publishers should get paid for used sales". Try to argue that no other industry gets a cut of the used sales or that a used game was already sold new and you'll see even more proof of gamers begging to be abused by the publishers.

 

[northeast rower]

Okay, so no one likes piracy. We get it. However, that doesn't mean that supremely dicking the audience you're aiming at is the best idea.

This mini-rant comes with the announcement that "Rage" (which I was hoping to buy until I saw the 22 gig save space) will lock the single-player if it is bought used. This isn't the first time this has happened. Mass Effect 2 charged you $15 dollars extra for a used game, Diablo 3 will only work if it has an online connection, and Battlefield 3 requires a connection to Origin, a not-so-cleverly implemented ploy to have people rally behind Origin to gain some ground on Steam.

Like I said, piracy sucks. But this is the wrong way to combat it. Arkham Asylum did it right, glitching pirated copies so that the cape wouldn't work.

Imagine this: you buy Halo: Reach used. Then you find out that half of the multiplayer playlists are locked because you didn't have the access codes. You borrow Red Dead Redemption from a friend and find that because you don't have an account with Rockstar, you can't mount horses. Pretty exciting future, right?

And it's all thanks to the developers who forgot their audiences. I believe, personally, that piracy has to stop, and that devs are justified in implementing security in their games. In my opinion, though, this is the wrong way to do it.

Seriously, you need to read the story instead of interpreting off the title alone.

And publishers pull this shit, not devs.

Okay, for one thing, I misinterpreted the article. I did read the story, for your information, and I'd seen demos showing off the sewer levels. Naturally, I'd assumed that they were essential to the campaign. However, I missed the quote at the bottom stating that they wouldn't detract from the experience, so ec-fucking-scuse me your royal highness if I missed that precious little tidbit of information.

You started a whole thread based off your misinterpretation. I point that out, and you take it personally.

Fair enough, but the attention-grabbing headline didn't exactly help when reading the actual story. Spun my views in the wrong direction.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

Okay, so no one likes piracy. We get it. However, that doesn't mean that supremely dicking the audience you're aiming at is the best idea.

This mini-rant comes with the announcement that "Rage" (which I was hoping to buy until I saw the 22 gig save space) will lock the single-player if it is bought used.

*some sniping*

EDIT: Just now I noticed that quote at the bottom of the Rage article stating that the sewer levels were not mandatory. I thought they were. My point still stands.

I am so f'ing tired from little whiners like you OP, who think that the game developers owe them something, even though you buy the games used.

You're not giving them ANYTHING AT ALL,I repeat, ANYTHING AT ALL, so why should they give you something? They are in their full right to sell a game that only works 100% if you actually give them some of the money for it. After the first sale of the game, they don't owe any one else anything in the future of that game / disc.

The ones that they have to care about, are the people who actually give them money, and not those that don't want to pay them for their work.

They aren't responsible for the game missing bits after some one else sells it to you used.
If some one sold you their used car, would you complain to the manufacture if there were parts missing? No, you would go and complain to the guy who sold it to you.

If you should have an issue with any one, it should be GameStop or who ever you buy used from, for not selling you a full game.

 

[northeast rower]

Okay, so no one likes piracy. We get it. However, that doesn't mean that supremely dicking the audience you're aiming at is the best idea.

This mini-rant comes with the announcement that "Rage" (which I was hoping to buy until I saw the 22 gig save space) will lock the single-player if it is bought used.

*some sniping*

EDIT: Just now I noticed that quote at the bottom of the Rage article stating that the sewer levels were not mandatory. I thought they were. My point still stands.

I am so f'ing tired from little whiners like you OP, who think that the game developers owe them something, even though you buy the games used.

You're not giving them ANYTHING AT ALL,I repeat, ANYTHING AT ALL, so why should they give you something? They are in their full right to sell a game that only works 100% if you actually give them some of the money for it. After the first sale of the game, they don't owe any one else anything in the future of that game / disc.

The ones that they have to care about, are the people who actually give them money, and not those that don't want to pay them for their work.

They aren't responsible for the game missing bits after some one else sells it to you used.
If some one sold you their used car, would you complain to the manufacture if there were parts missing? No, you would go and complain to the guy who sold it to you.

If you should have an issue with any one, it should be GameStop or who ever you buy used from, for not selling you a full game.

Jesus, call the WAAAAmbulance.

Try playing Duke Nukem Forever. Then you'll see why I want the devs/pubs to put some effort into loving their audience. Yeah, they're in the right, but it's a bad business practice that will lose them money and interest in future games in the series/ by the dev.

As for that used car analogy: I'm making the point that this is similar to having to pay an extra $100 for the keys to start the car after you purchase it.

As for having an issue with Gamestop: I will most certainly not have an issue with the retailer. It's my choice to by a used game because it saves me money. Last month I got Oblivion, COD4, and Red Faction: Guerrilla for $20 by buying them used. Did the devs get anything? No, but it piqued my interest in future titles by them.

If you're rich or irresponsible enough to pay the full price for every game that comes out, that's your choice. I like to conserve.

The kind of dev/pub you just described is one interested only in making money, like Treyarch/Activision. They don't care about the fanbase. The opposite would be Bungie/Rockstar/Bioware, who put effort into their audience. There's a reason for that difference between the two sides in terms of customer support: one side doesn't care, the other side does.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

Okay, so no one likes piracy. We get it. However, that doesn't mean that supremely dicking the audience you're aiming at is the best idea.

This mini-rant comes with the announcement that "Rage" (which I was hoping to buy until I saw the 22 gig save space) will lock the single-player if it is bought used.

*some sniping*

EDIT: Just now I noticed that quote at the bottom of the Rage article stating that the sewer levels were not mandatory. I thought they were. My point still stands.

I am so f'ing tired from little whiners like you OP, who think that the game developers owe them something, even though you buy the games used.

You're not giving them ANYTHING AT ALL,I repeat, ANYTHING AT ALL, so why should they give you something? They are in their full right to sell a game that only works 100% if you actually give them some of the money for it. After the first sale of the game, they don't owe any one else anything in the future of that game / disc.

The ones that they have to care about, are the people who actually give them money, and not those that don't want to pay them for their work.

They aren't responsible for the game missing bits after some one else sells it to you used.
If some one sold you their used car, would you complain to the manufacture if there were parts missing? No, you would go and complain to the guy who sold it to you.

If you should have an issue with any one, it should be GameStop or who ever you buy used from, for not selling you a full game.

Jesus, call the WAAAAmbulance.

Try playing Duke Nukem Forever. Then you'll see why I want the devs/pubs to put some effort into loving their audience. Yeah, they're in the right, but it's a bad business practice that will lose them money and interest in future games in the series/ by the dev.

As for that used car analogy: I'm making the point that this is similar to having to pay an extra $100 for the keys to start the car after you purchase it.

As for having an issue with Gamestop: I will most certainly not have an issue with the retailer. It's my choice to by a used game because it saves me money. Last month I got Oblivion, COD4, and Red Faction: Guerrilla for $20 by buying them used. Did the devs get anything? No, but it piqued my interest in future titles by them.

If you're rich or irresponsible enough to pay the full price for every game that comes out, that's your choice. I like to conserve.

The kind of dev/pub you just described is one interested only in making money, like Treyarch/Activision. They don't care about the fanbase. The opposite would be Bungie/Rockstar/Bioware, who put effort into their audience. There's a reason for that difference between the two sides in terms of customer support: one side doesn't care, the other side does.

Back to the car / game thing.

Paying customers (that being NEW sales, NOT used) don't have to pay anything more than we have for many many years now. You buy the whole package from the maker, and it will all work for the price they asked from you.

And it's not like they leave the game unplayable if you buy it used, sure there will be something you might wish was still there, there might be a seat or window missing,a couple of levels or the multiplayer is not there, but it's not going to stop you from using it. The engine is still there, along with the keys, so they are not stopping you from playing.

And all of that, is totally in the hands of the secondhand salesman. It's his fault if he doesn't inform you that there might be some stuff missing.

Any where in the world where people make a product, they will tell you that they don't give a flying Sh't about the guy who's going to buy their product used. He didn't pay them anything.
It's just good old fashioned common sense.

 

[Winthrop]

Okay so people have consoles break a lot right? So if you buy rage and then your console breaks, you need to pay them for the game again? Now granted its only like ten dollars but if you have ten games that do this its an added hundred to the price of rebuying the console. Or how about you have a group of people over and one of them agrees to bring a game but you can't play it because you don't have a code for your console. Or what about the people who don't have internet access? They can't play a part of their single player game because of this. Granted depending on how they check for it (IE with your gamertag or on your console) some problems are fixed and some are created. I don't think anyone seems to notice how this hurts more than just used game buyers.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Don't fuck any games. Period.

 

[DannyJBeckett]

Most of them stopped caring when Activision sank their claws into them.

 

[Kingsman]

Why would they care even slightly about someone who's not their customer by definition?

Look, its incredibly simple. If you buy the game used, you are not the devs customer, or the publishers - you are Gamestops customer. The dev and the publisher don't see a single dollar from your sale. Thus, the dev has absolutely no reason whatsoever to care about you. Realistically, this is them offering a higher quality product than their competitors - the used market. Thats business 101.

Using that logic, they should call buying used books stealing and burn libraries where they stand. :/

Yes, if by "that" you mean "insane troll". Restating something as a bizarre otherworldy absolute is not a sound debating tactic. Its whats Republicans do.

Don't give me that, it's the exact same logic. The author and his publishing company don't get any profit from used books circling in a secondary market so they should do everything in their power to stop anyone but the buyer from reading it, including burning libraries and calling the sale of second-hand books the stealing of intellectual property.

You're daft if you can't see the similarity.

 

[ashival]

I find it funny how 90% of these threads on un/justified drm/publisher shenanigans about protecting their sales completely ignore the fact that brick and mortar stores have to go through some channel, weather it be through the publisher, amazon, or whatever distributing company and PAY for said games. If it's through the publisher the only two ways they could go about getting the product is either through a contract deal or through a direct sale.
For example if GameStop had to make a deal with the publisher in order to even carry the game, this may entail making a deal where for each new game sold the publisher gets a cut along with paying them, then I can see the publisher being dickish about the used game sales. However I imagine any publisher would have had a clause in whatever contract they made with whomever to cockblock any used game sales so that clearly isn't the case. About the only thing that makes sense is that GameStop pays upfront whatever value the publisher set per unit.
This means GameStop could then up the price to make a profit but the chances are with so many other companies willing to sell for a base price they wont do that because it would mean loss of customers so they keep it there for stated reason. This also means the only real way GameStop makes any real profit on anything they have is from the used games.
In fact I would say this is primarily the case as for an example Blockbuster, I know I know, made the most money off of their previously viewed product sales as the movies they got in store were off of a contract with the studio where the rental sales were split between them and the studio, and in the end were usually only allowed to keep a certain amount of high budget titles like say Zombieland in stock at any given time because the studios only wanted a certain amount of any given title in circulation at any given time. This was done usually by having the stores destroy a certain amount(knife or paper shredder) and sending them back to corporate who then sent them back to the studio.

tl;dr version: Most companies probably already pay for every unit of whatever game they get in their stores already. Meaning publishers make little profit on new games from retailers to begin with so retailers also try to recoup their losses by selling used games which is pure profit for them.

 

[werty10089]

DEVs have shifted interest from the player, to the players wallet from the get-go. The very nature of corporations is to maximize profits, and non-corporate funded games don't have much of a budget. Of course companies are generalizing their games to reach a larger audience, if they do so, they get more money to further generalize their games to make even more money. People have only picked up on this recently due to the amount of generalization being excessive, but if you took any notice at all, it was happening all along.

 

[ashival]

^^^also THIS probably most noticeable in the fps ww1&2 genre.