Tumbler wrote on Jan 28, 2010, 12:31:
Wait so am I confusing Bioshock 2's stuff with ME2? This is all so confusing, how the hell is anyone supposed to buy with confidence when so much crap is added on that you have to take fucking notes to know if you're getting screwed or not.

So ME2 works out of the box...no activations? Just the cerberus network option thing to activate?

I'm quite confident that this magazine (GameStar, the biggest German one) would not be wrong about something like this. I looked for another source and found this one, although it's from a German magazine as well, so there's an off chance that only European versions ship without protection. It's weird though that EA would not promote this fact more openly, as a lot of people base their purchase decisions on this sort of stuff.

Edit: Google for 'Mass Effect 2 DRM' and you should find numerous sources that a CD key is the only protection for all PC releases of the game. Yay!

Another edit: regarding the original topic of the thread, the DLC is really less of a 'first-buyer incentive' than I thought. It seems the code for the 'free' DLC is only included in the Collector's Edition, which are usually sold out pretty quickly anyway. Buyers of the regular versions will still have to buy it for $15.

This comment was edited on Jan 28, 2010, 18:38.

Jesus tumbler...

Wait so am I confusing Bioshock 2's stuff with ME2? This is all so confusing, how the hell is anyone supposed to buy with confidence when so much crap is added on that you have to take fucking notes to know if you're getting screwed or not.

So ME2 works out of the box...no activations? Just the cerberus network option thing to activate?

I thought ME2 had online activations and copy protection...the whole conflict was regarding how many activations...

Jesus tumbler...

Now I read in my games magazine that Mass Effect 2 does have neither a SecuROM copy protection nor online activation, and I just ordered my copy. See, this is how you get people to buy your stuff. Show them that you give them something in return for their money, and treat them with respect. Maybe they'll learn after all.

Did i miss something? I thought ME2 had online activations and copy protection...the whole conflict was regarding how many activations... So you can buy a boxed copy of ME2 and resell it for the PC?

everyone wrote on Jan 28, 2010, 00:51:
I bet most publishers only worry about used games sales during the initial 6-12 month release window in which the majority of copies of a new game are sold.

I'm sure you're right about this, I would maybe even say only the first 3-6 months. And I just think that if you need to provide additional content to persuade people to hold on to the game for that long, your game already failed. I don't know how the majority of players are in that respect, but I have my games in a little collection that I am proud of and enjoy, that I invested a lot of time and money in. I try only to buy games that I will be glad to add to my collection. Of course you grow tired of some, and are disappointed by others, etc.; but I get the feeling that if people are really wildly trading around their used games, the reason is that the games don't mean anything to them.

everyone wrote on Jan 28, 2010, 00:51:
Obviously the best solution would be to create great games that people want to keep and replay for years to come, but I doubt that's going to start happening anytime soon....

Well, I'm not really that pessimistic. We had a lot of those games before, and yes today the really excellent titles are few and far between, bit I think this will yet change. If you think about it, the kind of games developers come up with these days are really predestined for the problems we're talking about here. You need a huge budget, hundreds of people and several years to producer a AAA title that is up to the public's expectations in terms of technology and presentation. So naturally, story and content take the backseat somewhat. Sure, you're impressed by the nice eye-candy for an hour or two, but pretty soon you get bored because there's no game behind it to support it. That's the case for a majority of big budget titles these days, and surely one of the reasons why people feel less inclined to hold on to their games, or buy new ones. But I think even the mainstream gamers are gradually getting a bit disillusioned by ever more titles that are more benchmark than game. Videogames can be so much more than anything we've seen yet. And if developers and publishers can come up with meaningful games, I don't think they will have to worry about piracy or second hand markets much at all.


My copy of Mass Effect was a present on Steam. I would never have payed for a game with online activation. Now I read in my games magazine that Mass Effect 2 does have neither a SecuROM copy protection nor online activation, and I just ordered my copy. See, this is how you get people to buy your stuff. Show them that you give them something in return for their money, and treat them with respect. Maybe they'll learn after all

This comment was edited on Jan 28, 2010, 07:03.

People sell their games because they don't think they're going to play them anymore. I think that DLC is a rather artificial way of prolonging the game's life though. If I want to go back to play the game in 5 or 10 years, chances are the DLC will no longer be available, which makes this point moot in my decision to sell or not sell a game. I will make that decision based on what's actually in the box and on the disc. However, the point is again made moot by many recent games with online activation, because that means that even what's in the box will not play anymore in a few years. At least not without getting your "customer support" from some Russian teenager.

Also, it's probably a good indicator for lack of customer satisfaction. Some people might be in a financial position to not care, but I think a lot of those who buy a game for $60 are not happy about selling it for $5 a few weeks later. I know that if I pay that kind of money for a game, I do so because I expect that I'll be playing it for a long time. People who quickly sell again for 5 bucks are probably going to think twice about their next purchase from the developer or publisher in question.

I bet most publishers only worry about used games sales during the initial 6-12 month release window in which the majority of copies of a new game are sold.
If someone were to buy a new game for $60 the week it was released, and were promised additional free content for 6-12 months via DLC I bet more people would hold onto that game, and thus starve places like Gamestop of inventory.

Obviously the best solution would be to create great games that people want to keep and replay for years to come, but I doubt that's going to start happening anytime soon....

Tumbler wrote on Jan 27, 2010, 23:12:
I hope this was a typo because the "problem" is that people are willing to sell a $60 game for $5...

Not so much a typo, just a weird way to put it. But yes, that was what I wanted to say. I wrote that because someone's comment seemed to blame GameStop for the whole thing, because they make that buying and reselling deal. But there are two sides to such a deal. On one side, there's someone who selling their game. Obviously they don't really care about the game much, otherwise they wouldn't sell. And while it is pretty easy to understand why on the buyer's side someone would rather buy a game for $35 used instead of $60 new, publishers seem to think that a large part of these buyers would buy the game new if no used copies were available. I disagree. I think many will just buy another game they can get cheaper. So if "too many" people are selling your product for cheap on the second hand market, either your product it not good enough, or too expensive, or both. Trying to circumvent a free market does not solve that problem.

Edit: What everyone said right below. People sell their games because they don't think they're going to play them anymore. I think that DLC is a rather artificial way of prolonging the game's life though. If I want to go back to play the game in 5 or 10 years, chances are the DLC will no longer be available, which makes this point moot in my decision to sell or not sell a game. I will make that decision based on what's actually in the box and on the disc. However, the point is again made moot by many recent games with online activation, because that means that even what's in the box will not play anymore in a few years. At least not without getting your "customer support" from some Russian teenager.

Also, it's probably a good indicator for lack of customer satisfaction. Some people might be in a financial position to not care, but I think a lot of those who buy a game for $60 are not happy about selling it for $5 a few weeks later. I know that if I pay that kind of money for a game, I do so because I expect that I'll be playing it for a long time. People who quickly sell again for 5 bucks are probably going to think twice about their next purchase from the developer or publisher in question.

Tumbler wrote on Jan 27, 2010, 23:12:
And I assume you're comparing the free DLC that is provided to one owner not being available to subsequent owners which is not like being forced to shell out more money. the game will play fine without this extra crap. Charging for DLC isn't a new thing, there was already plenty of stuff for most games that cost extra money. It not required to buy it...and you can play the game just fine.

I know, the particular case of ME2 isn't that big of a deal. It's clearly a "first-buyer bonus" rather than a "second-buyer punishment". Most people will not care about the DLC, and those who do can still decide if its worth $15. That the extras will some day not be available anymore is no argument either, as that's the case for all DLC.

My post was more directed at the predominant opinion here, which seems to be that publishers are in fact entitled to a share of the second-(and third- and fourth-...) hand sales price, which is just not true. There's even a law. In the U.S. it is called the 'First-sale doctrine', but most countries in the world have something equivalent. As Wikipedia puts it, it says that "the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold". So a lot of what publishers are trying to do these days - not so much with this DLC bonus here, but rather with their DRM schemes and online activations, of which EA and Mass Effect in particular are known offenders as well - is really nothing but the attempt to find a loophole to circumvent this law, and customer's right.

This comment was edited on Jan 28, 2010, 00:06.

I hope this was a typo because the "problem" is that people are willing to sell a $60 game for $5...to put it in more real numbers, game owners are willing to take $30 for a game they paid $60 for just a few days earlier. No one is creating used copies, everyone comes from someone willing to sell the game at a discount. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to buy the game at a discount, there would be something wrong if people didn't want to pay less... Major retailers already fight for your dollars by offering discounts when game is released, gift cards, game credits, etc.

I think some people may rightfully argue that the "problem" is that most games offer so little value that apparently enough people are willing to trade their games in within the first 1-2 months of release that an entire used game industry has been able to form.

DLC could actually be a great way to combat that perceived lack of value, but not with day 1 DLC.
Give owners worthwhile free DLC 2-3 months after release and I bet many people would hold onto their games longer.

If GameStop buys used copies for $5 and sells them for $35, the problem is that people are willing to buy it for that, this has nothing to do with the original publisher.

I hope this was a typo because the "problem" is that people are willing to sell a $60 game for $5...to put it in more real numbers, game owners are willing to take $30 for a game they paid $60 for just a few days earlier. No one is creating used copies, everyone comes from someone willing to sell the game at a discount. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to buy the game at a discount, there would be something wrong if people didn't want to pay less... Major retailers already fight for your dollars by offering discounts when game is released, gift cards, game credits, etc.

What EA is doing here is making you, after just having bought a car from a used cars dealer, shell out additional money directly to the car manufacturer to get a second key with which you can turn on the A/C.

And I assume you're comparing the free DLC that is provided to one owner not being available to subsequent owners which is not like being forced to shell out more money. the game will play fine without this extra crap. Charging for DLC isn't a new thing, there was already plenty of stuff for most games that cost extra money. It not required to buy it...and you can play the game just fine.

I find it disturbing how few people find it disturbing that EA tries to get their hands in the used game market this way. Has it come to this already, is corporate brainwash so acceptable and easy these days? If you state that publishers have a right to earn money on used game sales as they currently don't, you should think twice (or at least once) about what you're saying. If you buy a game used, someone has already purchased it full price! EA has already been paid! They are not entitled to benefit from a second-hand sale. If GameStop buys used copies for $5 and sells them for $35, the problem is that people are willing to buy it for that, this has nothing to do with the original publisher. What EA is doing here is making you, after just having bought a car from a used cars dealer, shell out additional money directly to the car manufacturer to get a second key with which you can turn on the A/C. There is nothing right or fair about this at all. The only thing worse than getting ripped off is being happy about getting ripped off.

All I'll say is dismiss your bias before even trying it, you seem predisposed to disqualify it before even downloading.

Already disproven unfortunately. There's character and mission DLC on day one.

I'll check out each and decide if those are significant enough to buy. I doubt they will be. I'm not against buying new games I just don't see the point of spending more money than I need to in order to play the game. They already give you plenty of characters and missions so why do I need to spend all that money to get extra's? The whole pay extra money to get the slightly improved better version sales pitch doesn't work on me anymore. I bought those 300-400 video cards all the time back in the day and now when I buy the bargin bin cards for my PC I'm just as happy, happier even since I've got several hundred dollars in my account!

The only free stuff they'll probably give away will be cosmetic at best.

Already disproven unfortunately. There's character and mission DLC on day one

I'm not saying you should care but there is actually going to be a fair amount of content not available to used copies of the game FWIW.

I'll believe that when I see it. The only free stuff they'll probably give away will be cosmetic at best. Anything with real substance will cost money and in the end that will have cost me $15 and trading an old game and cost you $60.

If they offered all the DLC free to the original owners that would get my attention. I'd buy the game new and not trade it in that case. But alas the opportunity to pull more money out of the people already supporting you is just too much for them to pass up. Enjoy!

Character development is very limited and now everyone can hack and use persuasion/intimidation. ME2 is even less of an RPG than the first game.

No, if anything ME2 is more of an RPG than it was previously. Every character could always use charm/intimidation, did you even play the first game at all? You never needed to put a point into the skills to actually gain them, you could obtain them through your interactions with NPCs.

That's a bit misleading. The generic planet landscapes from the first game have been replaced with generic satellite views of planets. You scan them for minerals and it's even less interesting than exploring the planets in the first game. Granted, the side quests are much more diverse now and they don't recycle the same sets over and over.

There's nothing misleading about my statement, you no longer wander around large barren environments. Mineral scanning is entirely optional, you get more than enough from missions to complete the game. It's there for the OCD types who want 100% completion, every upgrade and the best endings.

If you ignore the marketing of the game as an RPG and consider it a pure shooter, it's easier to overlook the flaws.

The game has it's flaws but "marketing the game as an RPG" isn't one of them. It is an RPG through and through. The combat system is based on a shooter, everything else about it is an RPG. My biggest complaint is the Mission End screens personally, just takes me out of the game a bit.

Jerykk mentioned streamlining and this is the first game where that word isn't some evil method of saying "consolized".

I don't think I could call the game consolized, since the series has always been designed for console. However, I wouldn't call the streamlining a good thing. It's been streamlined too much. Character development is very limited and now everyone can hack and use persuasion/intimidation. ME2 is even less of an RPG than the first game.

Not a big fan of the new "inventory" system. Nobody liked the system in the first game because the interface was terrible and weapons weren't unique enough. In ME2, they've removed inventory entirely. This really limits your freedom. You can't switch armor outside of the Normandy and you can't drop or pick up weapons in the middle of combat.

The huge barren planets from the first game are gone entirely.

That's a bit misleading. The generic planet landscapes from the first game have been replaced with generic satellite views of planets. You scan them for minerals and it's even less interesting than exploring the planets in the first game. Granted, the side quests are much more diverse now and they don't recycle the same sets over and over.

While I'm not a big fan of the streamlining, the game is still very entertaining. If you ignore the marketing of the game as an RPG and consider it a pure shooter, it's easier to overlook the flaws. I went ahead and preordered the game as it's certainly worth buying.

yeah because he doesn't have a reputation around here as a serial whiner who is never happy with games or anything.

The only one whining here is you.

This comment was edited on Jan 26, 2010, 02:36.

Because I usually agree with him on game quality?

I know this is confusing.

I'm not sure what his pirating has to do with his taste in games or his ability to convey his opinion.

In fact it's the ass clowns like yourself, who think his stance on piracy discredits everything he says, whom I look down upon.

yeah because he doesn't have a reputation around here as a serial whiner who is never happy with games or anything. that he gets them all for free just adds fuel to the fire. funny how you pop up to defend him all the time, wonder why that is.

This comment was edited on Jan 25, 2010, 21:43.

if theres one person you want to trust for your game reviews, its the whiny pirate.

I'm not sure what his pirating has to do with his taste in games or his ability to convey his opinion.

In fact it's the ass clowns like yourself, who think his stance on piracy discredits everything he says, whom I look down upon.

This comment was edited on Jan 25, 2010, 19:51.

No, it isn't ethical - whilst you've paid for it, the 450,000 leechers you're feeding from and seeding too likely haven't. That makes you part of the problem.

A game as big as Mass Effect 2 is going to be pirated, individual contributions are meaningless considering how many seedboxes will be putting the game out there. I'm not saying it's right, it's definitely not but half of my Steam group preordered it and were all playing it on the weekend because they simply didn't want to wait.

It's an IGN review so take it with a grain of salt, but the video review looked outstanding. I try and ignore the commentary and focus on the gameplay clips and the game looked impressive. This is definitely getting added to my goozex que.

I'm not saying you should care but there is actually going to be a fair amount of content not available to used copies of the game FWIW.

This comment was edited on Jan 25, 2010, 12:33.