"One Save Games" to hit market, limit used sales, only lets you play game once thru

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yeah those titles look good, far cry was good and crysis wasn't bad either. But have you actually played that free game you mentioned, team fortress 2? I kind of got the impression you might get your butt kicked if you didn't upgrade the weapons, but like I said that's just from reading about it, I haven't played it. I might try it now that it's free.

Anyway, that's a way better business model than what Capcom is doing.

Well, my personal preference is not affected by this one-save deal because when I play video game I only look at graphic, sound, gameplay, and story-line......and the fun of the game. So good luck finding another method.

P.S. On a side note, used games price will surely decrease......good for me, I will be able to buy more of them.

Originally posted by the_0bserver85
Well, my personal preference is not affected by this one-save deal because when I play video game I only look at graphic, sound, gameplay, and story-line......and the fun of the game.

Don't you find it appealing to play a complex game with a different player class and/or a different strategy??? The storyline itself is variable in good games... It's an interactive novel. Play-once approach is a waste...

reply to post by buddhasystem


If it were fixated on one charactered, class, and storyline in RPG genre, then I really am pissed.

This could be accomplished on future systems with a hybrid optical disk drive with limited burning capability. Disks would be mastered in a multi session format where only a specific track on the disk will be writable to maybe include saves and a final kill bit track to disable the game once completed leaving the game data track read only.

It will suck eggs for sure.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
...now they want to use the monsanto model.

Lol, a terminator file!

I hope they're stupid enough to do it and put themselves out of business.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yeah those titles look good, far cry was good and crysis wasn't bad either. But have you actually played that free game you mentioned, team fortress 2? I kind of got the impression you might get your butt kicked if you didn't upgrade the weapons

Hi there Arb, I just played for a few minutes, can't tell anything meaningful about it... Does not seem all that great honestly despite first-class visual art.

reply to post by wiandiii


From what that says it sounds like anyone who completes the game 100% (doing EVERYTHING, plat. trophy on ps3 and w/e there is for xbox) Do you know how many people actually do that? And the ones that do, aren't going to be giving the game up anyways, so as bad as it sounds, it's not that big of a deal if this is the case.

Most people beat a game and shelf it, they don't go for 100%. Only the really hardcore/ocd people do for the most part.

Although I do agree it's a stupid idea, just nothing im personally worried about, because I fall into the "If I 100% this game then i'm not giving it up to any one..... ever." category.

reply to post by gabbermatt


i understand what you saying, but remember, alot of people who buy games have a family, or partner etc.
quite often when i am finished with a game i'll let the kids play it depending on what it is, or if my partner likes the look of it she will then use it, and then start a new save. so if it is only one save then that would mean i would have to buy 3 copies of the same game maybe more just so everyone in my household can play it from the start and get the FULL content rather than having to reload my save with everything already unlocked etc.

another reason why it is a bad idea is the enviorment, once games start becoming one use disposables there will be an increase in resource usage and trash, i currently keep my games and maybe play through again and do things a different way, i often find i missed a few things i did'nt get/find the first time around, if they are one save they become useless once complete, what will people do? they cannot sell it on or give it away etc because it is no use, so they will have to bin it and go and buy a new game. they are just trying to give things a shorter usage life, to maximise profits.

Originally posted by gabbermatt
Most people beat a game and shelf it, they don't go for 100%. Only the really hardcore/ocd people do for the most part.

Well I'm not hardcore but I know a few games where quite a lot of people re-play to get different angles of the non-linear story, weapons, tactics etc. Recent crop of games is such that the content is quite rich, and to play only once would mean discarding a lot of content for which you paid. It's almost like you buy a book, read the first chapter, and then throw it into recycling bin.

capcom has been on this path since the gamecube/shareholder fiasco. the devs were fed up with sony amongst other things and decided to develop around 5 top tier games for gamecube to let them know how they felt. though most games were profitable they didn't pull in the numbers a usual ps2 game would. shareholders went nuts, and the path to "pure" profit was forged.

since then, capcom has led the way on cheaping the customer base. mercenaries for 3ds is getting slammed by reviewers for being nothing more then a side-game, infact it always was, when you bought a resident evil game. but now, capcom drops it on the handheld totally unrefined, and has the brass to charge full price for it. I remember just reading that they didn't even bother to add graphics to the menus nor allowed the next level to auto-load. that is the def of half-assing-it.

the videogame market went south as soon as the "publishers" came in. on one hand there was now enough money to finance bigger projects, but then your development was completely based upon what they deemed might be profitable, which usually meant a knock-off of whatever was popular at the time. engines were now leased out to save money and games were being rushed to market despite bugs, needing immediate patches upon purchase.

then the penny pinching really took off, aside from consoles, most top tier pc versions of games get NO demo any more. some online games require a fee now if you bought it used or borrowed it from a friend. then the bulk of "good" games ship with a paltry 10-15 hour single player mode and tons of purchaseable downloaded content ready to go. then you got the "cloud" like onlive. you pay FULL price for the good new games, but only get to play it as long as they host it online, around 2-3years. so we can kiss physical ownership goodbye soon to.

the gaming market is RIPE to crash all over again.

reply to post by lifeform11


I completely see your point of view, but like I said, it looks like they are pointing this to the "100% completion crowd" meaning the game WON'T be locked down until 100% completion is achieved.

My assumption comes from this line:

Once you play through the game entirely, unlocking all of the hidden treasures and extras, a user will not be able to erase the game's data and start over again.

So if my assumption is right, it's an easy work around. Don't grab that last item.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by gabbermatt
Most people beat a game and shelf it, they don't go for 100%. Only the really hardcore/ocd people do for the most part.

Well I'm not hardcore but I know a few games where quite a lot of people re-play to get different angles of the non-linear story, weapons, tactics etc. Recent crop of games is such that the content is quite rich, and to play only once would mean discarding a lot of content for which you paid. It's almost like you buy a book, read the first chapter, and then throw it into recycling bin.

Again, like I said above, according to what was said in the OP, it looks like it's a 100% completion lock. 90% of games out there require multiple play throughs for 100% completion. I.E. Nier on the PS3 absolutely requires 2 full playthroughs and for you you to re do the last half 2 or 3 times before you can get 100%.

reply to post by wingsfan

Good analysis. the whole industry might be ripe for a crash as you said, but Capcom may crash faster than the rest if they do this "one time play" insanity. I also wondered if this might be an attack against the game rental business? I have no idea if that was a consideration at all, just wondering.

Originally posted by gabbermatt
So if my assumption is right, it's an easy work around. Don't grab that last item.

Even if that works, isn't that like the gaming equivalent of making love with your SO but not finishing? Finishing the game is half the fun!

I like the other solution suggested by others better, don't buy capcom games with this feature.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well I'm not hardcore but I know a few games where quite a lot of people re-play to get different angles of the non-linear story, weapons, tactics etc. Recent crop of games is such that the content is quite rich, and to play only once would mean discarding a lot of content for which you paid.

For me it depends on how good the game is. If it's good I want to play it over using different tactics.

If the game isn't good, I may not finish it at all or if I do, I won't want to play it again.

Civilization 4 for the PC needed to be played at least twice, once trying to live in harmony with the other countries in the world, and again trying to take over the entire world. And if you like it you can play it again as the leader of different countries, each leader has a unique personality and each country has special units unique to that country. In fact one of the features built into the game is to keep track of your stats from playing the game multiple times, so a one time playthrough would have been completely unthinkable for that game.

Originally posted by gabbermatt
So if my assumption is right, it's an easy work around. Don't grab that last item.

Even if that works, isn't that like the gaming equivalent of making love with your SO but not finishing? Finishing the game is half the fun!

I like the other solution suggested by others better, don't buy capcom games with this feature.


Eh well... most cases one person ends up being dissatisfied anyways =P

But really, it could be like "Playthrough once and grab all but item a" "play through again but don't grab item b, and grab a" and there... you've grabbed every item and are still allowed to continue playing.

Also, It's not like we can't mod our systems to read burned copies, which means a work around, it would just make the market for modded PS3s and Xboxs larger, and the only people to blame will be the gaming companies this time.

They can blame it on pirates now, but the second they implement a "Once you 100% you're done" rule, I can guarantee it would be GG for the companies. Everyone's either going to go back to pirating the crap out of PC games or they are going to buy modded systems and learn how to get the games for free. I know I would, and I try to support the developers, but if they agree to crap like that, then nope, they've lost my support and i'll start pirating.

Just try it. Hackers will love to rip their security apart.

reply to post by wiandiii


Crapcom needs to burn in the firery pits of gamer hell.

Thankfully they no longer make games any more that I am interested in, imo they focus mainly on crapware.



Meanwhile.... in a video game that doesn't suck your soul out through your eyes as it drags you into corporate ultragreed hell.

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
Just try it. Hackers will love to rip their security apart.

If Capcom does this then they will lose money on more ways than I can count. Blackmarket counterfeit games could be worth more than the OEM games as they would most likley be the old sytle play forever games.

OEM games $50

Counterfeit games $60

And people still buy the counterfeit games without the one-save deal. I can see it happening.
Would you be willing to pay more for counterfeit games without the one-save deal knowing you could play over and over and have no problem selling or trading it versus a less costly game that has one-save deal that no one will want to buy or trade for?

It could be the first time in history (that I know of ) where the counterfeit could be worth more that the original. Now that is funny.

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard, in a long history of stupid ideas. I could go on about how stupid it is, but since I only read the first page and am pretty sure others have brought up some points on this moronic idea, I won't bother to say much else.

Other then... If they do this I wont even bother buying the games that implement it. F...that #, sure you can hack it and all that, to get around it, but just the implementation of it on any game is a big turn off and indication to buy something else. Really is capcom trying to go out of business? Or they just that greedy and stupid? I take it that its the latter.

Originally posted by gabbermatt

So if my assumption is right, it's an easy work around. Don't grab that last item.

if i have never played the game before how would i know what the last item is? or even where the game ends?
i would have to guess and for all i know miss completing the last 2 levels because i guessed the game ended earlier than it actually did.

edit to add: also you would never see how the game ends, do they live happily ever after? etc etc.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I like the other solution suggested by others better, don't buy capcom games with this feature.

i have already started boycotting all capcom games etc, untill they drop the stupid idea, not just the games with that feature, everything