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

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm buying one and storing it away. Heck, maybe an untouched original cartridge will be worth bucks 10-20 years down the line.

Uncircumcised Virginal save states FTW!

[j_factor]

So ... if the headlines about Gamestop not accepting the game in trade-in is even true, are they also not accepting trade-ins on Super Monkey Ball 3DS?

Do they know that progress in that game similarly can not be "reset"?

It's the same exact functionality. Why would they treat that game any differently?

Why didn't anyone in the media crow about Super Monkey Ball 3DS or claim that it was that way in order to take a swipe at used game sales?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Because it was Monkey Ball. Like a game in the line of Angry Birds, if you can't reset the save it's not a killed deal.

RE: Mercs though, has some uses for a save reset. Fresh start speed runs and the like, which have kept many retro games in high play rotation and have prompted people to study and grind their skill in them until they shave 2 or 3 seconds off their total time... For these types of games, it's a dick move and the game is without a doubt, lessor for it.

[Leo_A]

I don't see why this would kill speed runs. If anything, the persistent save is there just to encourage people to go back to it and improve upon their previous efforts.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Speed runs from scratch can only be done once per cart. No chance for improving the initial push through. You can limit what options you choose, but from a fresh start it's the same for everyone. If there is any level up system, skill levels or tree or weapon settings and upgrades that can not be scaled back or reset without starting fresh, that whole mode is dead.

[Leo_A]

And so far, we have no indication that I'm aware of that we do have things like weapon upgrades, skill levels you can't return back to, etc. And if it does, I assume people will just be performing speed runs with a fully tricked out save in order to maintain an equal playing field.

And really, I don't think Capcom is too terribly worried about the people that like to attempt speed runs in their games anyways. They're a minisicule proportion of the marketplace. Worrying about them makes about as much sense as if they were specifically worried about what Digital Press users thought of something.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Why would their caring about anyone else make any difference? I'd rather appeal to their own interest. It's a few lines of code and for this type of game, how popular it is and the types of people who play it, not giving an option that simple is frankly bonkers really. They're getting blasted for it, which isn't in their interest at all. You can't care about anything until you care about yourself first.

Also, if you are doing a speed run starting at 100% - it's kind of the Special Olympics version.

[RPG_Fanatic]

Gamespot has an article about this. Capcom says it's not trying to stop used game sales.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6321800...ll%3Btitle%3B1

[Icarus Moonsight]

...depriving second-hand [also, anybody that wants to play with a fresh start for any reason] purchasers of the ability to unlock levels, characters, and weapons undermines the value of the title...

This point still stands, used sales deterrent or not.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

From the article:

In a post to Capcom's message boards today, a representative emphasized that wasn't the reason for the game's save system.

"There was no intention of lessening the experience of the game," said Capcom community specialist Shawn Baxter in his post. "Essentially, RE: Mercs was treated like an arcade fighting game. You unlock characters, levels, etc and they just stay unlocked as they would in an arcade machine. There was no hidden motive to prevent buying used copies. It's not some secret form of DRM. It's simply the way we designed the save system to work with the arcade type of gameplay."

Baxter went on to stress that the game doesn't have a traditional story mode, and every mission is replayable at-will, so no content would be inaccessible to a second-hand purchaser.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6321800...ll%3Btitle%3B1

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Is it a design decision that frustrates those who enjoy/depend on the 2nd hand market?

Yes.

Is it a design decision that frustrates the OCD in the gaming community that feel a compulsion to replay a non-linear arcade style game and not have any previous data imprint on it?

Yes.

Is it ultimately a poor choice by Capcom to have implemented such a feature or lack thereof?

Based on the reactions of the gaming press and by extension a majority of the gaming public, apparently the answer is yes.

But ultimately, do we REALLY believe that it is some grand conspiracy designed to "kill used video game sales"?

Really? Do we really really believe that this is anything more than an annoyance to the compulsive set who can't deal with the taint of another gamer having seen the "you've unlocked a level!" message or saved a high score or run-through time on the used cartridge that they're buying?

The gaming press has attempted to crucify Capcom over this, and Capcom have made multiple public statements refuting the allegations that they're out to hurt 2nd hand consumers.

Thats it.

There's really nothing more to be said other than disagreeing with their design choice.

Hopefully it's a lesson learned for them and they throw the option into their next arcade style game to avoid similar bad press.

Seriously.

[98PaceCar]

Not to pick nits and certainly not insinuating that this is something that can be done by an "end user" of an arcade game, but of all the arcade fighters I've owned, I can't think of a single one that doesn't have a master reset that clears unlocked characters. It's a very normal part of what games do.

I don't know if they are really out to hurt used game sales, but given the current trends in the marketplace by other publishers, it's certainly suspect. As a company, they aren't going to come out and say that their end goal is to punish second hand purchasers, they aren't that stupid. I think we all have to take their statements with a large grain of salt as they are facing a backlash currently and they are going to do whatever they can to reduce the effects of that backlash.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Not to pick nits and certainly not insinuating that this is something that can be done by an "end user" of an arcade game, but of all the arcade fighters I've owned, I can't think of a single one that doesn't have a master reset that clears unlocked characters. It's a very normal part of what games do.

I don't know if they are really out to hurt used game sales, but given the current trends in the marketplace by other publishers, it's certainly suspect. As a company, they aren't going to come out and say that their end goal is to punish second hand purchasers, they aren't that stupid. I think we all have to take their statements with a large grain of salt as they are facing a backlash currently and they are going to do whatever they can to reduce the effects of that backlash.

When we're speculating the "reasons why" a publisher does something like this, we're ultimately speaking in unknowns.

It was a bad decision, that is clear, but only those who work for Capcom and/or the studio that made the game can say for sure if there was a meeting where people sat down and consciously decided that they were going to make the game function like that in order to "hurt" those who participate in the 2nd hand market.

No matter how savvy or experienced we are as consumers or students of the market - we can't say WHY they did it because we don't know for sure, for certain or via any demonstrable evidence that that "hurting" people is the real reason why the game functions like that.

Bad decision = the consensus appears to be yes

Why they made that decision = despite public opinion, unknown outside of the walls of Capcom HQ at this time and publicly refuted by Capcom as not what the public opinion alleges.

My main problem is when quote-unquote game journalists feel the need to write headlines similar to the one in this thread. I'm far more forgiving of a gaming community forum where subjective viewpoints are commonplace, but when I open up gaming news sites and see proclamations of calculated malice and evil on Capcom's part I can't help but feel frustrated and saddened because ultimately, a large portion of the gaming public will be swayed by those headlines without taking the time to read the articles and/or understand what the gameplay fundamentals of RE Mercs really are.

[Icarus Moonsight]

There's really nothing more to be said other than disagreeing with their design choice.

You say that as if it's a throw-away gripe. Who do you suppose they are making games for? The fact they even have to answer for it says more than anything. Disagreement keeps money and product from changing hands. I'm waiting for when gamers get even more discerning and demanding when offered things, seriously. We've been jockeyed quite enough already.

The ultimate refutation here is that it's not about what Capcom wants, that is, if they even remotely imagine themselves serving a trade.

[98PaceCar]

When we're speculating the "reasons why" a publisher does something like this, we're ultimately speaking in unknowns.

It was a bad decision, that is clear, but only those who work for Capcom and/or the studio that made the game can say for sure if there was a meeting where people sat down and consciously decided that they were going to make the game function like that in order to "hurt" those who participate in the 2nd hand market.

No matter how savvy or experienced we are as consumers or students of the market - we can't say WHY they did it because we don't know for sure, for certain or via any demonstrable evidence that that "hurting" people is the real reason why the game functions like that.

Bad decision = the consensus appears to be yes

Why they made that decision = despite public opinion, unknown outside of the walls of Capcom HQ at this time and publicly refuted by Capcom as not what the public opinion alleges.

My main problem is when quote-unquote game journalists feel the need to write headlines similar to the one in this thread. I'm far more forgiving of a gaming community forum where subjective viewpoints are commonplace, but when I open up gaming news sites and see proclamations of calculated malice and evil on Capcom's part I can't help but feel frustrated and saddened because ultimately, a large portion of the gaming public will be swayed by those headlines without taking the time to read the articles and/or understand what the gameplay fundamentals of RE Mercs really are.

I completely agree that we will never know why they made this decision. Truthfully, it's not really anybody's business outside of Capcom. I don't think it's prudent to break out the torches and pitchforks, but I also don't think it's prudent to take them at their word. They have interests to protect and they will do or say pretty much anything they legally can to protect those interests. It's a fact of business and any company will do just that when pushed into a corner. If such a large part of the industry was not actively seeking to hinder used sales, I'd be more forgiving. But current trends by other companies, not to mention the types of DRM that Capcom themselves have embedded in other titles, makes it hard for me to believe there isn't some malice intended. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

This situation was certainly escalated by the so called "journalism" that our hobby enjoys, but I really think it would have come up at some point. Maybe not to the same extreme as what we are currently seeing, but it would have come up.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You say that as if it's a throw-away gripe. Who do you suppose they are making games for? The fact they even have to answer for it says more than anything. Disagreement keeps money and product from changing hands. I'm waiting for when gamers get even more discerning and demanding when offered things, seriously. We've been jockeyed quite enough already.

The ultimate refutation here is that it's not about what Capcom wants, that is, if they even remotely imagine themselves serving a trade.

To me, the issue with this game IS a throw-away gripe.

Capcom did not ship a game that crashes at the third level and then tell the public "Yeeeeaaaahhhh ... we've got your money. Go fuck yourselves, we're not patching it and we're not releasing a new version!" this is a matter of a design decision that does NOT "break" the game, it's just one that certain users disagree with based on their personal preferences as to how they like to experience progress "unlocked" in a game.

Furthermore, I've repeatedly agreed with the assessment that ultimately, it IS a BAD design choice since it obviously has infuriated the majority of the vocal public.

The public has spoken and Capcom has responded.

Period.

I don't see how we're not beating a dead horse here.

I'm unaware as to whether or not 3DS games can be "patched" via the internet. If they can I suppose there is still room for Capcom to rectify this matter with a live update.

If they can't, dead horse, but, since I have no direct control over you or anybody else who takes issue with this matter, regardless of what you think of my position, it's obviously not going to stop you and/or the rest of the gaming public that takes issue with this debacle from continuing to keep the pot boiling.

So, go ahead keep it boiling. I can't.

I just can't talk about this anymore, it just seems absurd at this point.

[Bojay1997]

To me, the issue with this game IS a throw-away gripe.

Capcom did not ship a game that crashes at the third level and then tell the public "Yeeeeaaaahhhh ... we've got your money. Go fuck yourselves, we're not patching it and we're not releasing a new version!" this is a matter of a design decision that does NOT "break" the game, it's just one that certain users disagree with based on their personal preferences as to how they like to experience progress "unlocked" in a game.

Furthermore, I've repeatedly agreed with the assessment that ultimately, it IS a BAD design choice since it obviously has infuriated the majority of the vocal public.

The public has spoken and Capcom has responded.

Period.

I don't see how we're not beating a dead horse here.

I'm unaware as to whether or not 3DS games can be "patched" via the internet. If they can I suppose there is still room for Capcom to rectify this matter with a live update.

If they can't, dead horse, but, since I have no direct control over you or anybody else who takes issue with this matter, regardless of what you think of my position, it's obviously not going to stop you and/or the rest of the gaming public that takes issue with this debacle from continuing to keep the pot boiling.

So, go ahead keep it boiling. I can't.

I just can't talk about this anymore, it just seems absurd at this point.

If you're so indifferent to the whole thing, why do you see the need to keep posting in this thread? People here and everywhere on the Internet like to complain about things that they find irritating or odd or whatever. That's what discussion boards are for.

Obviously, the backlash is having an impact or Capcom wouldn't have responded to the gaming press in the first place. They could have just said "we don't comment on speculation" and left it at that. They also could have just ignored the fact that Gamestop and several other retailers initially decided not to buy the game back. According to various reports, they contacted Gamestop and convinced them otherwise. To Capcom this is a very real profit impacting moment.

As a gamer, I'm glad that this issue is getting coverage. Did Capcom do this intentionally to prevent used sales? I don't know and frankly I don't care. I do know that it's not a design choice I want to support financially going forward and this is a game I actually pre-ordered at full price from the Capcom store. Will it impact used sales of this game and possibly influence other publishers to adopt a similar strategy or maybe not adopt the same strategy as a result of the public outcry? More than likely it will. As such, whether this bitching and moaning is valid or not, it could potentially prevent other publishers from implementing similar systems with the intent of reducing used sales. As such, I see it as a very good thing.

[98PaceCar]

As a gamer, I'm glad that this issue is getting coverage. Did Capcom do this intentionally to prevent used sales? I don't know and frankly I don't care. I do know that it's not a design choice I want to support financially going forward and this is a game I actually pre-ordered at full price from the Capcom store. Will it impact used sales of this game and possibly influence other publishers to adopt a similar strategy or maybe not adopt the same strategy as a result of the public outcry? More than likely it will. As such, whether this bitching and moaning is valid or not, it could potentially prevent other publishers from implementing similar systems with the intent of reducing used sales. As such, I see it as a very good thing.

QFT. Nothing was ever solved by accepting what an authority says and just rolling over. If you don't like something, you have to force change by being vocal and active.

[TonyTheTiger]

QFT. Nothing was ever solved by accepting what an authority says and just rolling over. If you don't like something, you have to force change by being vocal and active.

There's a problem with disproportionate response, though. I don't think it's a good design choice because the relationship between how useful the function can be vs. how easy it is to implement speaks for itself. I don't see the point in not providing the option. And that kind of arbitrary limitation comes off as asinine.

But declaring this some kind of major affront worthy of severe backlash is comical. Many people have pointed out other games that have the same flaw. I consider them all equal in those terms. Bad ommission, and I think it's perfectly fair for review scores or personal opinions to take that into account for however much it's valued. But I don't see how it could go that far beyond a mere "yeah, stupid" for any of the games.

I think Blaster Master not having any form of saving/password is pretty terrible, too. But I can't imagine myself decrying Sunsoft for doing anything except...selling an otherwise good game with a noticeable flaw. That's ultimately pretty mundane when you think about it.

[kupomogli]

Can't very well say if Capcom was trying to kill used games sales or not, but Resident Evil HD Revival is being released in Japan on Bluray, but in the west as digital download only. Either to stop piracy, used sales, or both.

http://www.siliconera.com/2011/03/24...bla-downloads/

[Icarus Moonsight]

Capcom did not ship a game that crashes at the third level and then tell the public "Yeeeeaaaahhhh ... we've got your money. Go fuck yourselves, we're not patching it and we're not releasing a new version!"

Did you just...? Really? LMAO


I didn't buy this either. Their name being on the box doesn't help, even if Playmore were 100% at fault, skipped testing and solely screwed it up. Capcom got a cut and also didn't field any obligation whatsoever IIRC. This wasn't a CDi vs Nintendo contract farce either. They could have helped, or pulled.