Anger With Game Content Lock Spurs Reaction From Studio Head Curt Shilling [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/qQaPWIv-rojPjFOyyGOtx0csPcw/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/qQaPWIv-rojPjFOyyGOtx0csPcw/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/qQaPWIv-rojPjFOyyGOtx0csPcw/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/qQaPWIv-rojPjFOyyGOtx0csPcw/1/da)
MojoKid writes "Studios and publishers are fighting back hard against the used game market, with the upcoming title Kingdoms of Amular, the latest to declare it will use a content lock. In this case, KoA ups the ante by locking out part of the game that's normally available in single-player mode. Gamers exploded, with many angry that game content that had shipped on the physical disc was locked away and missing, as well as being angry at the fact that content was withheld from used game players. One forum thread asking if the studio fought back against allowing EA to lock the content, went on for 49 pages before Curt Shilling, the head of 38 Studios, took to the forums himself. His commentary on the situation is blunt and to the point. 'This is not 38 trying to take more of your money, or EA in this case, this is us rewarding people for helping us! If you disagree due to methodology, ok, but that is our intent... companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.'"http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Anger+With+Game+Content+Lock+Spurs+Rea ction+From+Studio+Head+Curt+Shilling%3A+http%3A%2F %2Fbit.ly%2FzLXEmi)http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F01%2F30%2F0216258%2Fanger-with-game-content-lock-spurs-reaction-from-studio-head-curt-shilling%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfa cebook)http://www.digitpress.com//a.fsdn.com/sd/googleplus_icon_large.png (https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/confirm?hl=en&url=http://slashdot.org)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/01/30/0216258/anger-with-game-content-lock-spurs-reaction-from-studio-head-curt-shilling?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/G24Afd1FLbs

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/G24Afd1FLbs/anger-with-game-content-lock-spurs-reaction-from-studio-head-curt-shilling)

[Gamereviewgod]

This is becoming a nightmare for the future. Can anyone imagine this board in 20 years?

"Hey, does anyone have that one piece of X game that was cut and included as a pass?"

There will be more interest in tracking this junk down than the games. All of the blame is being wrongly placed. The used market is a non-issue.

Publishers need to step back and realize how much of what they're doing isn't working. Oct./Nov. last year had 15 retail releases for a month straight on the 360 alone. When something in that pile, up against the Modern Warfare's of the world mind you, doesn't sell, it's because people buy used games. Uh huh.

Attack the customer. That always goes well.

[SpaceHarrier]

Maybe I'm alone on this.. I hadn't even heard of this game until this thread. The title of this game couldn't get much more generic.

This reminds me of the music industry almost ten years ago. Trying a bunch of tactics to stop their perceived loss of sales, meanwhile solely inconveniencing and screwing over their loyal, paying customers with copy protection and rootkits. This too only affects the consumer who is playing by the rules (by the very annoyance of having to deal with unlocking content, as well as relying on hardware to not FAIL - thereby losing access to part-or-whole of a purchased product).

I'm sure someone somewhere on the webz will have an unlocked version of this game that costs $0 and alot of people will take that route.

I wonder if this kind of thing will continue to proliferate until it angers the mainstream gaming audience and triggers a mirroring of what the music industry has had to deal with (vast drop in the volume of physical media sales, and survival through digital distribution). It certainly seems to be going that way.

[Zthun]

People aren't willing to pay $60 for a new game. This is the problem. New games cost too much. Period.

[kupomogli]

up against the Modern Warfare's of the world mind you, doesn't sell, it's because people buy used games. Uh huh.

It's not because the games aren't any good, though.

Activision got lucky and fell into a gold mine is what you could compare the Call of Duty series to. The series sells a good 10 million on day one for how average it is, the large amount of overpriced map packs sell in the millions, etc. Does it matter if Call of Duty gets used sales? Why would it when most of the fanbase buys it and doesn't sell it. I know a few people who have nothing but FPS titles and they have every single Call of Duty game.

Gaming in todays gen is mostly mediocrity. The developers that do develop great games usually don't get the sales and is overshadowed by a lot of AAA garbage that doesn't deserve the time of day. Final Fantasy 13-2 is coming out soon. I'm sure the game is going to sell a shit load despite how piece of shit the first Final Fantasy 13 was and how terrible the demo was.

I've heard about Kingdoms of Amalur, but I didn't pay it any mind until a friend mentioned it a month ago. When I originally saw it, like Space Harrier mentioned, the game just sounded generic so I didn't even bother paying it any mind. After having mention of it from a friend I looked it up, and it immediately bumped up to one of my most anticipated games. It's a more action oriented loot drop game. If you're not a fan of the genre, this game probably won't change you, but if you like the genre even a little bit, it's definitely a game to purchase. Preorder Kingdoms of Amalur from Toys R Us $45 plus shipping.

There's a demo on both XBL and PSN. I'd recommend downloading it and seeing if you like it. You get to play through the tutorial and once finishing the tutorial, you have 45 minutes to do as many quests and explore as you'd like. You can't go too far into the game, but in the areas you're limited to there's a lot to do. Pausing also doesn't waste any of your 45 minutes. It's unfortunate, but like Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, and The Saboteur, Kingdoms of Amalur is probably going to be another one of these gems that no one has played.


People aren't willing to pay $60 for a new game. This is the problem. New games cost too much. Period.

False statement. People are willing to pay $60 for a new game. Unfortunately, people pay $60 on the overhyped bullshit and then ignore anything good that comes along. Then they all jump on a forum thread and bitch about the developer.

I don't like DLC, especially disc locked content, but it's easy to see where the developer is coming from.

[JSoup]

People aren't willing to pay $60 for a new game. This is the problem. New games cost too much. Period.

Then where do all the used games come from, I wonder.

[Tokimemofan]

How about a distribution contract requiring x% of used profits to be paid to the publisher or the new ones don't show up for 30 days after release, that would fix the $60 new but how about $55 for the used one we bought for $15 from the schmuck who sat on it.

[Porksta]

Do keep in mind - this isn't actually stuff on the disc - it is Day 1 DLC. Of course, one could just argue semantics...

[Gapporin]

Perhaps he should have invested in a baseball MMORPG instead.

[Gamereviewgod]

How about a distribution contract requiring x% of used profits to be paid to the publisher or the new ones don't show up for 30 days after release, that would fix the $60 new but how about $55 for the used one we bought for $15 from the schmuck who sat on it.

How about no? They have no right to the used market because once the game has changed hands at retail, the disc becomes the consumers. If there are so many used copies of a game showing up in those first 30 days anyway, the publisher has a bigger problem on their hands.

[Gamereviewgod]

False statement. People are willing to pay $60 for a new game. Unfortunately, people pay $60 on the overhyped bullshit and then ignore anything good that comes along. Then they all jump on a forum thread and bitch about the developer.


Or maybe they ignore the smaller titles because release schedules in this industry are wildly miguided. October/November of last year saw 15 retail releases, per week, on the 360 alone for a month straight. Who is stupid enough to release a $60 2D platformer during that period? Yeah, UbiSoft. Quality at that point doesn't matter; there's just not enough money to go around.

Yet, here we sit in December/January where there hasn't been a single retail release in two months for anything.

[Robocop2]

To an extent I understand the "online pass" thing IF the developer/publisher maintains the servers. That I kind of get. Of course in the case of most games the console manufacturer maintains the servers and if one is already paying MS for XBL Gold then they really don't have any justification to me as long as its a non MS published game. Same thing really for PSN obviously except that MP is free I believe?

Locking out content on the disc is just ridiculous and I'm looking at you Namco for doing this. I recall that with SC IV a good portion of the DLC they offered was simply a key to allow access to something already on the disc, not really actual DLC. And that was even to people who bought the game NEW.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this somehow translated to some company in the future locking out the ending of a game for used purchases.
"Oh, you bought the game used? Well for 1200 MS points you can download the passkey that allows you to finish your game"


The whole situation makes about as much sense to me as a car manufactuer saying that if you buy a vehicle used, you won't be able to use the power windows unless you come by and pay us 200 dollars to re-enable them.

[Griking]

People are going to whine, kick and scream at first but most used games are going to go away folks.

I'd be shocked if fully downloadable games didn't make up a good chuck of new games sales come Next Gen.

The only question is whether the developers get greedy or not. If they price games reasonably when they're download only people won't mind as much. If they offer regular sales such as Steam does people will look forward to them and purchase a lot of titles. If they keep game prices at $$50-60 per however for a year after their initial release however then there's going to be a backlash.

[Emperor Megas]

It's unfortunate, but like Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, and The Saboteur, Kingdoms of Amalur is probably going to be another one of these gems that no one has played.I didn't know Dante's Inferno sold poorly. I don't follow game sells or anything, I just figured since it was an excellent game from popular publisher that it did well.


Then where do all the used games come from, I wonder.People who purchase games with the buy back/resell value in mind, mostly. Many of whom wouldn't be as likely to buy $60 games otherwise.

[Genesaturn]

I can understand developers wanting to make money on their creations...no one goes into business to loose money...but at the same time.....people who can't afford $60 bucks a pop on a video game aren't going to magically have the money to buy them when they have no other choice..they will just wait several months for price drops. I think this will cause games to drop in price faster. A lot of gamers rely on game recycling and even gamers that due spend 60 a pop on games would less inclined to buy more games, as I know a lot of them usually don't pay full price..they trade up. If you look at it as even...15% of gamers who always buy new, trade in games to get that new one...stops buying as many games as they do, due to no sell/trade anymore....thats a nice chunk of sales down the tube...I dont know many people that can toss 60 bucks around for every single big release.

[Greg2600]

Someone tell Shilling he needs to stick with baseball. If GM sells me a Chevy, they get money for it. If I sell it to someone else, they don't. It's that simple. Used car dealers don't pay GM for the resale. Not everyone can afford a brand new car. Now that brings in the concept of "leasing" a game, where you pay less and own it for maybe 6 months or a year or something. I just don't like the concept of download-only games.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

im just waiting for the day some brave studio decides to lock you out of seeing the ending of the game or even being able to get there if you buy used, jesus fucking christ this cant be real life....:(

[kupomogli]

im just waiting for the day some brave studio decides to lock you out of seeing the ending of the game or even being able to get there if you buy used, jesus fucking christ this cant be real life....:(

I've never played Alan Wake, but I've heard this was the case.

[theclaw]

This is a future oriented problem. All these games are eventually going to have their locked content access expire, and essential bugfix patches no longer available, via shut down of the console's online service. We've already seen how classic Xbox Live ended.

[YoshiM]

I've never played Alan Wake, but I've heard this was the case.

I've not heard of this. Where did you come across this?

[kupomogli]

I've not heard of this. Where did you come across this?

Just heard about it from someone else. This is taken from the Wiki.

The main game itself is divided up into six episodes. Additionally, two "special features", titled "The Signal" and "The Writer", have been released throughout 2010 as downloadable content (DLC). Together, Alan Wake and its DLCs constitute the "first season" of a bigger story. The main game is designed to have a satisfactory ending with the main character reaching his goal, while the DLCs form a two-part special that further expands on the game's story by "[continuing] the fiction and [serving] as a bridge between seasons."[28][40] While the game's developers have expressed interest in following Alan Wake up with a season two (i.e., a sequel),[32] no plans have been announced about this.

I've never played it so I don't know how everything is tied up and if it fully concludes the ending and this is just further expanding the story or if this DLC is actually tying up some loose ends.

[Rickstilwell1]

No you know what will happen if this really did happen? You can bet "Occupy Microsoft" would come into effect. I would laugh and not really care much cause I'm glued to the PS1.

[Sabz5150]

Kingdoms_of_Amular_(FULL_CONTENT_UNLOCKED).rar


Do I have your attention now, Shilling?

That's the only thing your little stunt will do, spur people to make available (and download) an unlocked version of your game. And most people, being the only way they will be able to access this content EVEN AFTER BUYING A LEGIT COPY, are going to go hunting for it.

[Porksta]

I was wondering why everyone kept misspelling Curt Schilling, then I realized the original article did and people were just copying that.

[YoshiM]

I've never played it so I don't know how everything is tied up and if it fully concludes the ending and this is just further expanding the story or if this DLC is actually tying up some loose ends.
It ties up pretty well, as such styles of story do (ie element of mystery). In the collector's edition you do get a code for "The Signal" but that was not included in the standard release. Neither edition nets you the second DLC. So the ending wasn't blocked new or not.

[duffmanth]

People aren't willing to pay $60 for a new game. This is the problem. New games cost too much. Period.

I know a lot of people that are willing to pay $60 for certain games, the bigger issue is that 99% of the games out there aren't worth anywhere near $60.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

I've never played Alan Wake, but I've heard this was the case.


i played alan wake, its sort of like that, lol you're like HALF right, the game ends, but its just extremely....GAY



lol at the time i didnt realize they expected me to buy the expansions to see it all the way through, i just beat the game and thought they intentionally left it at a cliffhanger for a sequel, since i never played the other expansions i cant really say if its a true ending you had to pay for or if people online are just exaggerating and getting bent out of shape for nothing

[Porksta]

Here is something nobody has brought up yet. I saw that Everquest was going Free To Play, so I figured I would give it a shot. I could get the game and all expansions for $20 or so and even if I only played for a few hours I would get my money's worth.

Well, I checked out EQ's site today to read up about Free To Play. As it turns out, unless you pay $15 a month you only get to choose from four races (out of 16) and four classes (out of 18) and you only get to have two characters. So to reiterate, even if you buy the game brand new, you still have to pay $15 a month in order to access content on the disc. I could live with guild restrictions, emote restrictions, and even money restrictions, but not allowing me to play as any character I want even though I paid for it? Fuck you SOE.

[goatdan]

The used game argument never ceases to amaze me. How did developers live with the used game market back in the day of the NES? Or the Genesis? Or even the first Playstation?

If developers want to make more money on their releases, the way to do so has been pretty clear for a while now -- make a game that people don't want to instantly sell, and then keep the price on that game high to encourage people to buy them because they won't drop in price for a long, long time.

I want Donkey Kong Country Returns. I have now for well over a year. I don't buy games at $50, I just don't. But, Nintendo has sure tempted me because in the over-a-year I've been watching that game, the largest drop in price it has had has been $10 off. The game is apparently good enough that the used market isn't flooded with them, and I don't hear Nintendo whining that the used game market is killing them.

Finally, if you don't like this idea, don't buy those games that do something like this. I know that I won't. To me, it kills value to the initial consumer, as if I am paying $60 for a game, and I don't like it, knowing I can sell it for $40 a week or two later is a big incentive for me to get it. If I can't sell it for $40 because the content is locked, I'll simply wait until the game value is at $20 or less, at which point the risk doesn't seem so big for me. If you have this idea, you should do the same thing. That is what would make developers listen.

[Flashback2012]

Here is something nobody has brought up yet. I saw that Everquest was going Free To Play, so I figured I would give it a shot. I could get the game and all expansions for $20 or so and even if I only played for a few hours I would get my money's worth.

Well, I checked out EQ's site today to read up about Free To Play. As it turns out, unless you pay $15 a month you only get to choose from four races (out of 16) and four classes (out of 18) and you only get to have two characters. So to reiterate, even if you buy the game brand new, you still have to pay $15 a month in order to access content on the disc. I could live with guild restrictions, emote restrictions, and even money restrictions, but not allowing me to play as any character I want even though I paid for it? Fuck you SOE.

I haven't paid attention to EQ or EQII in years. As far as being free to play, what they're locking you out of seems a bit ridiculous. WoW's free to play restrictions do not seem nearly as limiting in comparison. Then again, I've been into MMOs for years so I'm used to ponying up for everything every month. Sucks they did you like that but being SOE I am not surprised :|


The used game argument never ceases to amaze me. How did developers live with the used game market back in the day of the NES? Or the Genesis? Or even the first Playstation?

If developers want to make more money on their releases, the way to do so has been pretty clear for a while now -- make a game that people don't want to instantly sell, and then keep the price on that game high to encourage people to buy them because they won't drop in price for a long, long time.

I want Donkey Kong Country Returns. I have now for well over a year. I don't buy games at $50, I just don't. But, Nintendo has sure tempted me because in the over-a-year I've been watching that game, the largest drop in price it has had has been $10 off. The game is apparently good enough that the used market isn't flooded with them, and I don't hear Nintendo whining that the used game market is killing them.

Finally, if you don't like this idea, don't buy those games that do something like this. I know that I won't. To me, it kills value to the initial consumer, as if I am paying $60 for a game, and I don't like it, knowing I can sell it for $40 a week or two later is a big incentive for me to get it. If I can't sell it for $40 because the content is locked, I'll simply wait until the game value is at $20 or less, at which point the risk doesn't seem so big for me. If you have this idea, you should do the same thing. That is what would make developers listen.


+1 to this post. ;)

Schilling and company won't see a dime from me for this, especially not at the $60 price point. The only way I'd buy this new is if I found the game as NOS on the cheap in like a Sears or Big Lots somewhere buried in a dump bin. :ass:

[Zthun]

I know a lot of people that are willing to pay $60 for certain games, the bigger issue is that 99% of the games out there aren't worth anywhere near $60.

This is a better statement of what I said. I can't see the justification of paying $60 for most of the games in today's market. Especially when the price for these games used can drop to less than $20 in 3-4 months. The difference of $40 is huge. It's not like buying a used game for $54 when a new copy is $60. You might as well just pay the extra $5 so you're guaranteed not to have coffee spills on your manual.

There are plenty of people that will pay $60 for a new copy, but that pales in comparison to those people who will wait to pay only $20-$30 for a used copy in a few months.

[VertigoProcess]

I know a lot of people that are willing to pay $60 for certain games, the bigger issue is that 99% of the games out there aren't worth anywhere near $60.

And the crash of 83 is doomed to repeat itself... these companies will have to learn the old fashion way like they did back then... with bankruptcy...

[goatdan]

This is a better statement of what I said. I can't see the justification of paying $60 for most of the games in today's market. Especially when the price for these games used can drop to less than $20 in 3-4 months. The difference of $40 is huge. It's not like buying a used game for $54 when a new copy is $60. You might as well just pay the extra $5 so you're guaranteed not to have coffee spills on your manual.

There are plenty of people that will pay $60 for a new copy, but that pales in comparison to those people who will wait to pay only $20-$30 for a used copy in a few months.

To be fair, the games that drop from $60 new to $20 used in two months are generally the games where the publishers cut the price of it drastically.

I wanted Rayman Origins just as bad as I want Donkey Kong Country Returns. I was super excited when the game came out, but as usual, I have a giant backlog so I decided to wait to buy it. A couple weeks ago, I got it for $19.99.

New.

That's the fault of a publisher who isn't willing to let the game wait and have word of mouth spread how good it is to others. They don't trust the product, so the result is to dump the price of the game to the bargain bin just days after it came out. The same thing has happened to countless other titles - Duke Nukem I almost paid $99 for the LE but at the last minute canceled and picked it up for $18.99 about two months later. Again, new.

When developers have no faith in their product, the price of both the new and the used games drops quickly. By comparison -- Donkey Kong Country Returns, $44.99 at GameStop. Nearly a year and a half after release.

[BlastProcessing402]

Can you imagine if upon buying a previously lived in home the bathrooms locked and wouldn't open until you paid a fee to the builder? Neither can I. Yet for some reason publishers think they're entitled to this sort of bribe. Pardon my language, but this is what you call "bullshit".