74 replies to this topic

[Cybergoth]

cimerians, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:04 AM, said:

And then this happens:

http://www.destructo...8Destructoid%29


http://www.joystiq.c...lc-code-issues/

Cybergoth, on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:24 PM, said:

So if you're buying it in 15 years hours, it's crippled, no matter what...

[vrocko]

cimerians, on Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:46 AM, said:

It's FOUR CHAPTERS OF THE MAIN GAME that are locked from single player and used copies:


"
One of the biggest news items this week was the confirmation that Batman: Arkham City would feature a unique spin on the "online pass" phenomenon -- locking the game's four Catwoman stages behind a code that could only be redeemed online.
My thoughts on regular online passes are clear enough, but this is a new thing entirely. It's not just a handful of small bonus rooms like RAGE, it is four sizable chapters from the story mode. Furthermore, those who play with their consoles offline (still a sizable chunk of the population) will have no way of playing these stages, whether they buy new or not.
Of course, there are those who will say, "I'm online and buying new, so it's not a big deal." Are they right? If you're looked after, does it matter about anyone else? In lieu of an actual online mode in Batman, is Rocksteady correct to section off a portion of the single-player mode? Is this the start of games locking even more content behind codes, and does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

http://www.destructo...h--213707.phtml

Well what really will suck is when the servers do finally shut down you can't get to those levels and play because there are no servers to go to anymore. I would hope, I know I'm being an optimist today, that a version with ALL the content on it will be put out like Forza 3 did. I don't like this at all. I want to buy a full game, used or new, not like this. It's like PC games that came out with bugs and problems and you have to download the next update to fix all the problems to be able to play the game. They are killing console gaming and we will have another crash at this pace.

I like what xg4bx says about the gaming industry, "the gaming industry needs me. i realized that i really dont need them." Maybe it's time to get out while I can. I have plenty of games to play without getting more. Why waste my time bitching about an industry that fits right in with those protesting Wall Street. It's all take, take, take, no give, no compromise. Greed rules.

[Mord]

Cybergoth, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:15 AM, said:

cimerians, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:04 AM, said:

And then this happens:

http://www.destructo...8Destructoid%29


http://www.joystiq.c...lc-code-issues/

Cybergoth, on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:24 PM, said:

So if you're buying it in 15 years hours, it's crippled, no matter what...

This isn't the first time DLC codes either broke or were missing as well. I -was- going to bring that up as another reason to hate on them but I figured I'd get the typical "oh that'll never happen" "that's exceedingly rare" or the more optimistic "I'll take my chances". etc etc.

Last time it happened, I forget the game it happened on offhand, but when they went to redeem their codes the company wasn't set up to accept them or something to that effect - but it still accepted them without giving the DLC it was suppose to. Thereby using the code and making it useless. Then gamers tried to get their rightful codes reinstated, the company simply said "No Refunds." - even after they admitted the error was their fault.

Coupons aren't the only thing that can go missing from games mind you, particularly in limited editions. When Ar Tonelico 3 was released, an email was sent out by NIS mentioning that a batch of the limited editions were missing their bonus CD. At least NIS was upfront enough with it and willing to send the CD to those who were affected.

[moycon]

Mord, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:31 PM, said:

At least NIS was upfront enough with it and willing to send the CD to those who were affected.

Sounds similar to this situation.

Users have been expressing their frustration on the official Arkham City message boards, but you’ll be pleased to know that Rocksteady and Warner Bros have already acknowledged the problems and have provided the following message on Twitter with specific reference to the Catwoman codes:

”We are aware that some people did not receive the Catwoman code in their game.You will get to play as the sexy thief,stay tuned for update”

BTW, has anyone mention how many of the millions of copies that were sold had this problem?
I dunno, this is surely a momentary issue for at least some people. Worth mentioning for sure, but can't see it qualifies as a FUBAR.
Thank to technologies today which I know some people are hesitant to embrace, it seems like an easily remedied "glitch".

BTW did you guys see Batman Arkham City is getting rave reviews from users and critics?

[Cybergoth]

moycon, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:38 PM, said:

BTW did you guys see Batman Arkham City is getting rave reviews from users and critics?

That only adds to the problem. If it was a pile of crap / EA game I could easily ignore whatever DRM/DLC/ETC nonsense they experiment with...

[cimerians]

moycon, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:38 PM, said:

Mord, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:31 PM, said:

At least NIS was upfront enough with it and willing to send the CD to those who were affected.

Sounds similar to this situation.

Users have been expressing their frustration on the official Arkham City message boards, but you’ll be pleased to know that Rocksteady and Warner Bros have already acknowledged the problems and have provided the following message on Twitter with specific reference to the Catwoman codes:

”We are aware that some people did not receive the Catwoman code in their game.You will get to play as the sexy thief,stay tuned for update”

BTW, has anyone mention how many of the millions of copies that were sold had this problem?
I dunno, this is surely a momentary issue for at least some people. Worth mentioning for sure, but can't see it qualifies as a FUBAR.
Thank to technologies today which I know some people are hesitant to embrace, it seems like an easily remedied "glitch".

BTW did you guys see Batman Arkham City is getting rave reviews from users and critics?

In some cases its not easily remedied at all. Luckily since this is a big time game I can see them fixing this but it doesnt matter if its one or one million people. It sucks when it happens to you. Its inexcusable to add an online pass and then screw up the codes packaged with new games.

Example: The Hunted Demon Forge was quite possibly the worst screw up on codes. Me and a friend and many others on their forums (and other forums, who the hell knows how many people were affected) never got the codes for pre-ordering. I never got assistance from the place I got mine (Wal-Mart) so I called Bethesda and the person on the phone made me take a photocopy of the receipt (yes a JPEG) and fill out a form and send it in. Two weeks later I got my code for the Assassin pack. Bethesda was helpful but again..inexcusable.

It sucks.

Edited by cimerians, Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:04 PM.

[cimerians]

Anyone care to say if they had a goof up?

Just curious.

Other than Hunted (which really pissed me off) I never received the pre-order items for Demons Souls. I had to call Gamestop and they sent me the mini guide and soundtrack fairly quickly.
Can't recall having other pre-order or code issues.

[Wntermute]

The only pack-in download codes I've ever had problems with were iTunes Digital Copy codes in WB movies. They set a lot of their early Digital Copy releases to expire on March 30, 2010 with no exceptions. Many other studios also put expiration dates on the code pages but still allowed Apple to redeem them.

The only game-related code I've had problems with was one for a pack of avatars from the Ratchet & Clank All-4-One game, but watching a video gave me another code that was good for them anyway.

[Mendon]

moycon, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:38 PM, said:

I dunno, this is surely a momentary issue for at least some people. Worth mentioning for sure, but can't see it qualifies as a FUBAR.
Thank to technologies today which I know some people are hesitant to embrace, it seems like an easily remedied "glitch".

Forgetting any other possible issues (whether developers are being screwed, greedy profit motives from companies like EA, etc) surrounding the Online - Offline Pass, instituting an Offline Pass is more than an "easily remedied glitch" and truly is a FUBAR for some people.

Example: my best friend is a PS3 phat owner and when Sony forced an update on owners that removed Other OS capabilities, my friend completely and totally refused to EVER take his PS3 online to receive that update. He 100% doesn't trust Sony with their firmware updates in any way and has since kept his PS3 for the sole purpose of tinkering and offline gaming.

He enjoyed Asylum and had pre-ordered City, but when he heard that it contained a code that he had to use online to access the full game he was paying for, he cancelled his pre-order and is PO'd beyond belief.

He simply uses his PS3 offline but because of an Offline Pass that forces you to go online to use it, he is in a situation that is FUBAR'd.

Example: many people in the U.S. do not have high speed internet; I read not too long ago that as high as 40% of the country isn't even wired for high speed internet. These people will now pay full price for a game but not be able to play that full game simply because they have no way to access the code via the internet. They are in a situation that is FUBAR'd.

As I said in a previous post, the day where no physical media games are distributed is fast approaching and the entire issue of Online - Offline Passes will be mute. With digital downloads, there will no longer be any issue with paying for servers or buying used games or whether developers are being screwed. You download it, its totally paid for in full, and the game company gets 100% profit without used game sales/trades cutting in.

Perhaps with the FUBAR'd way that these Online - Offline Passes are now being handled, the quicker non-physical media distribution gets here the better it will be. I won't be taking part in it but at least people that do take part will get 100% of the game they are paying for rather than missing 25% of the game that some now are experiencing.


Mendon

Edited by Mendon, Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:46 PM.

[moycon]

Mendon, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:45 PM, said:

Example: many people in the U.S. do not have high speed internet; I read not too long ago that as high as 40% of the country isn't even wired for high speed internet. These people will now pay full price for a game but not be able to play that full game simply because they have no way to access the code via the internet. They are in a situation that is FUBAR'd.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, although I'd be willing to bet the number of people interested in state of the art technologies including video game systems/media centers without high speed internet access is considerably lower, and of those left the remaining ones could access a LAN if only long enough to download some DLC. Still you're right. Not an ideal situation for a handful of people. I'm not forgetting or discounting any situations that could cause problems for people. Even when something changes, you usually have to work out some kinks. It's expected. No one has been able to provide even an estimate of people with issue like this. Of the millions of consumers who bought into the 360 and the PS3 I'd imagine based on the public outcry, the numbers are pretty slim. This is a major change. Look around you and it should be obvious in the last decade the internet has changed almost all aspects of everything. When it comes to gaming, and adapting to this new technology. I suspect there will be kinks. Everyone should.

I'll admit the system in currently flawed to include everyone. However most products are manufactured for the masses. You cannot please or accommodate each and every consumer. Your friend was perfectly capable of complying and chose to bow out. That's fine, he didn't like the current policies, he decided not to participate. His only mistake was he did it halfheartedly and now that a game came along he really was interested in, all he did was upset himself. Not sure why he's PO'd though. If he made a product or came up with a service he should be able to do what he wants with it in my opinion. He should be able to do what he thinks is best for him with regards to his product/service. If he wants to charge a million dollars for it, so be it. If he requires me to sign an agreement. That's Ok too. He's not going to force me to buy into anything. If I don't agree with any stipulations he gives me to use his product/service, I'm not going to get mad, especially not at him. I'm pretty sure I could find a bazilion other things to do and one of them isn't worrying about his prices, policies or stipulations.

[Mendon]

moycon, on Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:31 PM, said:

His only mistake was he did it halfheartedly and now that a game came along he really was interested in, all he did was upset himself. Not sure why he's PO'd though.

I believe he's PO'd because the rules were changed shortly after he invested heavily into the system. He was sold one business model... a gaming system with expressed functionality along with full access to multiplayer and single player gaming.... then shortly after his purchase, the hardware and software makers substituted a different type of business model than the advertised one he had bought into.

My friend bought a console that had expressed functionality and after he made his purchase, Sony decided to take away some of that functionality. And if my friend decided to not surrender the functionality that he had already paid for, then Sony would take away his online access, including even the ability to buy items from the PSN Store. He was damned if he did and damed if he didn't.... Sony would one way or another take away advertised functionality that might sway one to make a purchase.

(NOTE: I'm not really sure who "shot themselves in the foot" worse in this Other OS case: my friend for denying himself access to the PSN Store or Sony for denying shareholders additional profit due to my friends inability to spend money... maybe they are both just stubborn)

And now he's being denied full access to single player games that he buys new and shrinkwrapped.

I don't think his anger is totally unreasonable. To me, its sort of like when you are hungry as hell and you want steak... lots of steak... so you go to an "All You Can Eat Steak & Seafood Buffet". You pay your money, grab your tray, and then find they are out of steak just as you reach the grill window. Sure, there are a lot of other things you can eat... plenty of sides, seafood, salad bar, deserts. But you wanted STEAK and you paid for STEAK.

Quote

If he made a product or came up with a service he should be able to do what he wants with it in my opinion. He should be able to do what he thinks is best for him with regards to his product/service. If he wants to charge a million dollars for it, so be it. If he requires me to sign an agreement. That's Ok too. He's not going to force me to buy into anything. If I don't agree with any stipulations he gives me to use his product/service, I'm not going to get mad, especially not at him. I'm pretty sure I could find a bazilion other things to do and one of them isn't worrying about his prices, policies or stipulations.

I agree with you 100%. I also believe fully in the marketplace. The only problem with this theory, though, is that one might find oneself without alternatives.

As an example, you and I might believe Bank of America is totally wrong and its completely unacceptable to charge customers $5 a month for use of a Debit Card. Under our mutual belief, we just close our BOA accounts and move to another institution. Problem solved, the world marches on.

But what if EVERY financial institution employs this Debit Card fee.... what then is the alternative for customers to use to sway any change in the marketplace? And if we can't sway change, are we not, as a society, possibly in more trouble than we realize?


I don't believe it will happen nor do I wish for another video game crash. For myself, I simply don't like the direction that gaming is taking and am removing myself from partaking in it. Rather than continue to constantly "Rage Against The Machine", I will find an alternative, Retro Gaming, and enjoy it.

I wish things were different. I wish, as my Mother used to say about me, that I could "Have my cake and eat it too". But that's impossible and at least I'm smart enough to realize it.


Mendon

Edited by Mendon, Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:40 AM.

[potatohead]

This is exactly why some market rules to insure real competition are important. When there are too few players, they collude. Always have, always will. And the end game on that is "Highlander", there can be only one! Where there are a few, they carve out fiefdoms where the illusion of choice is there, but not the reality. Think cell phone carriers today. Lots of smaller suppliers prevents that, insuring we do see value for the $$$.

Pushing back on lower value expectations is never a bad idea, even if they don't impact us directly. Lower enough of them, and we will be impacted, meaning it's better to not even go down that road.

Speak or be spoken for, and vote with your feet.

[cimerians]

Mendon, on Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:18 AM, said:

As an example, you and I might believe Bank of America is totally wrong and its completely unacceptable to charge customers $5 a month for use of a Debit Card. Under our mutual belief, we just close our BOA accounts and move to another institution. Problem solved, the world marches on.

BOA screwed me completely on the lending for the new home. I had to go to another lender who got it done in 8 days and gave me a better rate. Long story short, they totally sat on the loan application and were very negligent on the whole thing. Never seen anything quite like that and I'm still trying to get my $400 loan application fee back.

Anyway, another thing I hate is when you wait a while and then they give you the whole game after they made their money off of the early buyers and downloaders. LA Noire "Complete" is coming out soon. Very crafty if you ask me.

http://www.destructo...15-214134.phtml

[potatohead]

That's actually common.

There is a technology adoption cycle, and it applies to most product offerings. Goes like this:

1. Early adopters. These people play the trends and are generally willing to spend a lot to capture value early. They are worth a lot of money, because they are willing and able to spend big to get it early, for whatever reason. And there are a lot of reasons.

2. Early majority. These people are actually worth MORE, because they more or less offer the highest volume and margins for the best case value offering, and buy right after the early adopters and they buy in large numbers.

3. Majority. Middle case. Good margins, looking for proven stuff, but still willing to pay.

4. Late majority. They pay thinner margins and are conservative. Generally do not buy without a deal being offered.

5. Laggards. Thin margins only, proven only, always looking for deep discounts.

When a product is created, there is a total profit potential when you add all those up. Being late to the marketplace, for example, can take HALF that total profit potential off the table, simply because the higher margin deals are already done, leaving just moderate and thin to profit from.

It used to be that early product releases were solid, just very expensive. Now, it's just early, somehow validating poorly tested products has wiggled into the early adopter role. They still pay high margins, but don't always see the value. Being early is worth THAT MUCH!! Amazing to me. Many have moved to the early majority to avoid this, changing the rules some.

So yeah, maybe crafty, but perfectly reasonable to do. Anybody not doing releases and packages to target those tiers of buyers will leave a LOT of money on the table.

[xg4bx]

remember when buying something new was its own reward because you got a shiny, perfect item? you'd buy a game new because you didnt want poopy fingerprints all over it? youd buy a new dryer because you had no guarantees with a used one, who knew how roughly the previous owner handled it? youd buy a new book because the used copy was beat up? how buying used was looked down on because it made you seem cheap?

this really doesnt have anything to do with anything lol, i was just thinking out loud.

[moycon]

xg4bx, on Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:03 PM, said:

this really doesnt have anything to do with anything lol, i was just thinking out loud.

It has to do with buying something...in the past.
You could drive to Sears, plunk down some cash and recieved a physical copy of a game to take home and play.
You can still do that with many titles, but we're also moving into the future. Remember that movie Total Recall?
These days we can spend money on that same game and not receive any physical thing in return.
What we bought was an experience and memories just like that movie.
Sucks for collectors for sure. Hard to collect 1's and 0's.

[potatohead]

Yeah, I got the "total recall" cool can case. I like that stuff, and think it's a nice value.

[cimerians]

And now.....some games are just a "service":

http://www.destructo...e--215044.phtml

Cha-ching for EA!

[potatohead]

Only if you sign on.

Frankly, if that is their model, the buy in should be cheap ass, like take the free trial, and if it rocks hard, supply billing info and go from there. Selling it both as a "game" and "service" is double-dipping to me. No thanks.

Done that way, they have a strong incentive to actually add a lot of value, paying down their risk and investment old school, by earning it.

As it is, this is a clear "have cake", "wants to eat it too" scenario where they hope the initial flurry of purchases gets them a profit, with no worries beyond that, gravy. That's not really a good scenario for the consumer. Never is.

[cimerians]

+1 love for Nintendo

http://www.destructo...es-216050.phtml

[godslabrat]

cimerians, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:39 PM, said:

+1 love for Nintendo

http://www.destructo...es-216050.phtml

Quote

"When we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they've had a complete experience," he said. "We're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later. That's what [Nintendo representatives] don't want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that." -The Regmeister

That's all well and good, but how exactly does Nintendo plan to enforce that? I wonder if he plans to make that stick across all Wii/3DS developers, or just 1st and 2nd party stuff.

Funny, not long ago, I contemplated the possibility that Ninendo's poor rapport with 3rd parties might be because they're not encouraging the "games as a service" revenue model. I wonder if there might be more truth to that than I had thought?

[cimerians]

godslabrat, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:55 PM, said:

cimerians, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:39 PM, said:

+1 love for Nintendo

http://www.destructo...es-216050.phtml

Quote

"When we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they've had a complete experience," he said. "We're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later. That's what [Nintendo representatives] don't want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that." -The Regmeister

That's all well and good, but how exactly does Nintendo plan to enforce that? I wonder if he plans to make that stick across all Wii/3DS developers, or just 1st and 2nd party stuff.

Funny, not long ago, I contemplated the possibility that Ninendo's poor rapport with 3rd parties might be because they're not encouraging the "games as a service" revenue model. I wonder if there might be more truth to that than I had thought?

Could be true. Honestly I like hearing this but I'm wary of it. At the very least its nice to hear. Lets see what really happens though. I cant see them doing a Batman Arkham City with Mario or even what Bandai and Capcom have done these last few years. (In terms of the inane amount of DLC and DRM)

[Atariboy]

Considering they've let the exact opposite happen well before publishers like EA started this on the HD consoles, I wouldn't listen to it. Things like the Taito WiiWare games are exactly what he's claiming they wouldn't let happen on a Nintendo platform.

[potatohead]

Seems to me, having the majors go down this road opens the door for small / indie / homebrew to make inroads and get mind / market share. A game that just exists as a game, where somebody can get it, play it, pass it on is becoming a very high value thing, simply because of these kinds of "business" innovations.

Usually, that "innovation" includes phrases like, "extract revenue from the customer". Not cool.

[Austin]

Well, with this kind of crap going on and with Nintendo's stance on games, I can certainly see myself using the Wii-U as my primary console for a while. I'm getting tired of the passes, I'm getting tired of the stripped game content, and I am especially getting tired of technical difficulties leading me to not be able to access my games. Fooooor instance, my XBOX Live account got suspended because of an auto-renewal issue. Fine, whatever, I don't have Gold anymore, I don't really care, I don't plan on playing online anytime soon. The problem is, now Microsoft won't let me access a third of my XBLA games I purchased--ones that do not require you to have an online connection, by the way--even with me playing them on the correct profile on the correct, license-transferred/registered system. What. The. *$&@. As a result, I have been stocking up on Wii games this past week. You know, ones I know are going to work without issues.