@dudeglove said:

The whole project 10 dollar thing isn't primarily aimed at you guys. It's aimed at Gamestop, who screw over the original distributors.

Fuck you and your common sense and rational thought.

@9cupsoftea said:

@cstrang said:

I can't accept the "well, half of all consoles are offline" argument. In a world where the vast majority of the gaming community has access to internet and a wireless router/ethernet cable cost as much as a song, the biggest reason all of those consoles are offline is because they are modded machines used to play pirated games. It's a vicious cycle: Publishers do shit like this because of piracy, piracy and belly-aching of the self-entitled increase because publishers do shit like this.

I don't want to sound mean, but you have a really blinkered view of the world if you think that. Many console owners live in situations/places where their internet is limited/slow, or where it is simply inconvenient to hook their console up (internet jacks in another room, etc). A few xbox owners I've known simply didn't bother with it, treating their consoles like last-gen consoles. Heck, even though I live in London right now I haven't hooked up my console online because I don't see the point without gold. It's worth reminding on a games forum that not everyone is a games enthusiast, willing to spend whatever they can, jump through every hoop, and who applies such high value to gaming.

It's not a matter of spending "whatever they can" or "jumping through hoops". The internet is practically ubiquitous. The biggest possible hurdle would be an old Xbox 360 with an internet jack in another room without a TV. I wouldn't expect a person to by an Xbox internet adapter or another TV to download a character skin. HOWEVER, that is a very specific fringe case. Also, the way publishers combat the issue of a slow internet is to use 108 kb download keys to unlock on-disk cached DLC. But then people bitch about having to pay extra money for something they "already own on the disk". You can't please everyone, especially considering everyone's growing sense of entitlement. Which is to mention: None of this really matters. It's fucking Catwoman. It's not Batman. It's not like their withholding 20 hours of unique content from a player, and that is pretty much always the case.

@Metal_Mills: Who other than people located one hundred miles outside of an urban area, or even a small town isnt connected to the internet with at least a dial up connection? The people who care about this and are outraged about it will be the people invested in gaming, the ones who are on message boards constantly and the ones who have an internet connection. I dont believe the mother buying this game for their 6 year old because it is Batman will care about any online pass, and neither will their child. I think this is a great move because it incentivises people to buy a new copy. And it always seems the poeople with an issue with this sort of thing have over 1000 posts, strange.

@9cupsoftea: but if they aren't "game enthusiasts" then they probably wont care that they are missing out on this optional thing. they went into a store and bought a Batman game, when the message comes up at the main menu saying "oh, you can get Catwoman for this amount of money" then they can just ignore it. If they end up really liking it then they can get it?

as for the online stuff, I had some trouble myself a few years ago trying to get a decent connection for my consoles and sometimes things just dont work. There should be some kind of optional thing for people who arent online. Maybe you could order the Catwoman and Challenge Disc for whatever amount and DL on to the console?

@Meowshi: Yeah, that made me sound like some kind of techno-nazi who runs on utter blackness, but for real, I'm a nice guy. Still, £40 is reasonable chunk of money and £20 is a much smaller chunk.

@tunaburn said:

@HandsomeDead said:

This seems like it will only effect scumbags and children. It's a good move.

really? im a scumbag if i wait a few months and get it used for $35 because i have bills and a daughter and dont think a game is worth $60 without tons of replayability? or what if i have gamefly? or borrow the game from a buddy while hes out of town? douchebag.

Basically, yeah. If you want it, buy it, don't fuck me off with excuses like there's no one else on the planet who has bills or children. Plenty of people in that situation can buy it new. Is it so hard to live within your means? Borrowing it from someone else (assuming he got it first hand), getting it on Gamefly or waiting for it to go down in price is fine because you're at least giving the consumer what they deserve rather than taking part in scumbag economics.

@HandsomeDead: So buying something used equates to scumbag economics? Is that seriously what you are implying?

@HandsomeDead: How about the fact that the used market for products is needed to have a free market?

No offence but I'm not an advocate of slavery.

I rather see every person in the gaming industry loose their jobs and have the entire industry crumble before us than take away one of our most important consumer rights.

@JLF1: Oh, please. Be a little more dramatic. It's not taking away gamers' right to buy or sell their games, it's just giving added incentive to buy new.

@JLF1: Oh, please. Be a little more dramatic. It's not taking away gamers' right to buy or sell their games, it's just giving added incentive to buy new.

Still, this is the next step to having shit like Activision shutting away content behind pre-orders. Content that was free 10+ years ago and available by default last year.

I get they want to have incentives to buy new, but it can be done gentler with single player content than that, like BioWare did it with Mass Effect 2's Cerberus network.

@Ghostiet said:

@cstrang said:

@JLF1: Oh, please. Be a little more dramatic. It's not taking away gamers' right to buy or sell their games, it's just giving added incentive to buy new.

Still, this is the next step to having shit like Activision shutting away content behind pre-orders. Content that was free 10+ years ago and available by default last year.

I get they want to have incentives to buy new, but it can be done gentler with single player content than that, like BioWare did it with Mass Effect 2's Cerberus network.

I think people go too far with the "slippery slope" methodology of argument. Activision will never shut significant content away behind pre-orders. Sure, they're stupid, but they're not stupid enough to splinter their customer-base like that.

@cstrang:

Which IMO is insulting to gaming as a craft and art. Even if you don't agree with the idea that games can be art a lot of developers do. When they cut out pieces of their art to make more money they are corporate tools not artist.

David Cage is a great example of a hypocrite with this. He is constantly claiming that he is a artist and games are art yet he bitch and moan about used games every chance he can even though Heavy Rain sold millions. I would bet a lot that he didn't pay the artists a single cent for every piece of art he has bought in his life at a gallery or auction. Yet he think he has the right to get a payment for every time a game changes hands. To be against used products and claim yourself an advocate of art simply doesn't work.

Whatever happened to suffer for your art Cage?

Another thing that buggs me to no end is when people claim that this generation have entitelment issues. I'm not saying that you do this cstrang but it often comes up in threads like this. When David Cage and co have made millions of dollars and have put out their so called art to the public to play they still demand MORE MORE MORE. Somehow that is acceptable because it's a company and a company can for some reason say and do anything simply because it's a company. When a person buys a used game for 40$ instead of 60$ though he should be ashamed of himself and drop his entitelment issues. That way of thinking is insulting, disgusting and straight up a betrayal to your fellow humans. It only comes of as pity, jelousy and extremely simple minded.

@Ghostiet said:

@cstrang said:

@JLF1: Oh, please. Be a little more dramatic. It's not taking away gamers' right to buy or sell their games, it's just giving added incentive to buy new.

Still, this is the next step to having shit like Activision shutting away content behind pre-orders. Content that was free 10+ years ago and available by default last year.

I get they want to have incentives to buy new, but it can be done gentler with single player content than that, like BioWare did it with Mass Effect 2's Cerberus network.

I think people go too far with the "slippery slope" methodology of argument. Activision will never shut significant content away behind pre-orders. Sure, they're stupid, but they're not stupid enough to splinter their customer-base like that.

@JLF1 said:

@cstrang:

Which IMO is insulting to gaming as a craft and art. Even if you don't agree with the idea that games can be art a lot of developers do. When they cut out pieces of their art to make more money they are corporate tools not artist.

David Cage is a great example of a hypocrite with this. He is constantly claiming that he is a artist and games are art yet he bitch and moan about used games every chance he can even though Heavy Rain sold millions. I would bet a lot that he didn't pay the artists a single cent for every piece of art he has bought in his life at a gallery or auction. Yet he think he has the right to get a payment for every time a game changes hands. To be against used products and claim yourself an advocate of art simply doesn't work.

Whatever happened to suffer for your art Cage?

Another thing that buggs me to no end is when people claim that this generation have entitelment issues. I'm not saying that you do this cstrang but it often comes up in threads like this. When David Cage and co have made millions of dollars and have put out their so called art to the public to play they still demand MORE MORE MORE. Somehow that is acceptable because it's a company and a company can for some reason say and do anything simply because it's a company. When a person buys a used game for 40$ instead of 60$ though he should be ashamed of himself and drop his entitelment issues. That way of thinking is insulting, disgusting and straight up a betrayal to your fellow humans. It only comes of as pity, jelousy and extremely simple minded.

I do agree that games are art (though sometimes it ends up being bad art). However, most of your statements come on the assumption that this kind of stuff is stuff that the publisher demands stuff of value be taken out so it can be locked away behind DLC/Pre-LC, and I think we all know that most of the time that's just not the case. Most of the stuff that is locked behind "New Game" codes are insignificant, throw away things. Look at RAGE, for instance. For buying the game new you get two weapons that you won't use past the first half-hour of the game, a suit that is inconsequential, and a series of recycled in-game missions that have next to no loot. The stuff had no effect on RAGE as a whole. And, in the case of the Pre-LC being an actual value-add to the game, I would be more insulted by my audience-base who aren't willing to pay an extra $15 to see all of my art.

And I have no issue with people that like to buy games for cheap. I do it all the time. The fact of the matter is: A year-and-a-half from now, Batman: Arkham City will be available for $30 new. If it's really that big of a deal to budget gamers that they're missing out on an insignificant piece of content because they can only afford to buy used, all they need to do is wait a little longer.

But, again, a game isn't going to go from "pretty good" to "masterpiece" because of a piece of content locked behind a new-purchase code.

@Ghostiet: I'm actually pleasantly surprised by Activision on this one (considering their history)...they've gone on record in the past as saying that they prefer to entice gamers to buy their games new by adding a lot of replayability - it's the whole carrot vs. stick thing.

I get that game makers want people to buy new - but it's that instead of trying to motivate people to buy games right away, or keep games longer through incentives or additions - they've gone the lazy, cheap route - they've decided to use the stick approach and punish anyone who buys their game used.

My issue with this strategy is that it's a) short-sighted - used buyers are not the enemy, they are an opportunity to convert to new buyers on future releases b) it goes against the principles of pretty much every other entertainment medium - lord knows, I don't have these kinds of problems buying a used book or renting a movie.

And to those saying they don't buy the slippery slope idea....we're already on it. When these passes started, they were pitched as an easy way for gamers to access new game content, then they were ways to prevent used players from accessing multiplayer (seen as an extra for most games - kinda...), and now we're seeing single-player content that's part of the story (you can argue whether it's vital to the main story - but it's still part of the story and the challenges in the game). It wouldn't surprise me if we see a game come out in the next year that puts integral content behind an online pass.

@HandsomeDead: you are more than a scumbag. you are a douchebag.

oblivion sold over 3 million copies and they didnt have any shit like this in it. games sales are fine and buying used is fine. i can buy a used car, a used house, used electronics, pretty much whatever i want used including games and this shit is retarded. if i want to go on craigslist and get the game from someone that doesnt like it i should not be penalized for that. why are some people so anti-consumer?

if they dont want us to buy it used make it good enough that noone wants to trade it in. or has enough replayability people wont trade it in. dont remove parts of the game and say "if you dont give us your money directly then you dont get to see this. na na na na" they made their money off the original sale. the person didnt like it so traded it back in. they couldnt get a refund on it so thats the best they could do. now im only kinda interested in the game so i wont pay $60 for it so i get it used. and im a scumbag? you should take some business classes in school buddy.

@tunaburn: You can't compare the used market for necessities to the used market for video games. I don't especially agree with either but buying a used car because you need it to get to work makes more sense to me than buying a used game because you just don't want to pay full price for it; at least wait for a sale. I wouldn't say I'm anti-consumer but it's hard to defend people who buy used games as they're essentially destroying the thing they enjoy. It's easy to point as a company like EA and see how many billions of dollars they have but if you look up the economics of video games, buddy, you'll see it's fucked on their side of things too, and if companies are willing to put in codes like this to stop a loss to their deserved income, I'm sure it's a sign that things are getting out of control.