You're Gonna Have To Buy Rage New If You Want To Crawl Through A Sewer

Plenty of publishers are walling off certain game content behind an "online pass," a one-use code that's included free with a retail copy but likely burnt up in that used disc you just bought for a lot less. In most cases, it covers something like online multiplayer. Not Rage.

Speaking to Eurogamer, Tim Willits, the id Software creative director, said that access to the game's underground will be restricted to those who get their copy new at retail. "You've played Rage five times. Have you found any sewer hatches?" Willits asked his interviewer. "If you bought the game new, that would be open for you. "

He added:

You still have to download it, but you don't have to pay for it. Those hatches are all over. Most people never find them. But as soon as you do, you're like, oh. And then you start to look for it. That's our first-time buyer incentive.

Willits figures this is less obnoxious than other Online Pass mechanisms because, in those instances, people know what they're missing. Not with Rage! "Some people will buy Rage, download that, and still never set foot in those things. They just won't. I think that's fair. It's cool," he said.

The sewer-system content is "outside the main path" of the game, so therefore its absence — whether one is entitled to it or not, I suppose — won't diminish the story.

No word if this sewer access will later be made available through a separate DLC unlock.

Tim Willits: Building Rage And Never Selling Out - Interview [Eurogamer]


Comments

    So basically when they sell it seperately for $5 you're not paying for a whole network of sewers to explore as a bit of lightweight DLC you'd be paying for the tiniest change in code that switches the entrances on or off.

      "You still have to download it, but you don’t have to pay for it."

        "that's our first-time buyer incentive"

    What a shit idea. I hope they lose sales because of this. I'm sick of developers thinking it's a good idea to withhold parts of a game as part of a marketing strategy.

      What's so bad about it? If you buy it new, then you can have access to a part of the game that not everyone's going to bother exploring anyway. On the other hand, if you buy the game second hand, thus cutting the publisher/game studio off from any profit, you have the option to pay a small amount of many for an insignificant part of the game that a lot of people won't be playing any way. As far as I can see it, id Software have done something that helps them but doesn't detract from the player's existence in any way, shape or form.

        ... you know unless they wanted to 100% the game.

        Game was paid in full at retail and the experience should be there in full.

          But you get the full game, you just have to download a little bit of code, for free, if you want to do a bit of extra wandering. On the other hand, if you buy the game second hand six months down the track, thus cutting the developers out of the loop, you can choose between ignoring a non-critical part of the game experience or paying a small amount of money and downloading a small patch. The game experience isn't detracted from, but you're given the choice to pay the developers their dues or just pretend that they don't deserve any money for what they've done.

        Your not cutting them off from profit because the original buyer paid in full for the life of th product the frst time. Also the second hand buyer may buy dlc in the future and thirdly if they really wanted to stop second hand sales then they would threaten to withhold games from those places that sell second hand unless they get a cut of profits. But they don't do that because they make more money with these stupid pass ideas and extra sales of psn cards and such, thats why.

          Wrong, they don't do that because every single retailer left thrives on trade-ins. To boycott resellers would be to boycott IRL retail in general.

            No it wouldn't because it would only affect those that sell second hand and that do not conform and give a cut of profits. It would not effect places like Target,kmart etc because they dont sell second hand, plus they can they also sell the games digitally. They make more money with these pass ideas than forcing retailers like ebgames for a profit cut thats why.

      And I and the game developers/publishers are sick of people like you who think you are entitled to purchase 3rd-party licenses cheaply and cut the people who actually produced the game out of the profit from it. They are putting in the money and effort to support the users and develop the software, why should you expect get their product and thus the end-user support and they not expect to profit from your purchase of their product?

      I guess my point is this: Software isn't like a physical product. You aren't purchasing the game, you are purchasing a license to play the game, a license that is intended to be non-transferable. Publishers and developers did not intend for retailers to be able to resell these licenses. And by doing so, the retailers are cutting the developer out of profiting from their own product

        I should sell my Harry Potter books and rip out five non-essential pages, then give them to whoever bought the book second hand once they send J.K Rowling five dollars.

          The thing about a 2nd hand product is wear and tear, digitial products don't wear so there is not much incentive to buy new. This just gives incentive.

            It takes a lot of wear and tear before a book becomes unreadable. People like to say that digital is different, but physical copies of games are not that different to books in this respect.

            You might not like signs of superficial damage to your copy, but it isn't going to affect your enjoyment of the main product (either the words in the book, or the data on the disc).

        Grow up, try manafacturing any other product and want money from when the owner sells it

          They dont lose out on second hand. The original owner paid in full for the life of the product and its content. They are simply passing it to a new owner and the costs involved were already worked out when the first owner brought it.

            No.

            It's a license for the extra content.

              There is no extra content. That price was already factored in with the cost of the item originality.

        Creating a mechanism that devalues resales diminishes the worth of your first sale. That is obvious and gamers have just as much right to be irritated that publishers expect them to pay the same prices for an inherently flawed product.

        Software breaks the Capitalism model. Licensing the use of software is tyrannical. Try using a different model if you want to ensure profit.

    Im not as cut about the day one DLC, im more upset about his other quote
    "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change," Willits said. "I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game and then have that be acceptable, awesome." via http://au.gamespot.com/news/6328508/rage-new-purchase-incentive-detailed?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B5

    Meh doesn't bother me. When you buy a second hand car, the engine is worn in, fan belt might need replacing and so on. When you buy a second hand book the pages can be torn and yellowed or even missing. Second hand is always of a lower quality than brand new and more often than not something is missing so why should games be any different?

      I can see your point but the car companies or the book publisher didn't do that damage themselves in order to punish people buying second-hand.

        Why shouldn't they? Publishers don't make a cent from second hand sales. Why should they not discourage the market? They put all the effort into making the game, the least we could do is pay them for it.

          The gaming industry likes to think its special, book publishers have dealt with this for years. imagine if you bought a book second hand but you had to send $10 to the publisher for the cut pages. the full game was purchased originally, they are stealing the extra content from those who then obtain the product as it was paid for.

            If they do release "sewer access" as paid DLC later and you decide to buy a second hand copy you'll still be paying a lot less than full retail price anyway, so quit complaining.

            When you buy a physical product you are getting a worn version. You are paying less as compensation for the damage.

            Game licenses don't wear with age. You can buy a license for it in 10 years time from the 15th owner and get the exact same product as you are getting today brand new. You will also be able to expect support from the developer and/or publisher, something you cannot expect from a second-hand car. The dealer provides that, not the original producer

              Would you feel the same if you wanted to sell your DVD or Blu-Ray collection down the track but you could only sell 90% of the movie? What about music CDs where you couldnt access 100% of the tracks? they are as physical as games are.

              With the amount of games companies going bankrupt these days who knows if people 3 years down the track can even download the content? Will parts of the game be lost forever?

        Engine and fan belt wear is more like the scratches, missing/damaged manuals etc. that you get from a secondhand copy.

        If you pay retail price you get a brand new mint copy, if you don't, it's a little beat up and that is incentive to buy new right there.

        What they are doing with this game is more akin to car manufacturers stealing their cup holders back after the car gets sold.

        Remember people this is not wear from the first user were talking about but whole game features being disabled and that is a HUGE difference.

        All you damn white knights keep screaming stuff like "Publishers don’t make a cent from second hand sales so why does it matter!!!". The publisher has already made their sale for their product and that is all that they should be entitled to.

        I work in manufacturing and I don't get a cut every time a customer sells their products on to other customers and it just doesn't work that way.

        After getting all worked up I will admit that I wont be playing this game. But I am very much opposed to the principle of it and I do not want to see this in other games.

          Finally someone who speaks sense.
          Pre order is now cancelled.

    I'm happy with all this to be honest as I buy games brand new from zavvi or play asia so it really doesnt bother me. The second hand, thrid hand, forth hand market seems to be getting dodger by the day.

      The point is they are leaching off products they have already sold.
      Its not about cost, its about buisness ethics.

    So isn't it really just extra DLC you get free if you buy the game new? No real problem with that, if you buy it new you have it, you buy it second hand, theres probably no incentive or pressure to buy it so there's no real loss. At least it beats a one use code to access the game anyway

    How is removing something that was paid for not fall under theft?
    As far as im aware no other industry do this and i dont know why gamers stand being pushed around by these people.

      Except you didn't pay for the content - you paid for a licence to the content when you bought it retail. When you sell it or buy it second hand you're cutting out the creator and publisher so why on earth would it be reasonable to expect you get 100% ?
      Seems more reasonable to me that publishers come up with a method that ensures revenue while not being overly punative, this in turn leads to sales by incentive rather than force and more money for continued investment and development.

      It's all well and good to shout out greed, and to be fair there is enough of that in the industry, but the simple fact is they aren't developing and publishing games out of the goodness of their hearts.
      If games don't make a good return you invest somewhere else that does .. simple as that.

      This seems like a pretty reasonable method to ensure you can play the game, and if you're a big enough fan you buy it new or you pay for the DLC - it's not really all that different from the first Doom where you got the first chapter free and paid for the rest if you liked it.

      (a) they're not removing anything. It's still there, you just have to enter the code to get at it. That applies to anybody whether they buy it new or used.

      (b) this isn't an essential part of the game so the developer/publisher could just as easily argue that this is free, bonus content for those who buy it new, in which case you HAVEN'T paid for it.

      The simple option is just buy it new. You can get it brand new off ozgameshop or whatever for a hell of a lot less than a preowned copy at EB or Game or whatever.

        Nothe simple option is to not have these pass ideas and if they now want a cut of second hand profits that they never did before then tell places like ebgames that they will not recieve copies to sell unless all second hand sales are given a cut of the profits. A deal like this would not hurt the developer as they can still sell to places like kmart etc that only sell new and they can still sell the game digitally. They make more money forcing people to buy extra for dlc and things like the psn cards etc so people can go online and have to buy these passes. Simple greed.

    I only play games firsthand, and I'm seriously considering not buying this game because of this crap. Why? Because its about consumer rights. These sorts of features are unwelcome in "my world" and they'll only get worse the more people "reward" companies for doing this buy purchasing their games.

    The game has already been paid for the first time.

      THE CONTENT WAS PAID FOR WITH FIRST PURCHASE. Show me any other industry that does this.

    I can understand when companies do this with the multiplayer section of the game. Maintaining servers costs money and paying for the service is an acceptable cost. Doing this with single player content is bullshit.

      This is not good even for multiplayer games as the game and its lifetime server costs were already factured in and paid for the first time. The second hand buyer is simply replacing them on the server load not adding too. And also the second hand buyer may buy future dlc in the future further adding to their revenue.

    Agreed Reoh, lost another sale here.

    This is stupid. I seriously cannot believe how greedy gaming companies have become. EA is a multi billion dollar game company, yet, I was pretty upset on how they brought in the online pass.

    then now you don't get the full game unless you buy it new? What about 2nd hand stores?? their gonna go out of business, not to mention, its a shitty idea and what if you share it between friends or family..so you all have to share 1 console or computer?

    they would lock 2nd hand copies all together if they could get away with it

    Actually I agree with all the naysayers. How dare there be an incentive for not being a tight arse. It's stupid!!! Oh wait, no it's not.

    With the ease of importing games now and how cheap it actually is why not buy it brand new? If you're that poor that $40-50 for a brand new AAA title is too expensive then perhaps gaming isn't the hobby for you...

      As i mention above, its not price its ethics.
      Id be pissed if i borrowed a season of TV from a video shop and it was missing episodes due to those being watched by the original purchaser.

      every other indutry copes with this and gaming in most cases is a way bigger industry. It needs to stop pretending its special or entitled. Gamers need to tell them they are being money hungry (yet not deprived )pigs

        Except that analogy fails because you're talking about renting vs buying, which this is not about. Even though it applies to renters, they make up a tiny miniscule portion of the market compared to second-hand buyers. I don't think it's a great move and I think the industry needs to understand that dedicated games retailers, at least in Australia, need second hand sales to survive, but at least it's not as much of a dick move as EA are making.

    @ Chazz "That’s our first-time buyer incentive"

    PC gamer reporting in here, what is a 2nd hand game? I don't understand.

    It's unsurprisingly tiresome to see the same complaints so often. Tim said himself that the extra content won't have any significant impact on the game and yet it still sparks "outrage" that publishers are money-grubbing. It costs a lot of money to make a game, and the developers can only make more games if they earn enough from the ones they sell. With the unstable nature of the industry it can be hard to get a game into the market at all, so when that happens you need to get a decent profit from it in order to stay in business. If the sewer content is really important to you, buy the game new or pay for DLC if that becomes an option. If your own personal finances are more important to you, then go ahead and buy a second hand copy. Whichever you do, stop complaining about it.

      Exactly! Then if you have more money later down the track, you can buy the dlc for the sewer content which will be less than the full game at retail.

      And if you seriously loved the game sooo much that you wanted to 100% it you would've bought the game at retail price or bought the dlc to enable it.

        Remember you were in favour of this sort of thing when all games go digital only and require a constant internet connection.

        I will purchase new, but what about people who dont have internet access. thay purchase new and dont have access?

          Purchasing new, not having internet access and really caring about the sewer access will be a very small percentage. Also this is nothing like requiring a stable internet connection.

          Though I do see this as a problem and people who are in this situation have every right to complain how many of them won't be able to simply download it at a friends house or somewhere else.

          With the direction games are going in now it's going to take awhile for developers and publishers to find a way around pirates and second hand gamers, but if it's between one use codes, always on internet drm (or just drm in general) and id's method, I'll definitely go with id's.

            Agree on the pirate front, but people should have the option to sell the game if they are done with it. publishers should learn to adapt to the market.

              But that is essentially what the publishers are doing, people can still sell their games as second hand products.

              They have just gone, "Hey, you're paying less for our product, you're the second person in possession of the product and we don't get anything from it, if you like our game enough, you can give us a little bit of money to access small parts of the game. If you don't want to, then that's okay, because your game will still be the same just with ~5% less content that isn't integral to your game."

    People this is not acceptable behaviour.

    Essentially they are not losing money, because thgey have already received the money for the copy of the game in question, its just still in circulation.
    Multiplayer servers are also a none issue, because its spreads word of mouth by having people on your multiplayer than having noone at all
    Its just a case of Publishers and developers being greedy and wanting more control

    We keep waving away our consumer rights, the more we are gonan get ripped off by these greedy assholes

    @Sky Bolt

    yes they sell a disc with all the content, they shouldnt be able to take it from the people the disc get sold afterwards to whether meaningfull or not.

    Shepard answer me this;

    Why should a person who has gone out and purchased something secondhand get the EXACT same product as a person who paid full price to the actual manufacturer of the product?

      By that logic, why should someone who bought the game new for $50 through Play-Asia get the exact same product as someone who bought the game new from EB Games for $100?

        Not at all the same thing. To even think they are comparable scenarios is idiotic.

        Both the EB purchase and Play-Asia purchase sends money to the developer. Secondhand does not.

        Because he or she still bought the product brand-new.

          Then why dont the developers try to get a cut of profits from ebgames etc then?

    If i buy a new BMW from a dealer i get a new car.
    If i buy one 2nd hand i get the same thing but used. exact same product, only used.

    as mentioned before, the content being locked was paid for with the first purchase.
    i cannot find an example in any other industry that will actively punish people who purchase their product 2nd hand.
    Greedy publishers wanting to double dip on a single game sale.

      Most industries recuperate missed sales from people having to buy replacement parts, repairs etc because the products are or contain perishable goods.

      The gaming industry doesn't have that option therefore they need a different way to recuperate missed sales.

        Books, CD's, DVD's ect? all still kicking without charging 2nd hand users.

          Actually for a while now publishers have been pushing to have bookstores pay royalties for secondhand books it just hasn't happened yet.

          CD's and DVD's would be far too difficult to enforce any kind of means for that since the secondhand market is primarily private unlike games where it is mostly done through shopfronts. And physical media music and movies are still kicking but on a HEAVY decline, more so than games, hence their focus also being on heading towards total digital distribution.

          So, you got any other industries that are in the same boat as games that you can bring forward for your argument?

            How about you justify it? Go on make me believe publishers deserve more money from thier original sale?
            If they need more money make proper DLC and if its good and continues to be made most fans wont sell thier games

              How on earth could I convince you of anything?

              You're so full of yourself that you think that you're entitled to 100% of a product when you've paid nothing to those who created the product.

              Also, please provide evidence that most people sell their games.

      Shepard here's what you left out of the analogy :
      When you buy the new BMW from the dealer you get a new car warranty with it that is limited in terms of ownership, age and wear; as well as other goodies that are one time offerings to the original purchaser (fixed price or free servicing, loan cars etc.) . When you buy it second hand you get only part of that, or none of it - which would be the closer to what you are describing in terms of software licence.

    I am SO in the minority for saying this, but I'm for anything that's for developer support, so the reason I'm pissed about this sort of thing is not because it limits the game for used game buyers. It's because publishers are pussyfooting around this issue by saying, "hey if you don't buy the game new, we'll make it slightly inconvenient for you to enjoy the whole package".

    No.

    Newsflash publishers. You're trying to change things here. Uproar is par for the course. It's not pretty but it needs to happen. Remember the first time Online Passes came into the scene? It was a big deal! But now? The same thing needs to happen with Offline Passes.

    Consumers need to understand the difference between buying used copies and buying new. Through the power of internet browsing, you've all been given a chance to understand the situation, but instead, you choose to ignore it and continue buying used and perpetuating the problem. And now you're wondering why all these Online/Offline Passes exist? Hilarious.

    Well understand this: If you're not willing to buy new, then you can make any complaints you have to GameStop or EB Games because as far as the developers are concerned, none of that money you paid for, goes to them. Heck, if I were these developers, and you weren't paying me money for a game I made,

    why should I give a rat's ass about you?

      perhaps because people mostly pick up new franchises by trying thier friends games.

        You got evidence to support that?

          No i don't need to prove anything, im assuming you have never borrowed a friends game and decided to buy the next iteration.. no.
          well most gamers i speak with are always keen to try new games and sometimes borrow mine.
          after lending fallout 3 to a few friends that arnt into RPGs have now purchased that and new vegas just as one example.. is that ok or do you want a signed declaration?

            Actually since you've made a blanket statement about what causes people to buy games you do need to back it up with facts otherwise it's you talking out of your arse.

            Remember, what you said may hold true for you and your circle of friends but that doesn't mean it holds true for everyone else and especially doesn't mean it holds true for the majority.

            Also to answer your question, no I have actually never borrowed a game from a friend and decided to buy it afterwards. All my purchases have come from recommendations, trying demos, reviews or on-the-spot decisions.

              Maybe chazz has no friends?

              Just like you have been speaking out your arse.
              I just dont think this is good for gaming as a whole.

                I haven't made blanket statements and then failed to provide evidence to support them. I've either stated my thoughts on the matter or stated simple facts about other industries and how they handle or wish to handle things in regards to the secondhand market. So no, I haven't been talking out of my arse.

                But again, if you would like to provide evidence that shows a majority of game purchases stem from people borrowing games from friends or that most people sell their games then I will gladly retract that statement.

                They were sticking up and agreeing with you shepard.

        No one is stopping you from trying out a friend's game. Try it. Go ahead. But don't try to convince me that bringing it back to your house to play on your system is the only way for you to see if you like a game.

        which means the only thing that this does is inconvenience you... that's a pretty trivial matter given the many more important aspects to this issue.

    Yes, because we all know ANY game's BEST LEVELS are in the SEWERS.

    *facepalm*

    I think that this is a pretty tough topic. And I think a fair few people are a little too certain about their opinions on it.

    I wouldn't call this theft, they aren't rocking up to every second-hand purchase and smashing the disc. They are merely giving a bonus to the customers who are giving their money to the publisher/developer.

    This is a bad analogy, but if they decided to reward their customers with cupcakes, do you expect that those cupcakes will also make their way into the hands of people who buy the game second hand?

    It starts getting a little messy if you need to eat the cupcake in order to get your 100% completion stat. That might be starting to venture into unethical country. Although, in my opinion, it still isn't clearly defined as good or ill. Things become even more questionable if important parts of the story are the "bonus". But at the other end of the spectrum is retail games that are just codes to redeem the game on Steam. I can't clearly say when something is right and when it is wrong.

    I would also say that personally, I think that second hand sales for books is as much of a problem as games. The book industry may not actively pursue the issue (although e-books may solve it for them), but that doesn't mean that it is okay. If I can purchase artistic works from the artist themselves, then that is what I would prefer to do, and what I would hope others would do (if they can afford it).

    Even though I'm defending them, I'm not sure that I agree with id's decision. However, I respect them for being honest about what they've done, and why they've done it.

      If its physical bonus the original owner can keep it if they want the cupcake.
      If its just code restricting acess to what is on the disc then i want that (virtual cupcake) without having to pay as its ON THE DISC and got paid for, otherwise were telling them basicly they have the right to give you access to ONLY the sewers unless a code is purchased.

        There could be plenty of content on the disc that isn't meant to be in the game, that the user has no access to. This goes for all games. And for reasons that aren't always "because they want to unlock it as DLC". I don't think they owe you the code to unlock every asset.

        Also, I did say that my metaphor was a bad one. The fact that you need the game to use that content is a difference. But I'm not sure that that matters. Either way the first buyer gets to keep the reward, just in the game scenario, the buyer can only interact with the reward when the game is in his possession.

        I think the cake metaphor is still relevant... the first buyer can choose whether to redeem the DLC code (consuming the cake), or whether to pass it on to the next person. The DLC has the restriction that you need to still own the game to interact with it, and the cake probably has the restriction that you must eat it within a week or it'll become stale.

    So many selfish children with over inflated senses of self entitlement in here.

    You want all the content? Support the devs. Simple as that. If you buy the game firsthand, you don't miss out on anything. If you purchase it secondhand, the devs take something from you the same way you're taking something from them.

    I don't see a problem here. Anyone that cries outrage at this is nothing more than a spoiled brat.

      Well no im not a spoiled brat, i was willing to purchase new. i reconsidered because ID seem to think they are entitled to make money off something they have already sold by cutting content.

        I think choosing not to play id's game because you disagree with their business practices to be a commendable thing. Every consumer can vote with their wallets!

        No Shepard, you /are/ a spoiled brat. This is not 'cut content' since it's not in the game to begin with. It's bonus content for first-buyers. This happens across the whole gamut of retail, where car dealerships give away free DVDs and movie tickets with a purchase, and electrical/electronics goods have $100 rebate vouchers that are only given to the original owner.

        Are you going to bitch out the guy selling you his old Grand Cherokee when he doesn't hand over the free Pocahontas DVD he got? Are you going to demand a second copy of the '$100 manufacturer rebate' from the guy selling you his used Bluray player?

        It's not a part of the game that they're withholding from you, it's a DLC available to everyone that the developer is giving to first-buyers for free as an additional gift. Just like thousands of other retailers do, in every other industry. Get over yourself.

          i believe the sewers themselves would be on the disk and the one use code just allows you to enter.

            Whether it's on the disk or not is irrelevant - buying the disk didn't give you the right to play it / unlock it.
            Buying the original licence did - the method of delivery (Disk, donwload etc.) doesn't form part of what you paid for in terms of the software licence.
            You can buy a game on disk, or on steam - either way what you pay for is licenced IP , it's completely different from buying something physical because you did not actually pay for a licence to redistribute the IP once you are done with it.

            I love how once you can't counteract what someone has said you just respond to someone else's comment and ignore everything else.

            You really must be one clever guy!

              Get a life, i posted a few replies before finishing work.
              Anyway hope you got your little kick from "winning" your argument, such a big achievement for the day.

                umad bro?

                Admitting defeat is very noble!

              This is another honest business move, For the way you are all carrying on you'd think they had done something like charge an extra 30 USD on a digital download just because you live in another country.

    Never saw a need to buy something used, unless the game wasn't produced in large quantities or is now obsolete.

    It's a paradox really, used copies show up post release on a discount of the full price, but yet post release you will already see a discount on the full price on a new copy. So why not just buy a new copy.

      Yeah, same here. The only things I buy used are the older games that I can't find new copies of otherwise.

Join the discussion!