The industry vs used games

Wow - 2 gaming posts in 1 weekend! To be fair though, I need to make up for the fact that I didn't post anything last weekend.

Anyway, if you follow the gaming industry, you will know that the industry really hates second hand sales of used games. The problem being that the publisher doesn't get any cut of the profits when people buy and sell second hand games. Over the last several years, publishers have tried various methods to kill off the used games market and so far all have failed.

The latest attempt is to put in extras for the first time buyer of the game. For example, Gears of War 2 will ship with a unique one-time use code which allows you to download additional multiplayer maps. Subsequent owners of that copy of the game will not get these additional maps and the maps will not be available any other way. The idea is that this will encourage people to buy the game new rather than used.

To be honest, I'm not sure what my position is on this.

On one hand, I can understand why the publishers are doing this. From the publishers (and developer's) point of view, they really only get any money if the game is sold new. There are several obvious counter-arguments but I think a big one that the publisher may have forgotten is that second hand games are a good way to build goodwill. The buyer may not have any experience with your game or franchise. Second hand games allow people to spend a small amount of money and play the game. This could well get you a fan who will then buy your next game new.

Another argument for the publisher is that they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply giving people who give them money an additional bonus - nothing wrong with that right? Again, the obvious danger is the slippery slope argument where developers purposefully leave out key content. However, in my opinion, this is the kind of decision that has to be made on a case by case basis. In other words, if I think your company is taking the piss, then I won't buy the game. The key is whether the game is worth the full price you are paying regardless of the additional content and as I said above, this can only be made on a case by case basis.

However, my biggest concern is what happens when my X360 dies. This isn't exactly unknown (I'm already on my second X360 as my first one died with the RROD). If my console dies, will I be able to redownload all the additional content that I am entitled to from buying the game new? Logically, you would think I would be able to get that content back. However, looking at the history of shit which some game companies pull off, I really can't be certain of this.

EA needs to learn to STFU

Recently, I blogged about why I was adding EA to my boycott list. Now John Riccitiello (CEO at EA) has spoken up on the issue - and quite frankly, its another response that just pisses me off.

Its funny as the interview actually starts off okay. For example, this line:

Everyone gets that we need some level of protection
True - everyone does get this. I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with DRM as long as it doesn't become intrusive. The DRM on Spore (and Mass Effect PC) was very borderline and was just uncomfortably into the realm of maybe a bit too intrusive. However, at the time, although I was annoyed, I wasn't pissed off. I only got pissed off when they gave their half assed response which really didn't take into account the valid concerns I felt I, and many other gamers, had.

[But it was] a minority of [anti-DRM] people that orchestrated a great PR program
And this is when the interview starts to go wrong. Yes, statistically speaking, the people who were up in arms about DRM probably were a minority (after all, sales of the game have been very good). However, the statement completely ignores the valid concerns that gamers had. I mean, its not like Spore was the first game to be hit with anti-DRM complaints.

Even if you ignore other publishers, when Mass Effect PC was released, the BioWare forums were up in arms and you had well over a hundred people stating that they wouldn't buy the game based on the DRM (this was before EA relaxed the DRM slightly). Just in case you weren't aware, EA had already purchased BioWare by this stage and must have known about the controversy.

What was particularly interesting about the Spore DRM controversy was that the game was being panned in the Amazon user reviews for having draconian DRM (I blogged about it here). What made this interesting was not that gamers were complaining about it on forums - but rather that they had gone out into the real world (for lack of a better phrase) and panned the game on Amazon which very possibly led to lost sales.

As far as I can tell, this was an ad-hoc and unplanned reaction. It wasn't a call to arms by gamers to pan Spore in Amazon. Rather, some people gave poor reviews for this reason and then the idea just caught on like a bush fire and spread. I'm not the only one to reach this conclusion (read here - and before you ask, I have no idea who he is).

This suggests, to me at least, that gamers are seriously pissed about this and that it isn't just a PR campaign by a couple of anti-DRM activists.

I'm guessing that half of them were pirates, and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn't understand
So I'm either a pirate or I didn't understand the issue. Way to diss my valid concerns - you arrogant c*$k sucking son of a b*$ch. In case its not obvious, it was this statement that really pissed me off.

None of the games I play on my PC are pirated - all of them are either store bought or legally downloaded (and can anyone explain to me why a pirate would even care about DRM considering that they don't have to deal with it?). I didn't buy or illegally download Spore. I already bought and completed ME on my X360 which is why I wasn't interested in the PC version.

So according to John Riccitiello, I didn't understand the issue. Here's news for you Johnny boy - I understand the issue just fine. What pushed me over the line into boycotting EA wasn't the shitty DRM on your PC games (although I will admit I was worried about it). I am boycotting EA because of the shitty response to valid concerns which I, and many others, have expressed.

If your view is that my concerns aren't valid and that they should be ignored, don't be surprised when I no longer support your company or its products.

Fallout 3 - not as bad as I thought?

You may recall a while ago that I posted that I had given up hope on Fallout 3 on the basis that it was too similar to Oblivion (which I didn't like much - not my style of RPG).

However, recent previews of Fallout 3 have been very positive. But by far the most interesting preview was the one by Kotaku. Most previews harp on about how similar the game is to Oblivion -which is probably good in most cases but in my case, just turns me off the game. However, Kotaku actually looked at how similar the game was to previous Fallout games.

Their conclusion is that the game is 50:50. Apparently, the similarities with Oblivion are with regard to the viewpoint and movement. On the other hand, the similarities with Fallout are the vibe and the conversation elements. All in all, this preview has gotten me semi-excited for this game again.

And the best thing? Bethesda have announced that they will have noninvasive DRM on Fallout 3.