The first and more recent topic of controversy is Sony requiring pass codes to access online content in some games, starting with the release of Resistance 3 this fall. These pass codes restrict some or all online content to the original owner of the game, making the sale of used games more difficult. However, Sony will be selling codes to games as well, so the pre-owned market won't be completely obsolete. The main complaint from gamers about this is that they don't want to pay for access to a game they've already paid for. But when you think about it, Xbox Live users have to do this for every game they purchase.
The second issue being talked about is Capcom's decision to limit Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D for the 3DS to one save file, making it impossible to start the game over once it's finished. Though they claim this decision isn't meant to limit pre-owned sales, I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks they're doing just that. It's already been barred from trade-in at a few retailers.
So here's the deal: both these companies seem to be taking steps to limit sales of used games, and gamers aren't very happy. But something I realized that no one else seems to be talking about is the effect this will have on rentals. Maybe there isn't as big of a market for rental games, and maybe people that partake in this market aren't as concerned with online content, but I'm sure these developments will have an impact on the game rental industry.
Basically, I just wanted to put the information out there and see what kind of response I would get. I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this because mine isn't fully solidified. Let me know what you think
-beruset
I like turtles
ReplyDeleteAs much as I like turtles...
ReplyDeleteI can see how these changes would limit the rental industry. To be honest, the only games I've ever rented were for single player or local multiplayer (because I'm a 360 "owner") and neither of those two are affected here. Anyone who intends to spend long hours online playing a game usually, in my experiences, purchases the title or borrows it from a friend and then purchases it.
As for RE:Mercs, having one save file is fine, as long as you can erase it. Most titles have some sort of partially hidden option to erase the game data. Nintendogs simply required you to hit a whole bunch of buttons. If there really isn't a way to reset it, it really saddens me.
It's amazing what some companies have been designing in their games. For example, games like FEAR 1 had quicksaving at any location. FEAR 2 removed this for checkpoint play, "to increase suspense" they claim. Tech is getting stronger, but they continue to limit the simple things that they could so easily do (such as multiple saves or saving anywhere).
Developers are doing this so they can get as much money out of games as possible. Used games and rental games profits go directly to the store, developers don't get any profit from these two methods. Plus, we're not even going to go into pirating in this comment...
ReplyDeleteTo make games, developers want to make it so that it won't be as tempting to buy/rent games at a lower price. However, I think this isn't the way to go. I think developers should reward people for buying new games, as opposed to punishing them. Maybe instead of only allowing one save spot in Mercenaries: they could give a special randomized reward code for special content or you get special reward points for buying Capcom games that could lead to discounts for their games or other stuff. The sad part is, there are companies that are doing this, but many would rather go down a path that would upset many of their customers.
Thanks for your input, guys. @Kamiblade, as far as I know there will be no way to erase the save file once you start.
ReplyDelete@Spont. Combustion, I completely agree with what you're saying. I don't feel like adding things to games to make them only work for the original owner, and only one time, is the way to go. That destroys the replay value and will make gamers hesitant at best at paying full price, thus defeating the industry's purpose of wanting to make more from their titles.
@beruset, it seems like a lot of companies are going the route of diminishing replay value. I've seen few games take advantage of randomization (such as FEAR 3's "randomized" encounters). I wish that game companies weren't in it solely for the money, but then they wouldn't be businesses would they.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that lowering replay value will definitely reduce the amount of people paying full price. I've spent maybe $30 on Steam game packs the past week on over $200 worth of software (assuming their original individual selling price).
I hate it when they lower replay value. As an avid RTS player, being able to replay games is an important factor to me.
ReplyDeleteI really like turtles.
ReplyDeleteThere is a time and a place for replay value. Arcade-like games, strategy games, and the like should never be limited. However, RPGs (especially the Final Fantasy series) and puzzle games are inherently limited. A story-based game loses all of its suspense when you know what will happen. The companies will lose support for things like this. It does not make gamers want to pay for a game that they can only use once - even if they would ordinarily do just that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some game genres are inherently limited, and I do enjoy those as well, I just appreciate some replay options. For example, in RPG games you can be given the option to play through in a number of different ways (for example, good vs. evil), which gives you the ability to play through again with a different perspective. But limited or not, I think you've definitely hit the issue here: Gamers like having the option to re-use their games, even if they never do.
ReplyDeletePlus siblings may want to play the same game, but not share a file. They may play the game differently, I can remember how upset I was at my brother when he delated the file for Pokemon Snap right after I got the Poke Flute. I don't want any companies adding to sibling problems. :P
ReplyDelete