The latest way to combat used game sales... preventing replays.

[Isometric Bacon]

This is a topic which will be close at heart to all the tight-ass gamers out there:

Publishers are now saying the biggest threat to their sales are not from piracy, but from used game sales. Since people are trading in their games, and retailers are reselling them for a profit, they believe they're missing out as they receive no cut of on the resale of the game.

We've already seen them trying to combat this with the latest Mortal Kombat: For those not in the know, the game ships with a 'Online Pass' card which is uniquely tied to the account that first uses the game. If you buy or borrow the game off someone else second hand, you need to pay again separately for a new Online Pass to play it online.

Now, in a more egregious move, Capcom's latest Resident Evil Mercenaries game for 3DS only allows you to have ONE saved game file, effectively only allowing you to play through the game once.

Source:
http://www.gamertell.com/technologytell/article/save-files-are-permanent-in-resident-evil-the-mercenaries-3d/

A bit of digging reveals that you can play various levels back after completing the game, but you can't start from the beginning as a level 0 character.

Is it just me, or is this going too far? Sure it's not THAT much of an inconvenience at this point, but if this starts generally being accepted, there's no limit how far they will take it.

Should we expect to only be able to play through a game once when we are paying Australia's ridiculous inflated RRP prices? These aren't time limited shareware demos, it's the full game.

If they want to combat used game sales, these publishers should be looking at the PC Gaming Market and digital distribution. In that market,  games are sold as cheaper downloads and avoid the substitutional distributor overheads. Every now and there are fantastic sales that bring games down to $15 or less. That would not only prevent used game sales, but also pass savings onto the consumer.

What do you think of these increasingly cheap and nasty tricks to combat the used game market?

[S1NGULAR1TY]

I got burnt (sort-of*) by importing Homefront when it was on the weekly special Play Asia deal for PS3.. for those not in the know, Homefront's online campaign caps you at lvl 5, after which you can't level up without a battle code [like COD games etc, the top level is level 50 or so. Equipment, perks etc are unlocked with level progression].

Battle codes (one time use) ship with the game itself.. but if you buy a 2nd hand copy you'll need to buy a $10 [or so] battle code off the PSN to be able to level up beyond level 5.

I installed the game just fine, but my attached code didn't work [it had expired]. I gave multiplayer a go and enjoyed it and figured it was worth an extra $10 [the game only costed, like, $20] and bought a PSN battle code.. and then ... THAT didn't work.

So what happened? My import copy is Asian "BLAS", but the Aussie PSN is "BLES" version. And apparently on my PS3 there's an Homefront BLAS install folder with the game and it's oblivious to the fact there's a Homefront BLES folder with the installed battlecode patch...

So I'm screwed. Sort-of*, hence the astrerisk above. Truthfully, I really was more interested in the campaign given the writer.. if anything I spend far too much time playing multiplayer shooters** so it's not exactly a curse not being able to grind yet another game to top level stats..

** - this will reduce given my Playstation Logitech USB headset has stopped working with the latest PS3 update, the bastids.

[cheapo]

Being an old school gamer, it's been a little difficult for somebody like me to try and adjust to digital downloads and restrictions surrounding games. I'm one of those people who still enjoys opening the case of a shrink-wrapped game for the first time and knowing I have the entire content of it there on the disc (no, i'm not somebody who smells my games when I open them  ).

For me, the biggest gripe is DLC and addons. I understand it's a way for companies to add longevity and profits to their game but I always end up feeling cheated buying them unless they are on sale.

I recently completed Army Of Two: TFD, which I enjoyed. As per normal, I like to check my achievements once I have finished a game to see what I've missed and was baffled to discover I had not received an achievement for "You need to complete the game on any difficulty"! To my surprise, EA had released 2 missing chapters as DLC shortly after the release of the game titled "Chapters Of Deceit." Yes, deceitful indeed.  An old article I found stated they would be worth 800 points on the 360 marketplace upon release. I checked on the weekend, and they are still 800 points now...a year after that release. I'm certain I won't be able to play these chapters without always having the disc in my possession, so I won't bother.

I can think of many more examples but I won't post them here. In my opinion, DLC specifically created for a retail game on a console (not an actual game) should either be reduced a year or two after release of better still....make it free so more people can enjoy the game once it gets a bit stale. Just as Bungie/Microsoft did with the map packs for Halo 3.

If I was PC gamer, I probably would be able to adapt to digitial downloads/restrictions a lot better but until I know for certain that my next Microsoft console will be able to support any of the DLC I've purchased, I'll always be hesitant to purchase any. If I do, I'll chose carefully or just wait for the disc version of the game (with all the content included) to go cheap. If it's something I really want...I'll wait for it to be discounted on the marketplace. Same rule applies to Arcade games.

Adding restrictions to a game on the other hand and hindering something as simple as the amount of save files you can have (never realised till now that Capcom did that with RE: Merceneries) I think is a much more worse offense though. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually then has the opposite effect and increases piracy. Never bite the hands which feeds you.

[SimOniS]

Question:is capcom really the first game company to implement this no game data erase policy ?

This would be a major problem if the game was actually story based character progression game but for an arcade action experience like Mercenaries it shouldnt really bother anyone which is what capcom was probably thinking.

I actually prefer my pre owned games with the previous owners data, im probably stalkerish like that but im just curious where the last owner got fed up and resold the game. When you pay for a  pre owned game you are definitely not paying for a brand new retail copy. Giving the ability to erase game data pretty much makes any pre owned game as good as a brand new one. (something i wish real life could embrace, buying second hand goods and having a button making it good as new again !)

Its a pretty bold move by Capcom ill give them that, whether it backfires or not really depends on whether the 3DS gets hacked (only a matter of time) or they put a playable Leon S. Kennedy as spotpass DLC.

 EDIT: link for clarification (and review) http://www.gamesradar.com/3ds/resident-evil-the-mercenaries-3d/review/resident-evil-the-mercenaries-3d-review/a-20110628112138373017/g-201009299177574004

The third issue isn?t necessarily related to the quality of the game, but is worth mentioning in case you ever wanted to wipe your save data for the sake of starting fresh. Namely, you can?t. There?s only one save slot, and it cannot be deleted. Anything you accomplish is there forever. Personally, I don?t mind this ?feature? in a score-attack game, because why would I want to erase all that data and start clean? But for those who might want to do so, or were thinking of buying the game used, realize that you 1) Can?t reset the save data, and 2) If buying used, it will already have data on the cart that can?t be altered.

[Isometric Bacon]

Capcom has come back with a statement:

In Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D, all mission progress is saved directly to the Nintendo 3DS cartridge, where it cannot be reset, a spokesman told Kotaku. The nature of the game invites high levels of replayability in order to improve mission scores. In addition, this feature does not remove any content available for users. Second-hand game sales were not a factor in this development decision, so we hope that all our consumers will be able to enjoy the entirety of the survival-action experiences that the game does offer.

Source:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/capcom-denies-used-game-sales-had-anything-to-do-with-forever-saves/#comments

So basically a blank statement that dodges the real question at hand. There's no explanation to why it can 'only save on the cartridge', just mentions that it does, without explaining the reasoning behind this, and the statement that it has nothing to do with used game sales is probably an outright lie.

I'll bet anything it was a test of the waters, to see what consumers are willing to put up with and whether they can get away with it in the future. It worked for pre-release DLC.

EB Games in Australia have said they will not accept any trade ins, and Japanese retailers have already said that they will only be offering 500 yen (approx $6 AUD) trade in value for the game because of this issue. Sounds like they've been successful in their plan.

This would be a major problem if the game was actually story based character progression game but for an arcade action experience like Mercenaries it shouldnt really bother anyone which is what capcom was probably thinking.

It doesn't seem that big a problem in a game like this, and indeed it probably doesn't affect the end game all that much - the problem is it establishes a precedent. If they get away with it here, you'll start seeing it creep into more and more games with more intrusive results. Again, just look at pre-release Download Content. Nowadays development teams are splitting the last fourth of a games content into planned DLC, which is often still located on the disc at release, you just pay a code to unlock it.

Even if you do buy all the DLC, what happens in 10 years time when you want to replay your old games and the server no longer exists, and Sony/Microsoft have moved on and no longer support it? Compound this by a million if you start up the game and it's already had everything completed.

[Anthony]

I've put this in the wait and see basket. A publisher is trying to push the boundaries, as they do. Sometimes it succeeds and becomes mainstream like with day 1 DLC, other times it fails miserably and must be removed from the game such as with Starforce DRM.

As for an opinion, I think its horrendous that a developer or publisher would do anything to make a product inferior just to fight piracy or preowned sales. Especially if it hurts legitimate owners. Capcom should keep in mind that one day the only way to obtain this title will be second hand.

[ianinozzie]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. While I do like to purchase my games brand new, I acknowledge a lot of others do buy them pre-owned and not being able to start from scratch in Resident Evil: Mercenaries is not a great thing!

I do occasionally purchase pre-owned games, but usually only when I can't find a new copy of a game I want or when I find decent trade baits for trading purposes. I was considering getting Resident Evil: Mercenaries but if EB isn't accepting trade-ins for this game, then there's a possibility that Game and JB won't either! Risky prospect to purchase this knowing that a lot of my games eventually do get traded in.

[quackster100]

Well that's one game I certainly won't be getting, as I want the most from second-hand purchases and I generally buy second-hand.