I could see a genuinely shitty (even by the standards of the genre) SP experience (which I felt SCV had) could be overdone by the multiplayer/online mechanic.
I was just under the impression that it wasn't as well received as its predecessor. Sort of Tekken 6 again (unless I'm way off base for that).
The last SC game to get big sales/press was SC2 and that was due to Link being in the GC version. Of course it was also the last one to be launched across 3 consoles, so the total sales comparison might not be fair.
I'm kinda disappointed that SC5's features paled in comparison to even the PSP version of SCIV (which was honestly one of the best single player oriented fighting games ever made) but SC5 has it where it counts as far as the actual fighting meat of the game is concerned and it's a great framework for future SC offerings. It also helps that SC5's netcode is so buttery smooth that it could be served on top of a plate of 200 dollar pancakes.
The last SC game to get big sales/press was SC2 and that was due to Link being in the GC version. Of course it was also the last one to be launched across 3 consoles, so the total sales comparison might not be fair.
IV did get a big press coverage for the star wars characters.
That wasn't as big a deal as Link though, especially since a lot of people assumed that they'd DLC the opposite character so it didn't matter in the end (which turned out to be true).
I'm kinda disappointed that SC5's features paled in comparison to even the PSP version of SCIV (which was honestly one of the best single player oriented fighting games ever made) but SC5 has it where it counts as far as the actual fighting meat of the game is concerned and it's a great framework for future SC offerings. It also helps that SC5's netcode is so buttery smooth that it could be served on top of a plate of 200 dollar pancakes.
Project Soul got barely a year of dev time. The fact that the mechanics are solid as they are is nothing short of a miracle really.
I'd like to see a feature of account canceling where you simply get to "offload" games you've bought to your PC from your account. You know, so you actually get to keep the shit you bought after parting ways with the service. I wonder if any of the digital storefronts today would ever allow that?
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
DRM-free outfits like GoG and Humble Bundle by default, since you download an installer and that's that. Steam and the like? Not a chance since it'll undercut their control, and I dunno if publishers would care for it either.
This sort of thing is why I do empathize with people weary of DD services in general.
Though it is becoming the standard policy for things.
That message is because Steam support is completely terrible, and quite possible administered by dark automatons or people who don't actually know English.
You will not get a nuanced response from Steam support unless/until you somehow escalate.
Still, it is a question worth asking and worth having answered correctly.
Eh, it's gonna take a major lawsuit and probably a supreme court ruling to finally end nonsense (or, depending, confirm it) like this, at least in the states.
And it probably won't come from Steam or Origin, but something more ubiquitous like iTunes; in regards to whether or not you "own" things bought on digital services.
I don't think you're gonna get a straight answer from Valve on the matter until there is some legal precedent either way; until then you'll get the legal form answer that says the same thing as their EULA.
You don't own them. Its a time limited license subscription. There is really nothing even vaguely nebulous about that. says it in the SSA/Tos, you agree to it every single time you buy something. Even your account info lists them as subscriptions.
People just, as usual, don't read.
Also before anyone asks: Yes, its completely legal. No it doesn't fall under the EU ruling either because its even listed as a time limited subscription.
If this went to court it'd pretty much drag in every pay per view, rental and leasing legal precedent in the book. It'd be a very awkward case and one with enough money behind it that it would probably only end up worse for consumers, sadly.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Is it "digital distribution is going to steal my dollars" time again?
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Even the EULA for physical copies is dubious in terms of whether it means shit in the court of law. But this sort of thing has not come up in any sort of major shit storm. And it won't. It'd take some company like Zynga pulling some retarded move to make it a major issue that changes how distribution of software is handled.
I could probably find this out by actually reading a ToS, but when you purchase a game on a disc isn't it kind of the same thing?
As in you only own the physical items but you're also purchasing a license to play the actual contents of the disc.
Most of the time yeah. I don't know why people are still up in arms over the whole digital distribution thing. It's only ever been "renting". Not sure why Valve changing their agreement is a big deal either. The only change was not being able to get them with a class action suit. Unless I misread something.
I could probably find this out by actually reading a ToS, but when you purchase a game on a disc isn't it kind of the same thing?
As in you only own the physical items but you're also purchasing a license to play the actual contents of the disc.
Yeah, but I think the situation is a lot more pronounced with digital games.
To put it another way, excluding the possibility of big burly men kicking down my door and ripping the games from my hands, there's really nothing stopping me from playing my games outside the actual physical erosion of the disc. Which will happen eventually. What's the estimated lifespan of a CD, like 20 years or something?
It's the same ToS regardless, but to people that feels a lot better over having The Man® nuke their entire collection with the press of a button.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I could probably find this out by actually reading a ToS, but when you purchase a game on a disc isn't it kind of the same thing?
As in you only own the physical items but you're also purchasing a license to play the actual contents of the disc.
Most of the time yeah. I don't know why people are still up in arms over the whole digital distribution thing. It's only ever been "renting". Not sure why Valve changing their agreement is a big deal either. The only change was not being able to get them with a class action suit. Unless I misread something.
RPS did a good piece on this. Just because they put a piece of legal blurb in their TOS that doesn't make it law. In reality they're just putting in what they hope will be law and then sit and wait for it to be put to the test. I'm pretty confident if this caused noticable damage to peoples consumer rights it would lose out in an EU court.
You don't own them. Its a time limited license subscription. There is really nothing even vaguely nebulous about that. says it in the SSA/Tos, you agree to it every single time you buy something. Even your account info lists them as subscriptions.
People just, as usual, don't read.
Also before anyone asks: Yes, its completely legal. No it doesn't fall under the EU ruling either because its even listed as a time limited subscription.
If this went to court it'd pretty much drag in every pay per view, rental and leasing legal precedent in the book. It'd be a very awkward case and one with enough money behind it that it would probably only end up worse for consumers, sadly.
Pay per view and rental are way different. Neither one says "buy now" when you are buying, all implications when you hand your money over are that you are purchasing the game, not licensing it.
I understand software EULAs and the idea of licensing, but these licenses have only been the case for PC software (albeit for a long time) and have always contradicted the law (even when they follow it).
What I'm saying is consumer protection is fucked. :P
It's called "licensing" and it's completely legal.
I was talking about the collective action clause. That's yet to be put to test in a court of law anywhere. Frankly I don't think it'll stand up in an EU court. They can't just put "you're not allowed to sue us" in a EULA and twirl their evil mustaches, there's certain consumer rights you can't sign away even if you wanted to.
If you're satisfied with 30+ smartphone games, good for you. I mean, I consider the quality argument to be an important one, but if the situation works for you, it works for you.
But all you have to do is look at the sale charts and how the likes of Pokemon, Mario Kart, Mario Bros. and so on are consistently on them to know that you are not the norm and that the landscape is not exactly shifting towards your habits.
I don't think I've ever seen mobile titles included in those sales charts. New Super Mario Bros. 2 shifted around 407K titles in it's first week of sales. Angry Birds Space did 20 million.
NSMB2: $16,296,044.97
Angry Birds Space: $19,800,000
Seems to me the sales are shifting towards mobile... but math was never my thing, so my numbers might be off.
Angry Birds space has been out how much longer than NSMB2, which just came out IIRC?
Sony announced two new PS3 collections this morning as part of its "PlayStation Collections" initiative. First: God of War Saga, collecting all three console God of War games with the God of War Origins Collection (both PSP games) and "exclusive bonus content." What could that be? Also of note, the entire collection is "remastered for HD" and all games have trophy support. Guess that rumor was valid, eh?
Infamous is also getting a collection, which ... collects the first two Infamous titles, the PSN game Festival of Blood, and the ambiguously phrased "extra missions." There's also some other in-game content included ("additional character costumes, power ups and weapon styles").
The games "start at" $30, and the various content will also be available in an a la carte form via PSN (albeit without the swanky additional goods). The God of War Saga and Infamous Collection join Ratchet & Clank on the PlayStation Collections bus, and Sony promises "additional news in the coming weeks" on other franchises we might see end up getting the collection treatment. If we were betting men (and we are), we'd wager that said news will pop up next week during Gamescom 2012. Just a guess.
It's called "licensing" and it's completely legal.
I was talking about the collective action clause. That's yet to be put to test in a court of law anywhere. Frankly I don't think it'll stand up in an EU court. They can't just put "you're not allowed to sue us" in a EULA and twirl their evil mustaches, there's certain consumer rights you can't sign away even if you wanted to.
Agree. In the US you can contract away your rights. The first time this gets a serious challenge it will probably go down. Unless it makes it to the supreme court in which case we're all screwed.
Consumers' ability to trade-in games at GameStop contributes $1.8bn to the US games industry every year, the retailer has claimed.
Revealing that 70 per cent of all income derived from used games is immediately spent on new titles, GameStop president Paul Raines told Gamasutra that it’s proud of how it has facilitated pre-owned software on the US High Street.
"We are not ashamed of the pre-owned business and in fact we believe that it's good for the industry,” he argued.
"We're really not cannibalizing new game sales. That's a common misconception. The knowledge of how this model helps drive sales really resides at the publisher level.
"A lot of our consumers tell us that the pre-owned business has allowed them to learn more about video gaming. There's a disconnect between a lot of the blogosphere and what consumers tell us.”
So why does this debate persist? Because developers remain uncomfortable with the notion of pre-owned, Raines argued.
"We have not been successful in communicating to developers how this business really helps,” he admitted. “So my answer to developers is that we are driving growth in a category that needs to grow.
“We think there's a real lack of awareness as far as how it's good for the industry. The transparency you're seeing from us is because we want people to know about it, helping people understand what we're trying to do for the industry."
I actually agree with Gamestop (gasp). Not only do I think trade credit helps spur software sales, but I think hardware sales are helped a lot but them.
While a lot of gamers here would never imagine parting with older games, there are many, many folks who only upgrade to the next console with the help of trading in their previous system and games. Gamestop always runs promos that are reasonably generous at hardware launches to get people to do so and it does work fairly well. I would love to get a figure of how many consoles sales at Gamestop are partially funded by trades - I think we'd find the rate of new hardware purchases would noticeably slow without it.
I think it's good that they're being more aggressive in fighting back when companies try to blame them for poor software sales. If a game is great it should take awhile for used copies to hit in any significant quantity - if you have 15 used copies in a store within a week of launch the game probably has other issues.
I hate Gamestop for a variety of reasons, from the way they treat the industry to the (extremely poor) way they treat their employees. They'll burn one day, and I hope it's flashy and brutal.
You don't own them. Its a time limited license subscription. There is really nothing even vaguely nebulous about that. says it in the SSA/Tos, you agree to it every single time you buy something. Even your account info lists them as subscriptions.
People just, as usual, don't read.
Also before anyone asks: Yes, its completely legal. No it doesn't fall under the EU ruling either because its even listed as a time limited subscription.
If this went to court it'd pretty much drag in every pay per view, rental and leasing legal precedent in the book. It'd be a very awkward case and one with enough money behind it that it would probably only end up worse for consumers, sadly.
Pay per view and rental are way different. Neither one says "buy now" when you are buying, all implications when you hand your money over are that you are purchasing the game, not licensing it.
I understand software EULAs and the idea of licensing, but these licenses have only been the case for PC software (albeit for a long time) and have always contradicted the law (even when they follow it).
What I'm saying is consumer protection is fucked. :P
Steam hasn't been contradicting the law though. Read what you agree to /every single time you make a purchase/.
It literally calls you a subscriber in large, bold letters. It has for... ages now.
Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement and the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software.
This has literally been in the SSA for as long as I can recall.
You agree to this, literally check this box, every single time you make a purchase. This isn't some ToS you just toss. This is you willfully signing away your money on a subscription in a legally binding way every single time you hit that purchase button. There is no way to bypass this check box. It does not come autochecked.
People seem to have no clue about consumer protections or anything of the sort, but I guarantee you this would hold up in any court, because of exactly how its worded, exactly when and how often they make you agree to it (Every single time, manually, right before purchase.)
Just because you dont read a contract you literally sign (digital signatures via agreeing to a term while signed into a private account are binding, ya'll.) every time you fall under the umbrella of it, doesn't make it invalid. It just makes you silly for not knowing what you're signing every single time.
Either their trade in value needs to go up or their used prices need to come down.
Oh, and selling opened and played games as new. That shit's gotta stop as well.
I understand why their trade in values are low - can you imagine the hit they would have taken if they had bought a crap ton of Rayman Origins close to launch for $40 each only to have it drop so quick for example? Gutting their games still bothers me and it probably always will though.
The attitude some gamers have against them though is kind of hard to swallow. While I do have a local chain that sells games other than Gamestop - there are a lot of gamers who probably would have no retail brick and mortar shop to browse without Gamestop, especially for a niche game like something by Atlus or even finding an old copy of a game like Bayonetta.
I can see Gamestop getting tired of the publishers who want to blame them over and over again for hurting new game sales when Gamestop is sometimes the only place that will carry a game that's not well known, and we all know they push new game preorders more than anything else in the store.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Especially when you consider how more and more games force you to use Steam even if you buy the physical copy from a store. Which I still think is complete BS, incidentally.
Just another thing that gives pirates a better deal than legal customers.
Either their trade in value needs to go up or their used prices need to come down.
Oh, and selling opened and played games as new. That shit's gotta stop as well.
I understand why their trade in values are low - can you imagine the hit they would have taken if they had bought a crap ton of Rayman Origins close to launch for $40 each only to have it drop so quick for example? Gutting their games still bothers me and it probably always will though.
The attitude some gamers have against them though is kind of hard to swallow. While I do have a local chain that sells games other than Gamestop - there are a lot of gamers who probably would have no retail brick and mortar shop to browse without Gamestop, especially for a niche game like something by Atlus or even finding an old copy of a game like Bayonetta.
I can see Gamestop getting tired of the publishers who want to blame them over and over again for hurting new game sales when Gamestop is sometimes the only place that will carry a game that's not well known, and we all know they push new game preorders more than anything else in the store.
My question is, why bother with B&M's at all? I can find a copy of Bayonetta for <$10 on Amazon. What do you gain by getting it at a physical store?
Posts
I was just under the impression that it wasn't as well received as its predecessor. Sort of Tekken 6 again (unless I'm way off base for that).
IV did get a big press coverage for the star wars characters.
Project Soul got barely a year of dev time. The fact that the mechanics are solid as they are is nothing short of a miracle really.
That's not being cool Valve.
Though it is becoming the standard policy for things.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
This sort of thing is why I do empathize with people weary of DD services in general.
That message is because Steam support is completely terrible, and quite possible administered by dark automatons or people who don't actually know English.
You will not get a nuanced response from Steam support unless/until you somehow escalate.
Still, it is a question worth asking and worth having answered correctly.
And it probably won't come from Steam or Origin, but something more ubiquitous like iTunes; in regards to whether or not you "own" things bought on digital services.
I don't think you're gonna get a straight answer from Valve on the matter until there is some legal precedent either way; until then you'll get the legal form answer that says the same thing as their EULA.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
People just, as usual, don't read.
Also before anyone asks: Yes, its completely legal. No it doesn't fall under the EU ruling either because its even listed as a time limited subscription.
If this went to court it'd pretty much drag in every pay per view, rental and leasing legal precedent in the book. It'd be a very awkward case and one with enough money behind it that it would probably only end up worse for consumers, sadly.
As in you only own the physical items but you're also purchasing a license to play the actual contents of the disc.
Most of the time yeah. I don't know why people are still up in arms over the whole digital distribution thing. It's only ever been "renting". Not sure why Valve changing their agreement is a big deal either. The only change was not being able to get them with a class action suit. Unless I misread something.
Yeah, but I think the situation is a lot more pronounced with digital games.
To put it another way, excluding the possibility of big burly men kicking down my door and ripping the games from my hands, there's really nothing stopping me from playing my games outside the actual physical erosion of the disc. Which will happen eventually. What's the estimated lifespan of a CD, like 20 years or something?
It's the same ToS regardless, but to people that feels a lot better over having The Man® nuke their entire collection with the press of a button.
RPS did a good piece on this. Just because they put a piece of legal blurb in their TOS that doesn't make it law. In reality they're just putting in what they hope will be law and then sit and wait for it to be put to the test. I'm pretty confident if this caused noticable damage to peoples consumer rights it would lose out in an EU court.
Pay per view and rental are way different. Neither one says "buy now" when you are buying, all implications when you hand your money over are that you are purchasing the game, not licensing it.
I understand software EULAs and the idea of licensing, but these licenses have only been the case for PC software (albeit for a long time) and have always contradicted the law (even when they follow it).
What I'm saying is consumer protection is fucked. :P
I was talking about the collective action clause. That's yet to be put to test in a court of law anywhere. Frankly I don't think it'll stand up in an EU court. They can't just put "you're not allowed to sue us" in a EULA and twirl their evil mustaches, there's certain consumer rights you can't sign away even if you wanted to.
If that's true, well.. Good job Valve: you just made every paranoid rant against Steam accurate.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/06/sony-introduces-playstation-collections-kicks-off-program-wit/
Five games on the God of War collection, wow.
Agree. In the US you can contract away your rights. The first time this gets a serious challenge it will probably go down. Unless it makes it to the supreme court in which case we're all screwed.
While a lot of gamers here would never imagine parting with older games, there are many, many folks who only upgrade to the next console with the help of trading in their previous system and games. Gamestop always runs promos that are reasonably generous at hardware launches to get people to do so and it does work fairly well. I would love to get a figure of how many consoles sales at Gamestop are partially funded by trades - I think we'd find the rate of new hardware purchases would noticeably slow without it.
I think it's good that they're being more aggressive in fighting back when companies try to blame them for poor software sales. If a game is great it should take awhile for used copies to hit in any significant quantity - if you have 15 used copies in a store within a week of launch the game probably has other issues.
Either their trade in value needs to go up or their used prices need to come down.
Oh, and selling opened and played games as new. That shit's gotta stop as well.
Values being low and prices being high protects against the inevitable price drops, unfortunately.
But how are they gonna rifle through your boxes to spare your kids the horrors of OnLive promo codes if they don't?
They're protecting our children, don't you get it? Why do you hate our children?
That's going to be the slogan for ScribbleVille :P
Steam hasn't been contradicting the law though. Read what you agree to /every single time you make a purchase/.
It literally calls you a subscriber in large, bold letters. It has for... ages now.
This has literally been in the SSA for as long as I can recall.
You agree to this, literally check this box, every single time you make a purchase. This isn't some ToS you just toss. This is you willfully signing away your money on a subscription in a legally binding way every single time you hit that purchase button. There is no way to bypass this check box. It does not come autochecked.
People seem to have no clue about consumer protections or anything of the sort, but I guarantee you this would hold up in any court, because of exactly how its worded, exactly when and how often they make you agree to it (Every single time, manually, right before purchase.)
Just because you dont read a contract you literally sign (digital signatures via agreeing to a term while signed into a private account are binding, ya'll.) every time you fall under the umbrella of it, doesn't make it invalid. It just makes you silly for not knowing what you're signing every single time.
I understand why their trade in values are low - can you imagine the hit they would have taken if they had bought a crap ton of Rayman Origins close to launch for $40 each only to have it drop so quick for example? Gutting their games still bothers me and it probably always will though.
The attitude some gamers have against them though is kind of hard to swallow. While I do have a local chain that sells games other than Gamestop - there are a lot of gamers who probably would have no retail brick and mortar shop to browse without Gamestop, especially for a niche game like something by Atlus or even finding an old copy of a game like Bayonetta.
I can see Gamestop getting tired of the publishers who want to blame them over and over again for hurting new game sales when Gamestop is sometimes the only place that will carry a game that's not well known, and we all know they push new game preorders more than anything else in the store.
I think Scottsman has the right of it. The retail level of this industry is going to become awkward as shit over the next decade.
Especially when you consider how more and more games force you to use Steam even if you buy the physical copy from a store. Which I still think is complete BS, incidentally.
Just another thing that gives pirates a better deal than legal customers.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
My question is, why bother with B&M's at all? I can find a copy of Bayonetta for <$10 on Amazon. What do you gain by getting it at a physical store?