Curt Schilling Defends Kingdoms of Amalur Online Pass

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

trooper6:

lacktheknack:

Then again, I'm PC-exclusive, so the "MUST BUY USED" mindset is completely foreign to me.

PC-exclusive...yeah, I don't hear developers complaining about the used PC-game market...on the other hand I do hear the developers complaining about rampant piracy in the PC-game market. So I don't think the PC market is free of problematics.

I didn't say it was. Only quote people if you're going to address what they actually said.

Day 1 DLC is complete bullshit. If they had it ready to go in time for launch, they might as well have put it in the game.

On the other hand, since it's free with a new copy of the game, you can see it as withholding content from people who buy used. However, in that case it's still a case of punishing the person who buys used while inconveniencing the person who bought it new, while pretending to reward them.

SupahGamuh:

DustyDrB:
Schilling likes this game? Dammit, now I feel like hating it on principle. And I liked the demo. God damn Curt Schilling...

Well, he not only likes the game, it's his company who's releasing the game.

OT: As a PC gamer, I really don't care about day 1 DLC, but trying to see this from the perspective of a console gamer, this will certainly piss off less people than other certain companies, this guy is all about rewarding the fans (or so he says), instead of sucking out your money for "server space".

Agayek:

DustyDrB:
Schilling likes this game? Dammit, now I feel like hating it on principle. And I liked the demo. God damn Curt Schilling...

You do realize Curt Schilling made the game right? Or his company did at least. Of course he's going to like it.

OT: I have no issue with day 1 DLC. Like the man said, it's an incentive to buy new; nothing more or less. There's no reason to get up in arms about it, ever. As long as the game does not outright prevent you from playing it without the code (eg, multiplayer lockout), there's absolutely no reason to be upset about it.

Yeah, I know now. Edited my first post in the thread now. This is the second time in the last week or so I commented before reading something and looked like an ass for it. Don't be like me, kids! Reading is good!

The developers I've met from 38 Studios are some of the nicest people I've met in the industry. I hope Kingdoms of Amalur is good and it sells well.

I had never heard of this game untill I tried the demo, now I plan to buy it soon after release, although it clashes with the Darkness 2(Dammit). It seemed like a really fun game that I could definatily enjoy.

Im also completely fine with the day 1 DLC. It's some quest right? So it's not that big a deal, I plan to get it new anyway so it doesn't really affect me other than the small annoyance of putting a code in once.

The only time this kind of thing annoys me is in cases of games like Battlefield 3. I want to try it out to see if I like it but they have no demo, used copies also have to pay extra for the multiplayer which is the only reason I would want it.

I also played the beta which sucked and really turned me off of the game. This though I am fine with, it's just a new studio hoping to get some more money from their game rather than everyone getting it used because they haven't played this game before.

You forget about the Power Up card which gives you 10% off. So, $10 off, not $5. Most brand new games that are less than a few weeks old will have the original box and manual. I see that you have a hatred for Gamestop, I don't have that but the greed of publishers is getting on my nerves.

Make me jump through hoops and call it a reward, fuck that.

scotth266:
Penny Arcade explained it best:

I've been reading a lot his weekend about Fat Cats and how fat they are and how they want your money, but the only choice you get in this matter (aside from the wholly valid "not buying it" choice, of course) is which supposed Fat Cat to enrich. You can enrich the people who made the game you are enjoying, or you can enrich people who had nothing to do with the game. Policies like this are designed to incentivize new purchases: that is to say, sales. We call those sales.

I've been hearing a lot about this game actually, and it might be a priority purchase for me, even before Skyrim if the combat turns out to be really good. Combat in the Elder Scrolls games always felt rather iffy to me.

Yeah, I'm a raging bethesda fanboy and I'll be the first the admit that KoA: Reckoning's combat system is WAY better than Skyrims. Stealth kills are FAR more satisfying, for one.

Makes perfect sense to me. Not sure how anyone could really argue with it.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, I really can't blame developers or publishers for trying to limit used games sales. Day 1 free DLC does not bother me at all (day 1 premium DLC would however). The only issue I would have with day 1 free DLC is if the codes given bug out. I had issues with DA:O due to some of my codes not registering and that resulted in not getting some pre order items and Shale not being in my game till my second playthrough.

But in principle I agree with 38 Studios.

I don't see what the problem here is. You get the whole game for 60 euros (the standard new release price in my country, I don't expect them to change that), and if you get it second hand for 40, or 30, or whatever, you pay another ten to get the rest of the game. What is the problem?

Gatx:
Day 1 DLC is complete bullshit. If they had it ready to go in time for launch, they might as well have put it in the game.

On the other hand, since it's free with a new copy of the game, you can see it as withholding content from people who buy used. However, in that case it's still a case of punishing the person who buys used while inconveniencing the person who bought it new, while pretending to reward them.

The content is typically finished after the product goes gold. They can't put it on the CD because the CDs are made. It's called incentive. Car dealerships do it, Wal Mart does it, and your local bakery probably does it. You reward people who buy your product from you. If game developers create content solely to incentivize a new purchases, that's absolutely fine. The only time it wouldn't be is if they were locking you out of core content. Which they aren't.

Balvale:

Gatx:
Day 1 DLC is complete bullshit. If they had it ready to go in time for launch, they might as well have put it in the game.

On the other hand, since it's free with a new copy of the game, you can see it as withholding content from people who buy used. However, in that case it's still a case of punishing the person who buys used while inconveniencing the person who bought it new, while pretending to reward them.

The content is typically finished after the product goes gold. They can't put it on the CD because the CDs are made. It's called incentive. Car dealerships do it, Wal Mart does it, and your local bakery probably does it. You reward people who buy your product from you. If game developers create content solely to incentivize a new purchases, that's absolutely fine. The only time it wouldn't be is if they were locking you out of core content. Which they aren't.

Yeah right, the content is likely ON the disc and all you are downloading is an activation key. Even if it's not, it was probably purposely withheld, but was finished, so they could have an online pass.

Wal Mart and car dealerships aren't trying to kill the used market so their motives don't come into question like those of the game industry. BTW, I have never actually seen Wal Mart do anything to get you to buy new instead of used but whatever. Most car dealerships also sell used cars.

I'll tell you how I see it. I see this is as becoming more complicated than it needs to be. I remember buying a game and having the entire game on the disc/cartridge. No codes, no downloads. Also, I see supporting online passes as supporting the publisher war on used games. Why would I want to help publishers kill the used market and devalue my games after the shrink wrap is removed?

Never get why people moan about this, if you want it, buy the game new, if your not interested then buy the game second hand. Make the choice. Most 1day dlc is pointless to the game anyway.

Kingdom or Amalour looks great, i enjoyed the demo and its good to give a new IP a chance. Especially if it is successful then the sequel should be great and have all the things added to it that they cut out of it. We shall see.

Wasn't Curt on the other side of this issue just a couple days ago? I seem to recall something about how this was supposed to be free DLC and they had never planned on an online pass.

llubtoille:

- and health only regen'd via pots or paying a town healer, making alchemy rather a must to skill into.

You know, I played the demo 3 times and only had to use one potion. I also picked up several over the course of my playthroughs, so it's quite possible it's not a must.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the online pass turned this from a release day buy to a wait-and-see for me.

Online passes are like car companies saying that if you buy the car used, you need to buy access to real-time traffic (which is free to the manu). Release day DLC to me is like having to purchase the maps for your navigation system when you buy your car used (something the first buyer already payed for). That the game industry believes that it is entitled to a share of the revenue from 2nd sales bothers me.

What I don't have a problem with is paying for online services associated with a game. The call of duty elite service is brilliant IMHO. They are selling the customer something ongoing. I think the clincher would be if the service came free for 60 or 90 days with the purchase of a new game and used gamers have to buy it.

Aggieknight:
I can't speak for anyone else, but the online pass turned this from a release day buy to a wait-and-see for me.

Online passes are like car companies saying that if you buy the car used, you need to buy access to real-time navigation. Release day DLC to me is like having to purchase the maps for your navigation system (or something similar) when you buy your car used. That the game industry believes that it is entitled to a share of the revenue from 2nd sales bothers me.

What I don't have a problem with is paying for online services associated with a game. The call of duty elite service is brilliant IMHO. They are selling the customer something ongoing. I think the clincher would be if the service came free for 60 or 90 days with the purchase of a new game.

Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I don't think this is a bad idea. I don't really disagree with day one DLC. What I find distasteful is online passes, like in sports games. Those suck, whereas for DLC it isn't so bad.

Daystar Clarion:
Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I did read the article and I disagree. Whether the content is on the disk, in the cloud, or stored on the moon is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization is selling a product and intentionally defeaturing their product for people who purchase the game used.

Aggieknight:

Daystar Clarion:
Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I did read the article and I disagree. Whether the content is on the disk, in the cloud, or stored on the moon is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization is selling a product and intentionally defeaturing their product for people who purchase the game used.

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

Daystar Clarion:

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

I believe you are making assumptions that you cannot support. To include the piece of paper in the box, the "content" has to be identified at the time of manu of the disk itself, making whether the content is on the disk or in the cloud irrelevant. Furthermore, content is planned out months/years in advance and a decision must be made at that time, not late in the development cycle.

Therumancer:
With no offense to 38 studios, it doesn't matter how well they dress it up, it's an indefensible position from any perspective.

Speaking from a position of strict-neutrality; it's purely Defensible from the Supply side and Indefensible from the Demand side.

Supply wants to remove the leverage arbitrage Demand has here. This directly increases their revenue, but may indirectly reduce it by negative word-of-mouth, as we witness here; (however, to which degree it reduces revenue is a matter of debate).

As a matter of fairness, it would be best if there was a more lenient return policy for games where the service attached them was the main draw. (This doesn't work out so hot for games that you can easily beat in an evening or two (which are becoming increasingly common) as the buyer could get essentially a free rental, and the market requires sales to definitively cover the cost of production.)

Otherwise, you end up with situations like this: where savvy customers will just wait for the Used version to avoid getting jacked by a bad purchase. Which in turn spurs more arbitrage (do I even have to mention Gamestop here?)

I guess what I'm saying, is that the Publisher and the Customers are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it's putting both of them at odds. Not necessarily about what constitutes "fair business", but how one can stick it to the other.

And really, this sort of innate competition is supposed to spur someone into finding the proper/most-efficient solution, which isn't even remotely happening here. Publishers offer "Do-or-die" as-is deals, and their either customers scorn them for it or walk away entirely.

Never had a problem with Day 1 DLC that is included with Purchase. Granted it feels like they are slicing up a game to hold a part of it hostage to anyone who wants to save a few bucks down the line. But I'm part of the PC master race. There is no used games in this market.

So all it comes down to is an inconvenience.

Aggieknight:

Daystar Clarion:

No.

Games go gold months before release, which means that their content is locked and nothing new can be added. That's the finished product, which means up until release, the dev teams pretty much have nothing to do except fix bug issues and make DLC.

If the content is locked on disk, I'd agree with you, but this DLC isn't, it's extra DLC they've made for people who buy the game new.

I believe you are making assumptions that you cannot support. To include the piece of paper in the box, the "content" has to be identified at the time of manu of the disk itself, making whether the content is on the disk or in the cloud irrelevant. Furthermore, content is planned out months/years in advance and a decision must be made at that time, not late in the development cycle.

>Criticises my assumptions for lack of support

>Proceeds to make assumptions with lack of support

I they want to reward people who buy new, that's their prerogative, it's their game.

This isn't about punishing those who buy used, but rewarding those who buy new.

Irridium:

But publishers, of so many god damn people are buying/selling used games, maybe you need to just stop, and figure out why they're doing that. You could, oh I don't know, just fucking ask them. Like, on your site. Put up a big poll, ask "why do you buy used?", and maybe figure out the reasons people buy used, and work towards improving yourselves so they start buying new.

I'm pretty sure developers already have an answer to that question, it's cheaper and maybe a few people in there that are to lazy to properly boycott something, but mostly just because it's cheaper.

I don't mind this practice and if were lucky Gamestop may do what they did with Arkham City and just use the extra money from what they buy used to buy extra DLC codes.

This is how to get people to buy new, <every publisher>!

scotth266:
Penny Arcade explained it best:

I've been reading a lot his weekend about Fat Cats and how fat they are and how they want your money, but the only choice you get in this matter (aside from the wholly valid "not buying it" choice, of course) is which supposed Fat Cat to enrich. You can enrich the people who made the game you are enjoying, or you can enrich people who had nothing to do with the game. Policies like this are designed to incentivize new purchases: that is to say, sales. We call those sales.

I've been hearing a lot about this game actually, and it might be a priority purchase for me, even before Skyrim if the combat turns out to be really good. Combat in the Elder Scrolls games always felt rather iffy to me.

there is a demo on steam

I don't know why we're using the used car analogy here in defense of used games. If you buy a used car, it's not going to be as good as a new one...there will be certain things it doesn't have: like, not 50,000 of wear on the tires/engine or rust in places you can't see.

If you're willing to save money to purchase a lesser version of a car, why won't you pay less money to purchase a lesser version of a game? You're not supporting the company who produced it anyways, so it's not like you deserve that extra swordnquest.

Daystar Clarion:
Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

Vrach:

Daystar Clarion:
Inb4 self entitlement.

I like this guy's attitude, he's not claiming that used games are destroying the industry or that pirates are the spawn of satan. He's just making it perfectly clear that people who buy the game brand new will be rewarded as a token of good will.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah, like those sales where they jack up the price by 30% then say "30% OFF ONLY TODAY!!!"

Good will my arse, he can talk all he wants, bottom line is no other industry does this, the game industry does not need it and all it comes down to is them wanting more money.

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

Daystar Clarion:

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

Yes, he was talking about that clearly ridiculous line of thought and not the more likely and sensible "day one DLC/Online pass" deal.

Your scoffing is justified.

Zachary Amaranth:

Daystar Clarion:

No other industry icentivises people to buy their product?

Have you ever bought anything, ever?

Yes, he was talking about that clearly ridiculous line of thought and not the more likely and sensible "day one DLC/Online pass" deal.

Your scoffing is justified.

If the content is locked on disk, I wholeheartedly agree, it's a lousy move, but if it's just a little something extra they made on the side, nothing major, then I don't see what the issue is.

I'm sure I'm not the only one (it's the internet, no-one's EVER the only one) who's getting sick to the back teeth of the clamour to cash in on second-hand game sales by some of the companies out there.

Whilst I actually have no issue with companies offering 1st day DLC free to those that buy a brand new game (call it an incentive if you like) I do have concerns with the current trend of limiting access to features (multi-player usually) for those that buy a game second hand. I don't understand any company that has profited by selling a game once believing it has the right to continue profiting from it once that transaction has taken place.

If a similar approach were to be taken in...say...DVD sales (yes, I know, different rules, but not enough to make it an unreasonable comparison) I can imagine there would be far higher levels of negative kickback from the general public as it would be seen as money-grabbing.

Of course, you have to then consider that gaming is still thought of as a niche pastime (a niche pastime that can cost 45 a pop depending on game/retailer) and so trying to take more money from gamers is unlikely to stir much in the way of public revolt. Sadly.

I now gleefully await a well-written and, ideally, non-abusive rebuttal from a fellow Escapist :)

Aggieknight:

Daystar Clarion:
Did you even read the article?

Your analogy only makes sense if it was disk locked content, which it isn't.

A better analogy would that if you bought a new car and they threw in a full tank of petrol and some floor mats.

I did read the article and I disagree. Whether the content is on the disk, in the cloud, or stored on the moon is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization is selling a product and intentionally defeaturing their product for people who purchase the game used.

...and devaluing the product after purchase. People who wish to resell will get less than they would without an online pass. They are the people hurt the most.

Atmos Duality:

Therumancer:
With no offense to 38 studios, it doesn't matter how well they dress it up, it's an indefensible position from any perspective.

Speaking from a position of strict-neutrality; it's purely Defensible from the Supply side and Indefensible from the Demand side.

Supply wants to remove the leverage arbitrage Demand has here. This directly increases their revenue, but may indirectly reduce it by negative word-of-mouth, as we witness here; (however, to which degree it reduces revenue is a matter of debate).

As a matter of fairness, it would be best if there was a more lenient return policy for games where the service attached them was the main draw. (This doesn't work out so hot for games that you can easily beat in an evening or two (which are becoming increasingly common) as the buyer could get essentially a free rental, and the market requires sales to definitively cover the cost of production.)

Otherwise, you end up with situations like this: where savvy customers will just wait for the Used version to avoid getting jacked by a bad purchase. Which in turn spurs more arbitrage (do I even have to mention Gamestop here?)

I guess what I'm saying, is that the Publisher and the Customers are trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it's putting both of them at odds. Not necessarily about what constitutes "fair business", but how one can stick it to the other.

And really, this sort of innate competition is supposed to spur someone into finding the proper/most-efficient solution, which isn't even remotely happening here. Publishers offer "Do-or-die" as-is deals, and their either customers scorn them for it or walk away entirely.

Not really, because in the end every game that is out there, excepting pirated copies, has been paid for. That used game had it's initial sale go directly to the company, and the game being sold used doesn't actually put more units out there, or stress the support that was already being offered.

It's an indefensible position because it comes down to pure greed. Your dealing with a multi-billion dollar industry that is looking down from it's giant, constantly growing pile of money, and deciding that their pile of money could be growing faster if they could somehow make even more money off of each unit they sold. They look at Gamestop's used sales and dreamily envision all of that money going into their pockets, or at least being able to take a percentage of it on a product they already sold.

I suppose it can be defended in the sense of "I want more money, and should be able to profit off selling my product more than once" but that's kind of unreasonable, and what the games industry is ultimatly doing.

Like any business companies come and go, no industry has every participant being a big success. Overall though the gaming industry is very successful, it's making billions of dollars in profit every year, and steadily growing despite the existance of both used games and piracy. All of these attacks on free information, and consumer rights are entirely driven by greed. Whether developers and publishers ultimatly answer to a board of directors or not the basic situation is absolutly ridiculous because the gaming industry does not actually need any of these things for any other purpose than to line it's own pockets no matter what arguement it happens to make.

Right now I see the biggest problem being that nobody has ever challenged EULAs the right way, nor has that entire practice ever been looked into by the goverment in comparison to current realities. A lot of what we're seeing is only possible because of a system that allows someone to sell you a product you can't return, force you to sign a contract to use the product (once they already have your money which you can't viably get back), and that contract basically says that your only borrowing what you paid for, with the actual owner pretty much having the right to revoke your usage at any time or do whatever they want
with it at any time, for any reason. This is the springboard from which most gaming
industry ridiculousness is launched, and this "right" being what they are trying to exploit for profit at the expense of the general citizenry.

While it's a tangent it's interesting to note most challenges to the EULAs have taken place over the contract itself, rather than questioning it's validity. I was a Criminal Justice major and while this wasn't anything close to what I studied, some civil law and contract law was covered. The big way I feel EULAs should have been challenged is in how the product is sold before the contract is presented, which questions how binding it is (as opposed to just text). Technically your supposed to sign a binding contract as you purchuse something. Likewise there are laws intended to limit the power of "fine print" that limit how complicated contract can be, including things like length and the prescence of all relevent and referanced documents. In the case of business deals that can be very lengthy and complicated there are typically neutral witnesses and notaries present to testify that everyone actually understood something that complicated, and also to testify their understanding in the case of questions. I would argue that many EULAs which go on and on and do things like referance California state law in many cases without actually providing that law and any nessicary precedents, are beyond the understanding of a general schlub to begin with. Technically under the current system to buy a game they should have contract lawyers and notaries present at Gamestop (or wherever) to have you sign the paperwork and make sure yoyu understand it, and then witness it, before they take your money.

Like a number of things I mentioned, I'm not even entirely sure that the basis from which the gaming industry has been acting is legal, and would stand up to a proper challenge on the right grounds. There are some things relatively straightforward enough (like telling someone they don't own or have control over a product they already paid money for and can't return without loss once it's opened and you see the contract) that if approached properly I doubt even the highest priced lawyer could defend. The problem being that your typical schlub can't afford legal action at all, and as the current situation gets more intense there are efforts to be made to prohibit (or convince people they are prohibited from) class action suits, largely because I think the gaming industry knows that it's best defense is to prevent certain issues from ever being raised through pre-emptive intimidation.

All tangents aside, I understand the other side which is pretty much "we want more money, billions aren't enough!!!!1!!11one!" in the end there isn't anything else to it, no matter how they try and dress it up. The guys doing "Kingdoms of Amalur" are going to see a decent return if they sell a decent product, their current actions however are to try and manipulate things to get an even bigger return from the product, at the expense of consumers and their rights. They don't NEED this kind of thing to stay afloat, they just WANT more money.

Oh, so it's a Day 1 DLC. I thought there was a quest-line and a whole faction locked behind that online pass. I hate it when publishers throw in those "unlock multiplayer" codes and doing it for a single-player game is absolutely despicable. However I have no problem with this. I think giving away free DLC to people who buy new is a nice little incentive that doesn't leave those who can't afford it on day 1 feeling neglected. Furthermore, Curt Schilling handled this well; he was calm and reasonably tried to explain his stance. While I won't buy this game (demo was kinda off-putting) I really want it to have good sales.

Dandark:
....I plan to buy it soon after release, although it clashes with the Darkness 2(Dammit)

Gonna go a bit off-topic here, but how awesome was that demo? Made me regret spending my money on MGS:HD Collection. Really an amazing improvement over first.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here