Have you played a BioWare game before?  Playing through the game once is not "beating it".  People who play primarily for the story are those who hold onto it and go through it with several different characters spanning possibly hundreds of hours.

I give all Bioware games at least 2 playthroughs, even Dragon Age II, and I didn't like that game all that much. The only time I didn't was Dragon Age: Awakening, because that game (expansion really) was way too buggy for me to delve into again.

I agree with Matt. Except on Dragon Age II. The story line was just getting interesting and all of a sudden the credits were rolling, my eyes glazed over with the sparkle of a tear and glimpses of Fable III rolling through my mind as my controller slipped from my fingers and a whispered "why" rolled off my tongue. I only went through that once.

I played through both Mass Effect I and II and Dragon Age and the expansion four times each. I know I'm not the only one out there like this. I very rearely sell back games. Especially big RPG's like this. The play through potential is endless and the few empty achievements I have left mock my hundreds of hours of gametime.

I wouldn't necessarily call this a money grab though. They sold the special edition at a fairly regular special edition price and they only sold an actual limited amount of them. They sold out in november. So only the die hard fans who were spamming the pre order button the second it popped into existance on the internet, the clever greedy bastards who picked up 8 copies, and the poor saps who buy the other seven from them at insanely inflated prices will get to enjoy this because it's "special content". You have to give bioware credit on this one. They made a real special edition. Not like the majority of so called "Special Editions" that you see on store shelves even a year after they come out because an endless supply was produced. That is a money grab. This was just good old fashion get it while you can limited content. Quit bitching... bitches... I missed out on it too.

Thanks for the lore fact check. Paragraph amended.

A year? Heck, wait one week and you will already see a ton of places selling games new and used for $40 or less. You can go on Ebay and buy any recent release for $40, used. If you must buy it new, places like Amazon drop prices very, very quickly as well.

I was referring more to GOTY editions (i.e. with all DLC on the disc), but your point is still valid.

I remember when Bioware released the Warden's Keep DLC for Dragon Age: Origins. It was a crappy, buggy little mission that added nothing to the story, but included a chest to store items in, which should have been in the main game. Warden's Keep was also day one DLC, and people were also pissed. Not as much as with ME3 (Warden's Keep didn't cost $10 either), but still, Bioware should have learned better.
 

Actually, I *won't* be buying either the game or the DLC next Tuesday.  I put my money where my mouth is and just cancelled my reserved copy at my local game store.  I'll wait a couple of months for the price drop, pick it up second-hand, save myself some money, and make sure that the vendor gets all of it and that EA doesn't see one thin dime from me.

Of course, EA are free to charge what the market will bear, but this lone segment of the market refuses to bear it.  EA can kiss my ass.

While I do feel bad about developers closing up and people loosing their jobs, as a consumer, it is not my perogative to keep publishers and developers in business. My perogative is to fulfill my desire for entertainment at a point in which I am both capable and willing to pay for it.

Also, used games do not hurt publishers as much as they would like you to think. Every used game was purchased new, so EA has already recieved their cut. They've also began using online passes as a way to discourage used game sales, which in turn should encourage new game sales. In previous EA published Bioware games, this online pass was a character and a small sidequest, which is exactly what From Ashes is. However, instead of a character, the online pass unlocks multiplayer, a feature I do not want and will not use. Mass Effect is a good game, but combat is not Bioware's strongest aspect, and that is all the multiplayer is. I don't want it, so why should I buy it new?

I don't particularly hate EA, or Bioware. In fact, I bought Mass Effect, Dead Space, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, and Dragon Age II on day one at full price. However, EA and Bioware don't seem to be giving me an incentive to purchase ME3 new. Instead, they're just agrivating me.

"While I do feel bad about developers closing up and people loosing their jobs, as a consumer, it is not my perogative to keep publishers and developers in business. My perogative is to fulfill my desire for entertainment at a point in which I am both capable and willing to pay for it."

As a consumer your activities (along with others) definitely play a role in keeping a publisher and developer in business.  This in and of itself is not a bad thing.  You can elect to not spend money and thus make your feelings "known".


"Also, used games do not hurt publishers as much as they would like you to think. Every used game was purchased new, so EA has already recieved their cut."

Are you really this niave or do you think I am?  Used games take a BIG CHUNK from developers and publishers now.  People are selling games used days after the release (not just a scant few, usually used supplies after a week are quite plentiful). 

As the consumer if you are sitting there looking at New AAA Game and Used AAA Game, with the only diffference being Used AAA Game is $10 less -- which one do you think people are going to buy?

You completely missed my point about Used Games being an unauthorized sales channel.  Before GameStop used game sales developers could rely on at least a few to several weeks of fairly robust game sales.  In the mass used market this isn't possible any more.  Why do you think there is so much hyper over games' launches now?  Why do you think there are so many midnight launches?  They want to maximize as many sales on day one as possible now.


"They've also began using online passes as a way to discourage used game sales, which in turn should encourage new game sales. "

Yes but this is fairly new and you and I are not privy to the success of this business model.   You can't just assume just because they have established a program it is a whopping success.

In reference to EA hate, at this point it's an obvious knee-jerk reaction.  IMHO Activision is far more robust in their money grabs.  Especially when you consider of the success of the COD series and the fact they now offer subscription service at $50 a year that STILL DOESN'T INCLUDE DEDICATED SERVERS.  I find that repugnant, and you know what, I didn't take to the internet and bitch about it in an article.  I simply stopped buying Activision.  But I am not a big fan of being a hypocrite. :)  For some people it doesn't seem to be a problem.

First, you're assuming that everyone who buys a used game would have bought it new if there was no used alternative, which cannot be proven. Second, if there are, "usually used supplies after a week are quite plentiful," as you say, that would indicate that a lot of people purchased the game new. Every used game must be purchased new first before it is used.

Also, if no one lets a publisher or developer know that they don't like what is going on, how is the publisher/developer supposed to know? Osmosis? I admire that you don't give your money to Activision because of their money grubbing ways, but how are they supposed to know why you aren't buying their products? Sales data only provides half the story. The other half? Consumer feedback, which mostly comes down to whining on the internet. And that's what I'm doing.

"First, you're assuming that everyone who buys a used game would have bought it new if there was no used alternative, which cannot be proven."

Actually you are assuming I am assuming.  What you say isn't a rebuttle at all. Used sales now compete with new sales.  That is a matter of fact.  Used game buyers have a bargain hunter mentality because they know that the games will be available at a discount within days.  Anyone who has taken any marketing courses knows that establishing clear cut discount time frames can wreak havok on your sales channels since you are creating a predicible scenario for people to obtain discounts.  With used sales this is even worse because the publiser has absolutely no control over this, and they have to comepete in a retroactive fashion which only creates more complexities in the sales channel (and less profits). 

Obviously there is a market segment that ONLY buys used, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a market to make it worth GameStop's while.


"Second, if there are, "usually used supplies after a week are quite plentiful," as you say, that would indicate that a lot of people purchased the game new. Every used game must be purchased new first before it is used."

Yeah I addressed this already in a previous comment.  Used game sales account for the amount of hype that goes into every AAA title now.  Those day 1 dollars are very precious and the publisher and developer will be competing with their own discounted products in the used channel as soon as the very next day.  So day 1 sales fueling day 2 - to the first week used sales by no means elevates your arguement and only strengthens what I am saying.


"Also, if no one lets a publisher or developer know that they don't like what is going on, how is the publisher/developer supposed to know? Osmosis?"

You could break out a pen and paper and hand write a letter.  In this day and age of the internet, hand written letters definitely get read.  you could start a petition that wasn't inflamitory (although, I find this to be group whining, but I understand why people do it on occasion).

Or you could simply NOT BUY the game that you feel is gouging.  At the end of the day I think all of these gouging accusations are sensationalized.  I really think there is an utter lack of understanding about this busines by the customers (gamers).  Most gamers are over entitled free-tards, so at this point it is hard for EA to tell who is serious about their complaints, and who is just piling on to "join the club".

I am afraid the Gamer Audience has cried wolf far too many times to be taken seriously about this. 


"I admire that you don't give your money to Activision because of their money grubbing ways, but how are they supposed to know why you aren't buying their products? Sales data only provides half the story."

Well if enough people agree with me about Activision it won't take long for them to notice (espeically for COD).  If people don't agree with me, than who am I to say that Activision is wrong?  Obviously they are doing something write, their audience is happy to pay $60 for a game as well as $50 for Elite or up to $60 for DLC.  They have multiple avenues for alternate revenues and I applaud them for that.  What I have a beef with in terms of Activision is they are siffling innovation.  They are a sequel house that airs on the side of caution and rarely make anything that is truely groundbreaking.  I was equally dismayed at their decision to NOT have dedicated servers considering the amount of money they made and how shitty the game runs.  Also of course I wasn't happy with the treatment of IW when they were dismissed.

Should I tell Activison about this?  I mean maybe it was a brand name I loved on the Atari 2600. :)  But you know I am not really concerned with them and I am sure they will do just fine without my business.


"The other half? Consumer feedback, which mostly comes down to whining on the internet. And that's what I'm doing."

When was the last time you took whining seriously though?  And what happens when all these authors writing pretty much the same article crying about the same shit (like they did with Batman AC about Catwoman, same arguements were made). 

Like I said the gaming audience has cried wolf too many times.  I am pretty sure this is falling on deaf ears because at the end of the day, EA has a bottom line and this DLC plays a role in that or they wouldn't have released it Day 1.

Of course I'm assuming that you're assuming....because you're assuming. You're assuming that publishers are entitled to money from used game sales. They are not. In fact, they have already made their money off of a sale, when the game was first purchased new. First-sale doctrine and all that.

Are used game sales competing with new game sales? Maybe. Just because someone bought a used game at a lower price, does not mean that they would have bought it new.

Also, saying that "Used game sales account for the amount of hype that goes into every AAA title now," is an assumption. How do you know this? Where you in the PR/marketing meeting where EA said, "We have to send Mass Effect 3 into space to combat used sales"?

Marketing and hype don't exist to combat used sales, they create excitement for a product launch that is extremely front loaded. Most games will have a high sales numbers in their first week, and then steadily decline. Online passes and other incentives (like special editions, pre-order bonuses) are used to discourage used game sales.

However, if buying a used game hurts EA as much as you would like me to think it does, then, I am more than happy to buy Mass Effect 3 used.

Anyway, there's only one way this used game debate goes, and that's in a circle. I admire that you're strong in your convictions, and I like your approach in regards to Activision. However, I don't agree that silence is the best option, and if there is an outlet for my voice to be heard, then I will take it. And on that note, I believe it is best that we simply agree to disagree.

Cheers.

@Matthew

I am not confident you are even reading my replies.  It seems you are just skimming to the end and not reading the content of what I am saying I have to repeat myself again, because you think I am making "assumptions" about the game industry, when it is you that are making the assumptions.

"You're assuming that publishers are entitled to money from used game sales"

I never said that.  I pointed out that used game sales account for an additional marketplace where the content creator has to compete with their own content but at a discount rate.  This in and of itself is a problem, it would be a problem in ANY industry.  What would happen to the car industry if everyone decided they were done with their cars in a week? (I freely admit this isn't likely, but I am illustrating a point that you seem incapable of accepting at it's face).

"In fact, they have already made their money off of a sale, when the game was first purchased new."

That is true, but the used game market is not some flea market cottage affair anymore.  This is a multi-million dollar marketplace.  Game publishers and developers do not spend 10s of millions on AAA or millions on sub-AAA titles just to subsidize the used marketplace.  Which is what is happening now. 

Before Online Passes (and Day 1 DLC to some extent), there was literally no value difference between a new and used game.  Sure you may have been missing the instruction manual.  Maybe you had to remove a sticker from the side of the game case.  You put in a used gamd and you put in a new game, they are going to act about the same.  This is not a big secret and used game buyers rely on this to feed their discount oriented shopping.

"Are used game sales competing with new game sales? Maybe."

Just maybe? LOL  I mean GameStop has all of the used games front and center now.   Any entity that sells used games will always look to sell the used over the new because the profit is higher for them.  I think I have clearly demonstrated that new games compete with used.  When GameStop offers you extra trade in value for week old games, there is a reason for that. 

"Just because someone bought a used game at a lower price, does not mean that they would have bought it new."

That may be true, but that doesn't really give any creedence to what you are saying which in summary seems to be that Game Companies are stinking rich and they are just looking to whore out their auidience with a never ending parade of optional content that 'should have been included on the disc'.  The fact is before GameStop was so successful (the piss poor economy helps fuel that) game developers were not shutting their doors every other month.  You may say that is coincidence, but I think there is a correlation.


"Also, saying that "Used game sales account for the amount of hype that goes into every AAA title now," is an assumption. How do you know this? Where you in the PR/marketing meeting where EA said, "We have to send Mass Effect 3 into space to combat used sales"?"

I don't need to be privy to meetings to understand this.  Pretty much every AAA title that comes out now has a midnight launch.  This used to be reserved for only the MOST popular games. Twitter, Facebook play into this quite well.  Having strong hype helps propell day 1 sales.  Day 1 sales are almost always all new sales.  Why wouldn't a publisher want to make the most of that? 

I am not saying that is THE ONLY reason games are hyped so much, but I definitely see an uptick in the hype this generation.  The need to connect with the customer is much stronger since their are dual sales channels.

"Most games will have a high sales numbers in their first week, and then steadily decline."

it wasn't always like this.  Back when I gamed on the PC, DLC used to be free it was a way to get games selling again.  Now in the day and age of used games and vast piracy there is a steady decline not only does the appitite for the game subside but the ability for people to satisfy that appitite outside of the new game sale exists now.


"However, if buying a used game hurts EA as much as you would like me to think it does, then, I am more than happy to buy Mass Effect 3 used."

That's the thing and you are demonstrating some ignorance here.  When was the last time you heard a publisher go out of business?  A publisher does not absorb all risks by a developer which is why some games that seem to have potiential never see the light of day.  Buying the game used will likely hurt Bioware first.  As I am sure EA has frontloaded their contract with the developer to cover their end.

"Anyway, there's only one way this used game debate goes, and that's in a circle."

Yes when speaking with someone as hard headed as you that can't seem to escape the template of "EA is evil" we will go in circles all day, because IMHO you enter this debate with a wholfuly false premise that the rest of your arguement stand on like a house of cards.  That premise is that software developers do not have the right to generate alternate revenue streams.


"I like your approach in regards to Activision. However, I don't agree that silence is the best option, and if there is an outlet for my voice to be heard, then I will take it."

I like to speak with actions, and your article may have some point to it, overall it just comes off as more gamerage.  

This never ending parade of Mass Effect 3 DLC is going to disappear as soon as the game is released (maybe a week after).  You know what -- no one will give a shit.  Not even you, you will be playing ME3 with the DLC in effect paying $70 to help subsidize the used game industry. :)

You are just crying wolf like every other entitled author out there.  You dont like the way someone does business -- YOU WALK.  If you want to encourage others to do the same thing more power to you.  Actions speak way louder than words.

This article is just crying wolf because the publishers have seen this kind of 'backlash' before.

Do you plan on keeping your money where your mouth is though?  Many people complain, talk is cheap. 

Save at least ten bucks AND flip off EA's increasingly-annoying ways of popping up in my favorite games in ways that usually affect my wallet?  I'll wait until 100% of the planets in ME2 have been stripped of all their minerals, all upgrades have been found/purchased and I've successfully found a way to save each and every crew member during the last mission... and THEN I will pick up Mass Effect 3 at Gamestop for $55.

After they did me the favor of making all Dragon Age 2 DLC multiplatform so that when I switched to another console I still had access to my purchases, I had assumed that they had learned something, that giving the customer what they want in an accessible and friendly matter would be profitable.

I should have known better.  Screw 'em.

I guess I have to count my blessings and be thankful they didn't include it on the disc like Capcom did with SFxTekken.  I have mixed feelings about that, but still, knowing things are on the disc behind a moneygate is damned insulting.  Just put a $90 pricetag on the game and get it over with.  It's even nice for the poor kids without the internets.

The best way you demonstrate you do not like what a company is doing in terms of PRICING is NOT BUYING.  Used, New or otherwise.

Anything else is just whining IMHO.  Change your diapers.