Capcom tries to kill used video game sales with the one-save game

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

The answer directly from the manual...



Not sure how I feel about this. I only buy new, so my first reaction was "big deal"...yet I don't like having options taken away.

Yes, I've seen that image, but what does that MEAN? (I'm not asking you directly since I doubt you've played the game).

Does that mean that unlocked items can't be reset? (extra movies, items, power ups, etc.) OR, does it mean that the cart only allows for one game file and once you play through the game you can't start over no matter what you do?

Can anybody confirm any of the above, or explain what "saved data can not be reset" means in the CONTEXT of the game and repeat play-throughs?

My concern is that people are "reacting" to the statement found in the manual without really understanding what it means. I can't find any information about not being able to start the game over at the 1st level if you want to. Until the game is in the hands of consumers that can verify, I wish people wouldn't get so up in arms about this.

[Aussie2B]

And considering that you can turn auto saving off, then theoretically you can start from scratch an infinite number of times. Of course, that's probably not practical at all, and if the game has way too much for one sitting, then you'd probably never see everything the game has unless you keep your 3DS on and plugged in for a long time. But, still, it's an option for anyone OCD enough that they can't handle the game saving anything that they can't erase.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

When you save a 3DS game, does it save on the cartridge or on the system itself? It seems like there would be some way of resetting this game, if not through a menu, then by physical means.

[heybtbm]

You also have to remember that this is the RE "Mercenaries" game mode turned into a full game. The entire goal of Mercenaries is to get the highest score possible and unlock better weapons, playable characters and new maps. I can see how a one-time, permanent save would work under those conditions.

I'm not sure I'm explaining it well enough, but essentially...this isn't a "regular" game with a beginning, middle, and end. Mercenaries is modeled after the arcade games of old, where the main objective is to keep beating your previous high score. You would never have a reason to "start over" since that's not a component of this type of game's formula. You're always starting from the beginning (with "0" score). I can see Capcom's logic here in the context of how this game works.

Then again...Capcom was responsible for one of the worst save system train-wrecks this generation: Dead Rising.

Just my 2 cents.

[Bojay1997]

Just thinking this through in my head, I dont pretend to hold an advanced business degree here... if publishers and developers hate Gamestop's used sales so much, why do they continue to let Gamestop sell their games? I know they're a top (if not THE top) retailer, but if their business model undermines game sales so much, just cut them off. The reason GS gets so much of the used business is because gamers can trade in their old games to get the newest releases... but if GS doesn't have the newest releases to sell, they essentially become a reseller. GS has no leverage in this regard. Why can't developers quit complaining about competing against their own product, and cut off the primary culprit at the knees? This would open up the used market to other retailers (Amazon for sure), but it would send a message... don't sell used at a discount next to our new product. I know of no other retailers other than perhaps car dealerships where this kind of thing is the norm.

Under the laws of the United States as well as individual states relating to unfair competition, you can't blackball a retailer for engaging in legal conduct. As such, even if publishers and developers felt the desire to cut Gamestop off, they couldn't stop distributors from selling to them.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

That would be impossible. Think about it. How could a PS3 game prevent people from restarting from scratch if they so choose?

witchcraft?

[Leo_A]

This hardly seems new, I've came across this quite a few times over the years.

Just the other day I wanted to erase the memory on a Jaguar game and start fresh since it was second hand and I didn't have a clue who most of the initials belonged to (Super Burnout has onboard memory to track the best times on each circuit), and couldn't.

As long as I'll be able to go back and replay the game, as it sounds like you'll still be able to, I'm fine with this.

[JSoup]

That would be impossible. Think about it. How could a PS3 game prevent people from restarting from scratch if they so choose?

By using any one of the special functions of the PS3 that only they have access to, of which we only know one of (remotely bricking a system)? Backing up save files MMO style to an external server, then requiring a connection to the internet EA style for general play? It can't be that difficult.

[Leo_A]

Every PS3 disc for a specific title, unless there are subsequent revisions, are identical. And there is no area on one that is rewritable where a console could signify that this game has been played and can't be allowed to be restarted (and the PS3 lacks the ability to write to disc anyways).

There is no way to lock out a disc from being restarted or played in the future on the Playstation 3.

[duetzFanz1]

This is so dumb. They should do this if they want to kill sales for their games.

[Icarus Moonsight]

This might hamper the used market, sure. It could also hamper new sales and it surely increases incentive to pirate. Corporate empty suits are fucking morons.

In 2011, we ought to be expect more options and player control, not less.

[kupomogli]

There is no way to lock out a disc from being restarted or played in the future on the Playstation 3.

Unless Capcom releases the game with a single use DLC code that's required to input before starting a new game. And you have to be logged into PSN or XBL in order to start a new game.

I can see something similar to this happening. Some company releasing DRM on the PSN or XBL that ties the physical copy of the game to one account. Something like the online pass, but also single player. Like the game cannot be played at all unless you download the DLC key.

[PapaStu]

Knowing how much I buy, how infrequently I play the many handheld games I have and my general tendency to just leave games sealed cause I like to play Picross and its ilk over and over, I'm sure this one save thing will never affect me. You be a good RE: Mercs and sit in your shrink wrap!

[Leo_A]

Unless Capcom releases the game with a single use DLC code that's required to input before starting a new game. And you have to be logged into PSN or XBL in order to start a new game.

I can see something similar to this happening. Some company releasing DRM on the PSN or XBL that ties the physical copy of the game to one account. Something like the online pass, but also single player. Like the game cannot be played at all unless you download the DLC key.

There are too many offline Playstation 3 owners for it to happen.

[JSoup]

There are too many offline Playstation 3 owners for it to happen.

I think it was EA that was going to require logging into to PSN to get a specific code to make the game work for that system only and a constant internet connection would be required to play thereafter. Used copies would require buying a new code online of the game wouldn't boot.

Just because a reliable way to locking one disk to one system doesn't exist doesn't mean someone won't come up with one eventually. And Capcom just got the ball rolling.

[Leo_A]

I don't think Capcom got the ball rolling here, I have things like DS games that already don't have the capability of erasing your current save. People are just making a leap here to think they're doing this specifically to curb used game sales.

And of course they're going to keep going further and further in the future to combat used game sales, they're certainly not keeping that strategy a secret. But retail games on any of the current systems that require a online connection to play, besides online multiplayer only games?

Isn't happening with this console generation. Far too many customers keep their consoles offline for it to be practical.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Whether you agree on the reasons why it was done, it's still a fairly dumb thing to do for a product you intend to entice people to spend their money on.

[Leo_A]

Whether you agree on the reasons why it was done, it's still a fairly dumb thing to do for a product you intend to entice people to spend their money on.

I'm not defending it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I was building on a point you raised, that this isn't really new. I have a few games already like this myself. This is the first time I'm hearing about it before I actually bought and played the game though. That difference is important.

Save management should be easy, full featured and straight forward on pay products. The sheer number of questions and uncertainty this kind of shit creates is all blowback with no benefit.

Capcom has sold more flashcarts than anything here. Good job numbnuts! I laugh at the ineptitude.

[JSoup]

Isn't happening with this console generation. Far too many customers keep their consoles offline for it to be practical.

With the exception that it's already happened this console generation due to EA. That any number of gamers may keep their systems permanently offline doesn't limit the control placed over the game and the system, given than an internet connection is required to even boot the damn thing.