Explore Sewers In RAGE, But Only If You Buy It New

[MentalIlness]

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/9633.html

Well, it isn't an online pass but it's another incentive to purchase a game new rather than pre-owned.

During an interview with Eurogamer, id Software creative director Tim Willits confirmed that certain areas of RAGE would only be open to those who bought the game new. See, there are these sewer hatches scattered around the environment and you won't be able to jump in and explore if you got the game used. Basically, you'd have to pay for the privilege of checking 'em out. But Willits clarified:

"Most people never even see it. I can tell you, 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. It's outside the main path. We're not detracting from anything. But I know some consumers, when you can't avoid it, then you get a little touchy subject."

So it's not like we're losing anything, but you can bet those who often buy games used will be a little miffed. We'll have to see the game before passing judgment but for now, those sewer hatches don't sound all that significant. It's not like they're cutting out whole landscapes, ya know?

 

[chalmers]

I have a hard time taking threads seriously where every word in the topic is capitalized.

 

[Drako]

Wow, who would think that companies want to make more money :hmm:

A big don't care from me, as I seldom buy used games.

 

[chalmers]

Just another small nickel and dime step towards chalmers not buying consoles or console games ever again. It's coming.

 

[mmntech]

ID has been added to the list.

 

[Anubis]

i dont care, i cant remember the last time i purchased a used game and ive only ever sold one. seriously i just store shit in a box when its not used anymore and then in 10+ years ill find it and go WTF did i keep this and throw it away

 

[Drako]

ID has been added to the list.

LOL, id is not the publisher. Bethesda is the publisher.

It is all publishers that are pushing this model, get used to it.

 

[chalmers]

LOL, id is not the publisher. Bethesda is the publisher.

It is all publishers that are pushing this model, get used to it.

I'll definitely get used to it by not buying their products. I'm far from addicted to videos games so if they pull shit like this I just won't buy them.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's fine, can't say I like it though, and so this just makes the decision not to buy it until its about $5-10 on Steam a lot easier. That's if its even worth playing, which we'll see.

 

[blurredvision]

ID has been added to the list.

I'm sure they'll be hurt that you'll never buy a used copy of their games again.

 

[mmntech]

I'm sure they'll be hurt that you'll never buy a used copy of their games again.

I just think they're going after the wrong people. If anybody owes them for used game sales, it's Gamestop et al for the outrageous markup they have on used copies. It's the same general attitude PC publishers have regarding DRM. Inconvenience legitimate customers while the real crooks laugh all the way to the bank. So I choose to support devs and publishers who don't adopt such abusive tactics. I'm not going to purchase a used game that's gimped, or a new game that I can't sell because it will become gimped as soon as I do so. It doesn't matter if my decision impacts their profits or not. I'm not going to buy a product I don't like.

Stepping into the bigger picture, I think this is testing the waters, so to speak, for a pay-to-play system. The same system MMORPGs use. The software itself is dirt cheap but has hidden or monthly fees. Essentially turning gaming from a commodity to a service based industry.

It's worth noting that ID and Bethesda are entering a bit of a weird territory here. Sounds like they're gimping the single player. Most gamers who buy used titles can't always afford the $60 new copy. Makes me wonder if this won't encourage piracy.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I buy games new, and don't resell them. I also often buy from Steam where I can't resell them even if I did want to.

So this has no effect on me and I don't really mind.

 

[Thraxen]

What a terrible concept. So now publishers are going to start withholding single player content in an attempt to squash the used game market? And I already see that we have people here not seeing the big picture.

So you say you already buy new? Well, good for you, now try actually thinking. What if more devs take this route? Are we going to filling up our hard drive with single player content that should have already been on the disc? Let's say the game is awesome and you decide you want to play it again in 3-6 years but you have a different system or the content is no longer on your drive for whatever reason. Oops, sorry, that was a one time use code and you can no longer get your content. And even if the code was good more than once the servers providing the content have been shut down. Enjoy your incomplete single player game! Ditto for a dead system.

The precedent here is arguably worse than all that project $10 nonsense.

 

[lamedude]

Isn't one of the rules of gaming that sewers levels suck? They should force you to do the sewer levels if you buy used.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What a terrible concept. So now publishers are going to start withholding single player content in an attempt to squash the used game market? And I already see that we have people here not seeing the big picture.

So you say you already buy new? Well, good for you, now try actually thinking. What if more devs take this route? Are we going to filling up our hard drive with single player content that should have already been on the disc? Let's say the game is awesome and you decide you want to play it again in 3-6 years but you have a different system or the content is no longer on your drive for whatever reason. Oops, sorry, that was a one time use code and you can no longer get your content. And even if the code was good more than once the servers providing the content have been shut down. Enjoy your incomplete single player game! Ditto for a dead system.

The precedent here is arguably worse than all that project $10 nonsense.

Your argument falls flat. Who is actually going to want to play any games from like the last 5 years later on? That's why its not a big deal.

What I find funny is they're essentially advertising that they created something they don't feel adds anything to the game, and then act as though this should be motivation for you to pay more money for it? I mean, its getting laughable now.

They should start making you have to have complete Duke Nukem Forever before you can play their game, this way their game won't seem as bad after having played that. Unless it is, in which case they just duped you into buying two crappy games.

Next up, bundle Superman 64 for free, or maybe dig up the Atari E.T. games, this way they can proclaim they're including a free game.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Awesome idea. I think I'll expand on this idea to thwart the used market for all products! mwahahah.


**promptly rips out the last page of all books
**removes the last 10 minutes of all dvd's and blu-rays
**removes the heat and ac from the car
**removes 2 legs from the kitchen table and while I'm at it, removes 2 legs from the dog and cat as well.

I would have included CD's but who buys music these days

These software developers are GENIUS.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sure they'll be hurt that you'll never buy a used copy of their games again.

You have the same tunnel vision as corporate bean counters.

For a game to be purchased used, it first must have been purchased new, wouldn't you agree?

The person that bought that game new paid full retail price of $60 dollars knowing that he could later trade it in for a $30 credit to apply towards another game. This means his cost to play the game was $30.

If that person now knows that his trade in is worth less due to features like these, that changes the value proposition. If the original purchaser still pays $60 for the game but can only trade the game in for $20 due to the artificially decreased used value, playing this game now costs $40. Some people may choose simply not to buy the game at all based on the changed value proposition.

It's certainly within these companies rights to try this. They're hoping that they can convince someone who would have purchased the game used to instead purchased it new. If they can convince more people to purchase new due to degraded value of a used product than they turn away new purchasers who balk at the lowered value proposition, then the publisher wins. If not they lose.

Where it all seems to be leading is subscription, episodic and pay per play anyway. I doubt this single code nonsense will last long. It's more trouble than it's worth, designing content that may or may not draw customers because it's hidden unless you happen to know about it. Publishers would rather have you whip out your credit card every time you get to a new level. "You're about to fight The Boss. To continue, please click OK to charge the credit card you have on file."

 

[ImpulsE69]

You have the same tunnel vision as corporate bean counters.

"You're about to fight The Boss. To continue, please click OK to charge the credit card you have on file."

Shhh. Don't give them ideas.

 

[Keeper]

Shhh. Don't give them ideas.

I second that... WOW. That would SUCK lol.

 

[Beev]

The reason people who only buy new games support (or are indifferent) to things like this is because we can be objective about it. Those of you who usually or only buy used are, of course, going to be displeased.

What a terrible concept. So now publishers are going to start withholding single player content in an attempt to squash the used game market? And I already see that we have people here not seeing the big picture.

So you say you already buy new? Well, good for you, now try actually thinking. What if more devs take this route? Are we going to filling up our hard drive with single player content that should have already been on the disc? Let's say the game is awesome and you decide you want to play it again in 3-6 years but you have a different system or the content is no longer on your drive for whatever reason. Oops, sorry, that was a one time use code and you can no longer get your content. And even if the code was good more than once the servers providing the content have been shut down. Enjoy your incomplete single player game! Ditto for a dead system.

The precedent here is arguably worse than all that project $10 nonsense.

Most of the content IS on the disc. When you put in the code for buying the game new usually you just download a small 5kb unlock file . Doesn't make it better, but it's not wasting space.

You have the same tunnel vision as corporate bean counters.

For a game to be purchased used, it first must have been purchased new, wouldn't you agree?

The person that bought that game new paid full retail price of $60 dollars knowing that he could later trade it in for a $30 credit to apply towards another game. This means his cost to play the game was $30.

If that person now knows that his trade in is worth less due to features like these, that changes the value proposition. If the original purchaser still pays $60 for the game but can only trade the game in for $20 due to the artificially decreased used value, playing this game now costs $40. Some people may choose simply not to buy the game at all based on the changed value proposition.

I just don't see that happening on a large enough scale that they actually lose money.

Awesome idea. I think I'll expand on this idea to thwart the used market for all products! mwahahah.


**promptly rips out the last page of all books
**removes the last 10 minutes of all dvd's and blu-rays
**removes the heat and ac from the car
**removes 2 legs from the kitchen table and while I'm at it, removes 2 legs from the dog and cat as well.

I would have included CD's but who buys music these days

These software developers are GENIUS.

Your examples are terrible. The idea really only works for digital products you have to input a license key for. Maybe future blu-rays will use licenses

 

[Aikouka]

I don't really buy used games anyway. The only thing I tend to buy used for is the PS3 and that's only if the new price seems a little too high. I bought Heavenly Sword used from Amazon, but that's because it was $15 vs $30 and Blu-Ray discs are much more resilient to scratching.

Most of the content IS on the disc. When you put in the code for buying the game new usually you just download a small 5kb unlock file . Doesn't make it better, but it's not wasting space.

Ugh, I hate those. The point is that the money from game sales goes to fund the development, but I wonder did the development of that extra content get charged to the same pool as the base game did? If so, paying for the content is just double-dipping.

I don't mind paying for something that was created post-master (gold disc) as long as the price seems right.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I did say "expand" because lets face it, if this were to take off, it would go beyond what they are doing now. It was an exaggeration, but the idea is really the same.

Ultimately I don't really care, it's still an easy decision because I would hope one does their research prior to purchasing said game. If it has too much crippling then don't buy it. It doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor attempt at getting rid of the used market. It's really not any different than all the strangle holding that the music and movie industry have been doing for years. The whole "license to use" has been abused by the industry way too long. Why is digital content any different than any other product? It's not. It's an idea that has been put out there originally to keep people from reusing the same digital content in their own content and reselling it. Not to prevent users from doing what they wanted. It just happened to be an added benefit. They are twisting it to try to say you really don't have any rights to sell said content. I call bunk.

 

[Thraxen]

Your argument falls flat. Who is actually going to want to play any games from like the last 5 years later on? That's why its not a big deal.

Lots of people? A small group per game, sure, but plenty of people play older games from times to time. You haven't?

Besides that's just one aspect. What if you get a new system? Or your current system or hard drive dies? I mean, how many people here are still on their original XBox and hard drive? Approaching the end of this generation means that these issues won't be as big right now, but I'm more concerned about the precedent and the future ramifications. If more publishers start taking this path I don't think this is a good thing at all.

For example, look at that asinine project $10 that some here support for whatever idiotic reasons. When it started it was just one company hiding behind the excuses of server maintenance. Now it's several companies and that idea has led us to this current issue of cutting up single player games. This is exactly why no one should have supported the original MP crap because any moron should have been able to see that they wouldn't stop there.

 

[purbeast0]

Lots of people? A small group per game, sure, but plenty of people play older games from times to time. You haven't?

Besides that's just one aspect. What if you get a new system? Or your current system or hard drive dies? I mean, how many people here are still on their original XBox and hard drive? Approaching the end of this generation means that these issues won't be as big right now, but I'm more concerned about the precedent and the future ramifications. If more publishers start taking this path I don't think this is a good thing at all.

For example, look at that asinine project $10 that some here support for whatever idiotic reasons. When it started it was just one company hiding behind the excuses of server maintenance. Now it's several companies and that idea has led us to this current issue of cutting up single player games. This is exactly why no one should have supported the original MP crap because any moron should have been able to see that they wouldn't stop there.

i support it still and support what is being discussed in this thread as well.

again, as someone who very rarely buys used games, it has 0 effect on me.

and people who purchase from the use game market have 0 say in what developers are trying to do since they aren't an actual customer of the developers anyways.

 

[Thraxen]

i support it still and support what is being discussed in this thread as well.

again, as someone who very rarely buys used games, it has 0 effect on me.

and people who purchase from the use game market have 0 say in what developers are trying to do since they aren't an actual customer of the developers anyways.

Sure, it will have no impact until it actually does bite you in the ass. Say, when you buy a new game and your system dies while you're playing it. And, again, just keep supporting this utter nonsense and we'll find out just how far they take it.

Oh, and save the BS about used game buyers not contributing. There are numerous examples of why that's wrong, but I'm not going to bother debating those right now.