I'm all for DLC. I think it's a great way to add more play value to game when handled correctly.

That's ridiculous.

I gotta disagree.  I mean, look at the Halo games.  Those were pretty big cliffhangers, so we know people will pay for a game experience if there is a cliffhanger to it.  However, if you buy a retail copy and are getting the ending for free, then fuck it...why not?  Otherwise, the game companies just want to get paid for what they are making.

Bullshit. I hate Epic.

"Bullshit. I hate Epic.

They should try to strike up deals with rental services, not punish the fucking customer.

"

Actually, Levio, the writer's strikes in Hollywood, and the potential actor's strike, had/have a lot to do with the fact that writers and actors aren't making money off rentals and online distribution sales, and if they aren't, it's not nearly the same piece of pie that they usually get elsewhere.  Therefore, it's very much the same situation there.

"So we can resell cars, books, movies, and tv's. But video games want to be immune????? this is why I hate digital distribution either by addons, codes, or full games like steam. Video game makers are getting too greedy."

And how are people seeing this as punishing the customer?  If you want the game, buy it at retail.  Give your money to the developer.  If you aren't buying at retail, then you are fucking the developer in the ass...meaning that this kind of stuff happening isn't just the fault of the resellers and rental shops.............

If you see this as punishing the customer, then you rely too much on Gamefly and GameStop........end of story.

"

Alright, I buy used books. Should I have to pay $20 for the last page?

This is just bull.

Someone should probably make clear that Epic is not saying they are going to do this. The guy who mentioned it just happened to work at Epic.

"spiderman 3 - ------- 350 million to make--------------- 17.99 dollars to buy

Grand theft auto 4  - less than 100 million to make-- 60.00  dollars to buy

 

"

"Alright, I buy used books. Should I have to pay $20 for the last page?

This is just bull."

I'll adamantly refuse to buy any games from whatever company decides to follow this path. With all the bills and shit I have to pay, I won't always have enough money to buy a game brand new (and believe me I try to because I'd much rather have a new copy), so if I want to play the game I can either wait another month and buy it then, or I can buy it used. Thing is, on average, there's at least one or two games I want each month. So if I can't buy the game this month, and decide to wait, then next time I'll have even more games I want to buy--which, in turn, I probably won't be able to afford then. So used it is. Keep in mind, however, that for me at least buying a used game really is a last resort kind of thing. I'd sooner 'forget' and buy a game new than get it used.

But however you put it, the money I spend is my money. I earned it. So if I want to buy a used game, it's my full right to do so. Most good games easily make their money back hand over fist. If they don't, well then I think they either need to re-evaluate their business strategy or just, you know, make a game that's actually good.

Hmm I see where they are coming from.  I mean how many of you get your games from gamefly?  Gamefly is a great service maybe a little to great.  I don't think making ppl pay for an ending is the way to go maybe making them pay for any kind of DLC or making renters pay more for any DLC over what the retail buyers pay

Or here is another Idea publishers,  Sell your games off your website and buy back the games from ppl that would sell them to Gamespot.  Give them a slightly better deal then they would get from Gamestop (wich wouldn't be hard)  then re-sell the game as used. 

And the movie argument doesn't work, cause movie companys look at DVD sales as the cherry on top.  Most ppl that buy the movie already saw it in the Theater, so they are making money off you two times.  Movie ticket $10 + dvd $20 = 30 or blue-ray $50 (only ten bucks less then a game)

But this is why i only buy games i really am sure i want to keep.

"Someone should probably make clear that Epic is not saying they are going to do this. The guy who mentioned it just happened to work at Epic."

"Milkman said:

"Someone should probably make clear that Epic is not saying they are going to do this. The guy who mentioned it just happened to work at Epic."

Indeed.

IMO I think he makes a valid point about the amount of second hand purchases and rentals cutting into sales; I just don't agree with the solution. Complete downloads or extra content that was worth the price would help this; just don't make it an ending of a game. Maybe an alternate ending would be cool."

I see where the guy was getting at here. It would still be a pretty damn stupid move, but how would you control this kind of stuff? Sell rental companies part of the game and make users who are renting it buy the rest online? Fucking defeats the purpose of renting it. It seems like they need to just find another way to deal with rental companies and how they get royalties.

I don't mind it. Look at it this way. Now you pay $60 for a game. If you end up not liking it and stop playing half way through, it still cost you $60. In this scenario, they charge you $40 for the game, and if you get to the final, part of the game you pay $20 for the last part of the game. If you don't like it and stop playing half way through,  you only payed $40 for it. If you like it and download the ending, you'll still have played $60 for it. But then I buy most of my games new. If you rent allot of games, or buy allot of them preowned they you're going to have to pay more.

[jakob187]
>Does that EVEN look CLOSE to fair to you? 

The only "unfairness" is that more consumers "bought more copies" of Spiderman than GTA. That's how the market works. Are the consumers  supposed to buy copies of GTA that they don't want to make things "fair?" Or are we to limit the number of consumers who want to "buy" Spiderman?

>The point here is that while the games industry does see money come back on their investments, it doesn't mean that the >developers see much of it.  Either that money is used to develop their next game, put towards becoming an independent publisher >so they can make more money, or merging with another company at some point.  They've also gotta pay all the people that work for >them

The same thing could be said more movie studios, so why only mention it for game developers? Aren't studios "developing" a movie?

>You cannot try to compare the two industries.  It's impossible.

As long as two things have similarities, they can be compared

It just seems as though video game companies have been doing screwy things lately. There's obvious in-game advertising (while not reducing the price), that thing they did with Spore (I can't explain it, but you probably know what I mean), having people pay for online content for things that should be in the game, and now this (would a Youtube video circumvent this anyways?). The only way to stop these things is to put your foot down and make your voice heard and not buy the things.

Epic is just stupid. You don't buy a book and have to pay for the last chapter and you don't rent a film and have to pay extra for the last 10mins, so why does it make sense in games.

First of all, the people complaining about Epic should re-read the article.

I keep seeing people making analogies to real-world items, and I'd like to address that. Discs are of course real items, but what people are really buying is the digital data pressed onto the discs. Let's take a car as an example, since that's one of the more popular analogies. When you buy/rent a used car, you have an expectation that while it should work well for you it will not function as well as a new car. Discs with digital data, on the other hand, will usually function exactly the same used as new; the exception here is if the disc has sufficiently deep scratches which is uncommon with used games and likely grounds for a free replacement. The concept of not giving the person the full game when not new seems to be an attempt at bringing those two examples to parity. It is not preventing used games from being bought and sold, but is just deincentivizing them. There are other reasons why these two are not analogous, but this is the one that stood out most to me.