Hey, don't parade around like I was planning on buying these in the first place. Rage looks about as interesting as a brown rock, and resistance is the damn rock.megapenguinx said:Annnnd fail.BeerTent said:Although I have never watched it, I completely agree with Jim. In my opinion, Brick-and-mortar stores may be able to take a legal act against this as this is something that directly attacking their sales. For what reason? Oh, someone gets to play the game without passing a few cents to a developer?
Get the fuck over it. If you make a game like Heavy Rain, (and the Resistance series) with zero replay value, you have failed to overcome one of the challenges of creating a decent game. If you can't make a good product, then your going to make less money for it is going to tank.
Replay value is a term made up by game journalists and is used to sway reviews either negatively or positively in a minor fashion.
There is no set metric to how much "replay value" a game has because one group of people will never end up playing the game again while another will play through a game multiple times.
Used games do have a right to exist, but to me it makes sense to pay the developer an extra $10 or so if you buy the game used...especially for multiplayer.
The reason it makes sense to me is because the developer is paying for the servers that you are playing on.
Now it's funny to me when people say they won't buy a game because it requires an online pass, because if you were planning on buying that game used then the developers and publishers would never have made any money off of you anyways. If you don't want to pay extra for the online pass, just save a little more and buy the game new. Chances are you'll actually save some money from buying a used game and a pass (Gamestop will usually charge only $5-$9 less for used new releases so you actually end up paying more).
See, in those cases, Yeah. I understand, the developer is paying for those servers. Yeah, I do understand the costs of setting up and keeping online, and the cost over time as I am a server administrator. But this is a risk that you take. Nobody ever said that Ubisoft needed to keep servers online for AC2. Is it really required to keep online servers if you make a single-player only game, or allow your players to host? (Hosting a few master servers is significantly cheaper than having a couple dedicated machines running numerous game servers.)
And I agree for your set metric for replay value, It is relative, but take a moment to consider why people factor that into their reviews. The people I knew who played through Heavy Rain and LA Noir only sat through them once. Why? They felt the same way I did when I bear Heavy Rain. Their story was done. The events that came through was their playthrough, and to go through it again, and purposefully alter that, would kill the point. I'm not saying that every Canadian up her feels that way, but out of 40 people I know that BEAT the game those are some pretty high statistics.
I'm more worried from the ethical standpoint as well. Yeah, you feel this way. But there are people out there that don't understand/know/care. And just like the OP, there are a lot of people that are distraught against this. It will harm used games sales. It will negatively impact those sales, and in my eyes, that's directly attacking your distributor. What are they going to do? Not sell a product in demand? They have to. And there are going to be customers out there who also don't understand that buying a used game will incur an additional $10 credit charge. Can't play part of this used game. Shovel money to us. Not fair to the distributor, not fair to the Cx. All because the studio shifted more money to graphics than it was worth.
Your retort...? Figured.