Kingdoms of Amalur online pass details
Because the world hates second-hand gamers
Printable View
Kingdoms of Amalur online pass details
Because the world hates second-hand gamers
Quote:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/27/ki...ia-online-pas/
Update: 38 Studios community manager "Muse" posted the following statement to the 38 Studios forums, as pointed out in our comments section: "We wanted to post a quick clarification for something we've seen a few comments about. For what it's worth, the House of Valor content was not in the finished game/disc at one point, then removed. It isn't there and we're locking you out of it. The House of Valor was created as stand-alone content, and was always intended to be the first DLC. Instead of holding onto it and charging for it later, we opted to give it to everyone who purchases the game new, for free, on launch day. We hope that helps clarify that point, at least."
Update 2: EA issued this response to Joystiq this afternoon: "The House of Valor quest line is free bonus content available to those who purchase a new copy of Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning for the Xbox 360 and PS3 by entering the Online Pass included with the game. PC players who purchase Reckoning at one of the many digital retailers online including Origin, Steam and more, will also receive the House of Valor quest line at no cost."
So you are calling the developers lairs? For me their only misstep was to call it an "Online Pass" because people seem to read that and automatically put on blinkers and charge head first at the hate train. They gave an inventive to new buyers by adding something extra into the game for free, yet people will still cry foul no matter what.Quote:
all by blocking out some of the content that’s already in the game, with a one-use code.
What I find MOST humours is that PC games seem to howl and gawk at this notion yet we've had the 'Online Pass' almost since the inception of computer games only we called it a CD-Key. So why exactly must I be incensed by developers efforts to try and get console gamers to actually give them money for a product they developed. Are we really such sheep that we much blinding hate certain things because that's what's 'cool' on the internet at the moment.
Whiny gamers will whine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOnk
Quite funny when you put it that way with the quote above it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaFenix
Considering the amount of whining you've been doing on this subject I feel like I should quote you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pr⊕phet
I guess you can say complaining about complaints is in itself complaining but I'd rather voice my opinion then have to listen to the bleating of the sheep. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Pr⊕phet
You're welcome to add my words of wisdom below monk's ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaFenix
Not very decent wanting to censor other people just because you don't allow them to have an opinion over just being able to read yours. That's just as tiring. Before I consider spending 1c on this game I'd first try it out either at a friend or whatever means since they already fucked up the demo if they don't do us proud and release another one. Which they should to save face.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOnk
I stand corrected. And have updated the article accordingly. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by MOnk
As for your point about CD Keys and this being around forever - it boils down to ownership. If I pay money for a game, a physical game, then I should be able to have full access to it, and have the freedom to do with it what I want. That's not to say make copies and give it to the world - but rather that I should be able to lend it to a mate and let him have the same gaming experience as I do.
In this case it's DLC, so it was never part of the original game, and that's fine - but in cases where in-game content is blocked off from access, that's just downright annoying.
It's like being sold a car, but you can't use the radio until you enter a code in. If your friend wants to borrow the car, he has to pay the car manufacturers to use the radio. No, it's my car, it's my radio, and I choose to allow someone else to make use of it. Online passes expressly remove that right.
The car analogy is also apt because I expect my car back, unless I sell it - so I'm not talking about the piracy stuff here.
The intellectual property I'm buying isn't mine - and that's fine, but the physical access to it most definitely is - and by withholding that, I feel the developers have no right to that. When it comes to digital distribution it's a different story - as with Steam - there's no physical part to it; I can't lend out a Steam game because it's data attached to my specific PC, and fat chance of him getting that.
[edit] and yes, before someone points out the flaws of the car analogy, I know the difference between the physical/digital rights; it's just an example.
My counter-argument there is, fine, if what I'm buying is the intellectual property on the disk, and what I pay for is a license of that property (and the disk itself is just the medium of delivery) - then should that disk break, I should be entitled to get it replaced, or given a digital copy of the intellectual property at no or minimal (depending on the format) charge.
That will never happen, though.
@Prophet
I never mentioned anything about censoring people's opinion, I only expressed my own frustration with the stance. You're still free to feel that way.
@qornea
The car analogy is broken not just because of games being digital but rather because games are sold as an experience and not as a commodity. So if I have a car and I lend it to my friend over the weekend, he might take a liking to the car and get himself one. If I lend a game to someone and they finish it, there is almost zero chance he will go and buy that same game. Once you finish a game, you have gotten all you can get from that game and giving it to someone else doesn't change that fact. A car however is only useful to you as long as you own it, so if you sell it to someone you lose something.
I totally agree with that, but it's not as alien as you think though. You could actually get your 360 games replaced by Microsoft if your 360 scratched them, not quite as ubiquitous as it should be but at least it was something. This is one of the main reason I get most of my pc games off Steam, just saves the worry and hassle of having to look after physical discs.Quote:
My counter-argument there is, fine, if what I'm buying is the intellectual property on the disk, and what I pay for is a license of that property (and the disk itself is just the medium of delivery) - then should that disk break, I should be entitled to get it replaced, or given a digital copy of the intellectual property at no or minimal (depending on the format) charge.
Yeah I get all that, but my point was mainly that I don't agree with them blocking out content because of what may or may not happen - I just feel they have no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do (within the boundaries of the law) with something I buy full physical access to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOnk
The concerns with resale value shouldn't fall onto the consumer to fix up. The bundled DLC is a good way to handle this - that I dont mind at all, because it's a genuine bonus - and if a friend who borrows a game wants it, it's a case of "too bad" because, hey, I didn't pay for it.