How'd You Like Your Game Ending to Be DLC?

Downloadable content as a weapon against second-hand resales is nothing new, but Epic's Mike Capps has heard other ideas for how it can be used with devastating effect. If you hated the idea of DLC weapons in Bad Company, well, you're really going to hate this.

"I've talked to some developers who are saying 'If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay $US20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free'. We don't make any money when someone rents it, and we don't make any money when someone buys it used - way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it."

That would reduce everything but a retail sale to a demo, in my view. This doesn't sound like Capps specifically advocating such a bastard-arse move. But these two sides -- developers and retailer/resellers -- need to arrive at some sort of truce or else the only ones who'll get screwed are the gamers.

I can't imagine the Amazon and Metacritic reviews for such a game. It would make the Spore DRM backlash look like a polite disagreement. Seriously, games industry, you want to start spewing douchewater like the RIAA, go for it. They can tell you what it's done for their sales.

Capps: We Really Need to Make Strides Against the Secondhand Market [Videogaming247, via Bingegamer]


Comments

    I don't think this is such a bad idea. Keep in mind folks, this is about game developers getting a better share of the money we are spending on games. Something needs to be done to reallocate the profits being made in the resale market from the retailers to the developers. Otherwise we'll have heaps of retailers (because they're making so much money) and not many good games (because game devs are losing out on profits).

    Keep in mind that when you hand over your $79 for GoW2 you are purchasing a LICENCE TO PLAY GOW2 and a disc enabling you to play it... this doesn't give you the right to reproduce copies and sell them, nor to reverse engineer the source code and exploit it... is it such a stretch that your $79 also may not give you the right to resell the original disc to a 3rd party.

    If the money that was being pumped into retailers via the resale market was instead being pumped into game dev's pockets - the initial price of games would come down and game devs would be making more money and be making more & better games!!!

    "Something needs to be done to reallocate the profits being made in the resale market from the retailers to the developers."

    Uh... why? Is Ford entitled to a cut when someone sells their old Focus? Does Kevin Smith deserve 5% when I sell my DVD of Mallrats on eBay? Should I be sending the builder a cheque when I sell my house?

    I don't see why game makers should be getting a cut of second-hand sales when nobody else is entitled to it. If they can't make a buck off straight retail sales without blackmailing people away from second-hand, then they don't deserve to be in business.

    Consumers will not tolerate attempts to rip them off. Anyone who pulls a stunt like this will see their sales plummet, and they will deserve it.

    To be honest, it wouldn't worry me. If they charged less for the game at retail, around 30 bucks less AU, then charged you 20 to unlock the final level? It wouldn't worry me at all. You could just do it as a mandatory 'patch' that happened when you inserted your disc. It would download an essential string of code nescessary to complete it, otherwise it'd be useless. Considering how much money the industry loses from piracy these days, it's not really a surprise they have to think of new methods. But I ask, how would that affect my son and I as we both have seperate profiles on my 360...

    Not a bad idea??? Yes, you don't get the right to run of copies, or to make money from people playing your copy (renting retail copies is a bad deal). Heck, i don't even disagree with the notion that maybe the developers or publishers should get a cut on the re-sale of a second hand copy. Although given that new games are not much more expensive than the second hand copy generally speaking, i don't see how the retailers are going to be interested in this.

    Of course, IF the retailer cuts the devs and publishers in, then the resale would be sanctioned and lower cost sale would still reap greater benefits because second hand copies could be equivalent.

    However there is a flip side: people (myself and the gamers at work, so not a scientific or random sample by any means) trade games because ... games either get boring (before completion), get repetitive (so also boring, after completion), don't offer anything by playing through again that varies the experience (boredom, strike three?) because most games have the player on rails (Dead Space, Gears of War, Doom3) though not all (Fallout 3, Oblivion) or are naturally based on replay value (Civilization, Sim City, Spore, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter, Burnout Paradise), or get free / cheap expansions that add (Burnout Paradise definitely took this to a new level, but Oblivion's Shivering Isle [which in honesty i have yet to play] made me re-buy the GotY edition [after trading the standard one in, not on the same sale though]).

    The problem is not that devs aren't making enough money, devs are making games that people get sick off. Dead Space lasted me 16 hours, that translated to 5 days of playing (i had taken holidays and Dead Space and Fallout 3 were my destinations) and when most reviews claim 12 to 14 hours of game time... i clearly took my time. Also, easy was mostly cake walk (though it could be i'm getting better) which meant that re-playing it might have offered a challenge, but not a better story or new twists ... as i said the game is on rails.

    By contrast, Ninja Gaiden 2 I played through twice. There is something there. Bioshock (filler between Dead Space and Fallout 3) re-grabbed me playing a second time, and after having finished it before, i just felt there was a different way of playing it (not just evil, but also using different plasmids).

    The fact is this: too many games have between zero and too little replay value, and with more casual gamers in the market, it's turning into a movie economy, most people will watch a movie once or twice, some movies more often. I love film as an art media and re-watch some movies 10 times plus, but games have a far more commercial feel, and there is no arthouse genre in games. Things are not done in ways that make the player go "that is an interesting way of achieving ". Bioshock had a nice twist which was reminiscent of The Sixth Sense, but most games lack this... in fact i can not think of another game that had a moment where i thought to myself "hey ... yeah".

    Dead Space, although short, i can not stress is probably one of the most immersive games of 2008, but the way it sucks you in in not identification with the character, but the environment. What's worse is that the character ends up being revealed as having different qualities to the gamer (it's very close to the ending so i don't want to ruin it) which breaks that immersion... Portal has replay value because it is short (ironic, but it might just be me), but nothing (not even Bioshock) has had the replay value of Monkey Island for instance.

    I agree that the publishers and devs should probably get a cut, because the license to play, which equals the experience of the game, is being bestowed on multiple people, but locking people out of the game and charging in effect twice is just wrong. Then again, it wouldn't affect me, I mostly play my games new, and then trade them in...

    Console developers need to stop: 1) presuming that I have unlimited, always-working broadBand and 2) treating MY hard drive space as their unlimited dumping ground.

    The 360 I bought came with ten gigs. After two updates, Burnout Paradise is eating more than 10% of that, and all I got out that was a couple of motorcycles. This is to say nothing of the dozens of other Day-F*@king-Zero patches that are crowding the space I need to SAVE MY GAME. Saves which are bloated to begin with now that memory card space isn't a concern for developers.

    This is EXACTLY the doom-speak people were using when comparing these systems to PCs before launch: The responsibility to keep the console upgraded is quickly being lumped onto the customer, and that's not the bloody point of buying a bloody console!

    I'm sorry, but this man needs to be hung by his genitals until dead. They could stop these "losses" just as easily as the film industry did when studios started charging "renting licenses" to video stores in the USA. A second-hand license does not seem difficult to hammer out. Doesn't Gamestop needs them as much as they need Gamestop?

    And to say this while making billions a year? Echoes of Microsoft hegemony. Looks like the PC comparison is turning prophecy.

    when did epic turn into whinging little bitches? they dropped pc development cause people weren't buying enough copies of their shitty ports and uninspired sequels. now they are crying about people buying second-hand/renting? fuckers need to stop being so greedy and consider themselves lucky to get paid to make games.

Join the discussion!