The content was not considered the "main storyline" so you could complete the game, but an entire set of missions was rendered useless. Yes, you could purchase the DLC after-the-fact. I think you're missing the point, though. The point is a concerted and growing attempt to discourage reselling of games. It's entirely obvious as to what its point is: they developed, rendered and implemented a character and a set of storylines into the game. Then pulled it out and offered it as free DLC. I simply think it's another way that the entertainment industry refuses to grow and change with the times. It's always "fight what you don't like" instead of learning how to adapt business practices to suit.
Also, DRM is FUCKING USELESS. It does not prevent or even discourage piracy. At all. All it does is hinder regular users who bought the game. Hell, half the time, the pirated versions are easier to play. I bought Assassin's Creed (the original). Fucking thing wouldn't start up right, kept exiting out complaining about not being able to validate. I finally gave up and downloaded the pirated version... which, by the way, was the #1 torrent on The Pirate Bay at the time. Gee, that DRM sure worked didn't it?
Yeah...I'm anti-payingforshitalreadyonthedisc. I have nothing for that. But you would be mad if you wrote a book, sold it for $5, then someone else takes it (GameStop) and makes $15 off it (possibly more) and you see nothing? Think about all the people that could buy your book, but they're not buying your book, they're buying a used copy from Game stop. If you knew that you sold 10 copies of your book for $1, but 50 people read it, and $40 dollars went to someone else, you'd be fighting to make sure they bought it from you to get the earnings of your hardwork. What would adapting business practices look like? What could game developers do different with the current disc generation to prevent people from buying used games? And I don't play PC games besidse Mass Effect so I can't talk much about DRM and that sounds like shitty programming, if it worked it wouldn't be an issue.
Uh, that's how books work. That's how most things work. That's how eBay works. That's how the whole damn world works. If you buy something, you buy it. If you want to sell it, you sell it. No, I would recognize that this is completely, utterly and 100% normal. Do you know how big the used book market is? Didn't you go to college? Didn't you buy used books? Shift to a new business model. Online distribution, but with a noticeably discounted price. It lowers inventory, production and distribution costs, prevents used games from being purchased, and nobody would bother buying a disc if their online price was noticeably lower. Oh, and like I said before, stop putting extremely costly graphics into every single game on the planet because that, too, would help lower their costs while still producing good games. It's always an issue. That's the point. No matter what. My issue is that I couldn't start the game. Someone else's issue might be that their computer crashes and they can't re-activate their game. Another issue might be a user whose game crashes in the middle because their internet connection went out. DRM restricts the ability to use what you've purchased - even if it's well programmed, it's still a problem... and it doesn't do anything positive for the game industry.
The book industry, especially text books and the like, also try to combat this issue: they release a new edition of the book every year or two. They'll also compel colleges to use the new edition in order to make more money and stop people from buying the used books. So yes, every industry does what they can to fight against the used market. Publishers will release new editions of text books, or new editions of fiction books with forewards written by the authors or others. The tech industry will release updated, better hardware to make the old stuff obsolete. The point is this: the used life of most products is short, and most industries acknowledge this and use that to their advantage. The used market for video games, however, tends to be longer lasting than others. People still clamor for some "classic" games. That is why you'll see games like Final Fantasy VII going (new) for $175 on ebay, and used for $6. This is a game that has been out for fifteen years, and it is still selling. The only other things that are fifteen years old that can still be sold used is cars. Go ahead, buy a computer from fifteen years ago, or buy a textbook that is fifteen years old. Maybe a television? How about a used bed, or used furniture that is fifteen years old. You can't, they'd be almost useless (or, in the case of the furniture, uncomfortable). But a video game? Still playable, still useful. The used market for video games is much more expansive and longer lasting than the used market for the vast majority of other goods out there, and the video game publishers have every right to try to make as much of a profit as possible. In fact, that is why they exist: to make money. If fighting against the used market makes them money, they have every right to do that, and I won't begrudge them that ability. This is where the industry is heading. Make no mistake, consoles and computer games are going to become download only within the next five years. The next consoles will have large hard drives to accommodate this change, and PSN and Live are going to become Steam clones. That said, you're dreaming if you think there will be noticeably discounted prices. I agree it would encourage more people to buy digital copies, but the reality is that people are used to and have adapted to a video game price point of $60, so it will stay there. I think the industry will just find it easier to phase out disc-based games altogether within the next few years than to lower the price of digital games. While I agree that DRM may not be a good solution, I can't fault the gaming industry for doing what they feel is necessary to prevent piracy. Do you ever keep up with gaming news? I read stories all the time about game companies shutting down, or firing half of their development staff. There is zero doubt in my mind that some of those jobs could've been saved were it not for stores like GameStop and for online piracy. My thinking is simple: game companies have the right to do whatever they have to do to make a profit and to harm the used market and to stop piracy. At the same time, they will never, ever stop piracy. They just won't, I don't think it is possible. All they can really do is encourage regular consumers to buy their version over a pirated or used version, by making getting pirated versions harder to come by, or by making their versions somehow better than the pirated or used versions. DRM is one way to do this (albeit not a very good way). Offering content to a person who buys it new that a person who buys it used can't get (or has to pay extra for) is simple way. People who buy it used bitch that they're somehow being ripped off. This is like someone buying a used car, then being upset that it has all those miles on it, and being upset that they have to pay for maintenance that they wouldn't have to pay for if it was a new car. If you're buying used, you have to expect that you're getting a slightly inferior product. And again, I acknowledge my own hypocrisy in that I will sell my used games (which I just did today). I just tend to think this will all be a moot point in a few years when everything is online only anyway.
Text books are just an example. The entire book industry is full of used books. You're kidding, right? No, seriously. You are joking about this, right? You really believe there's no thriving industry for used goods of all types, "classic" or not? You think nobody reads books that weren't published in the last 6 months? Honestly? You think that eBay isn't making a friggin' fortune entirely because people started buying and selling their old shit? You've never browsed Craigslist? Every single day, a million people are selling used goods. You think the life cycle of a video game has more classic value and lifespan than a book, piece of furniture, a board game, etc.? I wouldn't fault them if this was ten years ago and this was the first batch of DRM stuffed into some random game to try and stop its distribution online. I fault them now that DRM has proven, every single time, to be utterly useless and to do nothing but cause headaches for players who actually purchased the game. I mean, it's completely astounding to me. Do the people at the top making these decisions have absolutely no clue what goes on in the world? Do they not browse The Pirate Bay to see if DRM-laden titles are getting cracked on release day? Do they not do a quick comparison to the calls coming into their support centers to realize that it causes problems with zero positives? DRM is a shitty way. It'd be like trying to stop drunk driving by putting a breathalyzer in all the cars manufactured. There are a hundred ways to bypass it easily and cheaply so it's not going to actually stop drunk driving (and actually will create a profitable market for bypassing it), but it IS going to malfunction once in a while, stranding someone in a parking lot, and it is a hardship on every single person at least in a small way. The funny part of this, is that pirating games also will gain you the DLC. So, let's see... say I'm a person who is too cheap to buy the new game, so there's virtually no way to turn me into a net new sale at the retail price point (which is very common in the used market for anything; the people buying would NEVER have been net new sales under any circumstance because it's above their maximum price point). But if I buy used, I miss out on part of the game. Where do you suppose I turn next?
DRM can fuck off and die. Everything Binary said is pretty spot on, but there's one thing I in particular I want to comment on: What's really funny about this is for a lot of gamers it isn't even about the price point. They'd be more than willing to shell out full retail price to play a game but end up waiting for the secondary market not because of price but because many software developers have gotten so fucking lazy that gamers wait to buy the game because they expect that it won't function properly until it's patched. By the time there's enough word of mouth to reassure them that they'll actually be able to play the game as intended it may have been several weeks or a month, so why buy retail when you can save some money by buying used? Honestly, could you imagine if any other industry fucking worked this way? Imagine walking into the dealership to buy a new car, "Hey buddy, could I interest you in this new Camero? It's true that currently the engine will die if you drive it more than ten miles at a time and GM's going to put out a recall to get this fixed sometime in the next month, but buying from the dealership will get you a code that you can enter that will allow you to use the radio - if you buy it from some used car lot or a private seller you can't get the code and are out of luck." I'm not opposed to the concept of employing some kind of security to combat piracy. I'm absolutely fucking opposed to any DRM that interferes with legitimate use of software, and anything that starts to impinge on users' basic property rights ought to be straight fucking illegal.
That's absolutely true and leads me back to my point about top-of-the-line graphics. Is it any wonder that games are released half-assed when such a giant chunk of the budget is going to some designer creating nose hairs on the NPCs and ensuring that every metal arrowhead reflects light bloom into the player's face right before it buries itself in your eye? I mean, gee, I'm as impressed as the next guy when every single surface in the world can be shot at and retain permanent bullet holes for the duration of the game, but there comes a point (and we've FAR surpassed that point) where better graphics are not adding substantially to the gameplay (not to mention everyone without a cutting edge PC can fuck right off for some of these games). Every dollar spent on ensuring hair realistically falls over an NPC's eye when they lean forward is a dollar not spent on ensuring a cohesive story, or ensuring the player does not suddenly levitate up a thousand feet in the air with no way out because of some stupid bug that got missed in testing. I can't be the only one who could not possibly care less when a game advertises better graphics.
Here's what the cynical side of me says: This is intentional because publishers are greedy. Not the release of glitchy games (I'm not that cynical yet) but the emphasis on shiny graphics over solid gameplay. I'm convinced that the video games industry wants to operate like the film industry where like with movies consumers go out to buy a new game every week like they may go out to the movies every week. The more time and money they put into improving games' content the more time gamers will spend playing a particular game and not going out to buy the next game. I get the distinct impression that many publishers want you to buy a game, get through it in a couple of days, then rush out to go buy the next newest game. They don't want to make a game of such high quality and depth of play that you'll happily play it for a month or more.
Definitely possible. Maybe they wouldn't create such a large used market if the players got more than three days worth of enjoyment out of the game before moving on...
You two MUST be PC players. Because the entire argument of "Games suck now, they're only all shiny" can be shot down with "Uncharted 1-3, Killzone 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Heavy Rain" and I can keep going. All pretty games, all great gameplay. That is a super cynical view that is overharsh for console gaming. There are maybe 1 or 2 top titles that come out a year that have massive issues that need to be patched on consoles (and funny enough they are either FallOut or Elder Scrolls titles). Just for the record of this discussion, I couldn't care less about PC gaming, so if you're arguing from that point of view, we're on two different boats. Don't all PC games have activation codes now anyway? Is there a used game PC game market? Not sure if I understand all the way, but the argument that games with DRM get pirated first or more than games without DRM is kind of stupid. All games that can be pirated, get pirated, regardless of DRM or not. The hackers aren't looking at a list of games thinking "This game has DRM, this game does not, let's break the one with DRM first."
I agree about the PC thing. Never, ever been a PC gamer. I never saw the point. I'd rather play on my nice big screen TV with a controller than a wonky keyboard/mouse setup. Also, PC gamers hate the 'pretty graphics' because it means they have to pay to upgrade their machine or have the game play slow and lag a lot. This is another major plus to console gaming: I don't have to upgrade my system to play the latest titles. A lot of this anti-piracy stuff is targeted at the PC gamers, anyway, because it is much, much harder to pirate console games. I also find PC gamers tend to have a bigger sense of entitlement about them, and tend to look down on console gamers, but that has just been my personal experience. The thing I have to disagree with is the last statement. I'd bet anything hackers will look at two games and say "lets break the one with DRM first" just because if you're a hacker, you have an inherent "stick it to the man" mantra, and what better way to give a middle finger to the gaming industry than to hack the DRM games first.
Meh, shits going to get hacked by release date or within 24 hours. Yeah, I definitely think the complain about graphics definite stems from the fact that people have to hold their dicks waiting for the "minimum requirements" every time something new and flashy comes out. I do play two games on the PC, League of Legends (which will never be a graphical problem) and Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, only because its the only game on Xbox I can't play on my PS3. Oh yeah, PC gamers are dicks when it comes to console gamers. If it is a console only game, Starcraft, Diablo, sure I'm all for the PC. If its on both systems? Hello console. It gets more of a focus since more people play games on consoles than PC. Been that way since PS2 and Xbox people.
Seconded. I got burned by this on a Christmas gift I got for my brother. Semi-obscure game that I knew he would like, but I waited too long to order online and Gamestop refuses to stock any new copies, so I go with the used one ($40 for a game that had been out over a year). Cut to Christmas day and the damn thing doesn't work. Turns out the disc has a chip in it that throws the thing off balance and pisses the drive off. Now I look like an asshole because Gamespot understocks new games to push you into buying high-margin used games, while pawning off discs that don't even work.
It would be impossible to play Starcraft at any decent level on a PlayStation or Xbox controller. Playing a game on my PC or my ps3 come down to which controls. FPS(I have no idea how people play with a controller) and RTS games will always beat out a console controller, but God of War or Batman Arkham City/Asylum are ass on a keyboard.
These issues affect console games. You realize that it's all one big bucket of money when a company releases games for multiple consoles and the PC, right? Also, I didn't say that games can't be good and pretty. My point is that these is that resources are finite, that is all. I'd rather play a quality game than a pretty game, and there are a lot of pretty games out now that don't offer much quality.
I donkt know what console games you're talking about because I'm too busy playing the top tier titles like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, God of War 3, which are beautiful games with great gameplay. Or not even top tier, take a little known PS3 exclusive like Valkryia Chronicles, great graphics for its style and great gameplay. Yes there are shitty games out there, but they are shitty games from the core. Maybe read reviews so no one gets hurt? Oh and I just played the Twisted Metal Demo and "OMG" it is going to be fantastic. The controls are now unfamiliar since it has been so long, but I'm pumped for it. (Also great looking game with great gameplay.)
Hate to B2B post but I'm getting reps about ME3 coming to PS3. Yes, I know that, but I didn't know that 1.5 years ago before they announced it and I really wanted to play ME1 and ME2. I want to play ME3 with MY Sheppard Goddamn it. AND another preview on Kindgoms of Amalur: The Reckoning but actually says that people (like me) shouldn't be name dropping other games and focusing on the big names behind it.
I'm both a PC and console gamer and I stand by what I said. In fact this issue makes me angrier because I'm a console gamer. I have different expectations for when I buy a PC game vs. a console game and either format has its pluses and minuses. So when some of the minuses of a PC game find their way to consoles, it really pisses me off.
Gotta say, I love this new MLG format for SC2. Let's see how it works out for the winter season, these qualifiers are going to be bananas. White-Ra, you crazy bastard, why go through the Korean qualifier? I know he's doing it because of his travel schedule, but shit, play the European one with lag.