Codemasters wants to sell incomplete games

[KainXS]

Oh yes read this, they want you to buy incomplete games, buying parts of the game to move forward in the game, and if they do try to implement this in their games I will never buy another codemasters game

“It’s not inconceivable to say that we send out a Formula One game that’s not complete,” he said.

“[M]aybe it’s got six tracks. Then they have to buy their next track, and you follow it around the world. When you turn up in Abu Dhabi you have to pay for the circuit, and whatever the changes are to the cars that are put through. That, I think, would deal with a lot of [piracy issues], and also address the pre-owned.”

http://beefjack.com/news/codemasters...mes-at-retail/

[entropy13]

That's all I can say. Well do actually...

[Kreij]

Not much different than DLC that's not free.

[RejZoR]

So, what they want is to (over)charge you for a crippled base game (preferably 49,99€) and then force you to buy stupid extra content that should be available in the first place.
And if they think this will stop piracy, all i can say is ROFL. One will buy the content, rip it and distribute it in a cracked game. Boo hoo, it's not like it hasn't been done before. CounterStrike:Source updates were just one of them...

[Radical_Edward]

This is retarded. Looks like DiRT 2 was my last purchase from them.

[douglatins]

ASDhAUShADs even activision doesnt pull that off, at least i think

[Red_Machine]

It's not about piracy, it's about the used game market. Publishers don't see a penny of used game sales, only the store does. They hate the idea of not making more money on their games. Therefore they want to implement this because it's a way of ensuring revenue from used game sales.

Another version I have heard is that they want to release the extra stuff free, but only to people who buy the game new, which would cause the used game market to collapse. Tho publishers don't tend to give stuff away for free, so the first one is more likely,

[streetfighter 2]

I don't really care what they do, but if they do as they propose they'll be losing my, and my constituents, business. I also don't support games that have pay only DLC unless there's a damn good reason for it.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Not much different than DLC that's not free.

Exactly. Anything in a game that is unlocked by buying a code is effectively the same thing as what Codemasters is doing. You'd think they would be happy with $50-60 per title as is but no...greedy bastards.

[RejZoR]

Originally Posted by Red_Machine

It's not about piracy, it's about the used game market. Publishers don't see a penny of used game sales, only the store does. They hate the idea of not making more money on their games. Therefore they want to implement this because it's a way of ensuring revenue from used game sales.

Another version I have heard is that they want to release the extra stuff free, but only to people who buy the game new, which would cause the used game market to collapse. Tho publishers don't tend to give stuff away for free, so the first one is more likely,

Is it so hard to provide some support for the games to keep after sales customers happy?
For example, occasionally improved graphics engine, improved compatibility for latest OS etc.
I can safely say many users would pay extra later if they'd get any extra from it.
And the whole point is not preventing used games to be sold, instead prevent users from doing that themself. Most of ppl sell the games because they get bored and they sell them.
Every company should release extra content like mentioned above to keep users locked to the games because of all the goodies. Valve is one of such companies. They keep on updating games that were released 5 or 6 years ago. At least i know Half-Life 2 got an updated graphics engine, same CS:S and others. Same goes for Killing Floor. And Defense Grid. There is no point in selling games if they are interesting even after few years, be it with extra free content or payable DLC stuff for a very low fee. But publishers stick their heads in the sand instead looking for a real solution. How typical. Plus you prefer to buy games where you know you'll get at least some degree of support after years unlike most where releasing a simple patch to fix bugs is already too much for them.

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

I'll just torrent their games out if they do this then. Grids the last game I bought from them.

[EastCoasthandle]

I think this is only for consoles. This would never work on PCs. The other thing is the delivery system. Would the actual cars, tracks, etc already be on disk or do people have to actually download it? From what they are saying it appears you need to unlock what's on disc. On Xbox Live, and PS3 store that would only take a few clicks on the controller to unlock. So when you get to those lock tracks it would only takes seconds to unlock.

Another factor to consider is the initial cost to buy the incomplete game. Few (knowingly) will buy a game that comes with a total of 20 cars and 15 tracks. With 10 cars and 8 tracks locked on disc at a full price of $60.

[THRiLL KiLL]

I am in agreement with Kreij,

they are making the games shorter, and then they are adding pay-dlc. its the same concept.

its sad. we are either stuck with dlc.. or mmorpgs.... no stand-alones anymore.

[Frick]

Plus one to the DLC thing.

Originally Posted by THRiLL KiLL

I am in agreement with Kreij,

they are making the games shorter, and then they are adding pay-dlc. its the same concept.

its sad. we are either stuck with dlc.. or mmorpgs.... no stand-alones anymore.

Also this. It's one of the reasons I find games less and less interesting.

[hat]

Good luck with that, Codemasters. I forsee miserable failure in your future.

[Zenith]

I would sell my copy of F1 at this instant, if I didn't get it as a gift. Well 50% of it. Nevertheless, they act like bunch of ignorants not care for their customers. Well. satisfied customer will be coming back, but not to Codemasters. They promised us F1 2010 but gave us GP3.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by douglatins

ASDhAUShADs even activision doesnt pull that off, at least i think

activision owns bilizzard, blizzard does WOW, WOW does this in spades except you have to pay for additional content as well as the 15$ a month. so 180$ a year plus 50$ per expansion = they may just get a single person for 1230$ by the time cataclysm comes out, and that's assuming they didn't get the collecters editions for the expansions. Plus they'll still be raking that 15$ a month.

now ok I'm sure there's plenty of content but if you were to say get all of rockstars games off of steam you would ahve the same or more amount of content for 1100$ less.

[digibucc]

where does it say the price? he didn't confirm it would be partial AND full price + addons.

I would imagine you would pay less for the base game. and given that the majority of people don't get past 50% on most games anyway (me included) , it's not a horrible idea imo.

Originally Posted by yogurt_21

activision owns bilizzard, blizzard does WOW, WOW does this in spades except you have to pay for additional content as well as the 15$ a month. so 180$ a year plus 50$ per expansion = they may just get a single person for 1230$ by the time cataclysm comes out, and that's assuming they didn't get the collecters editions for the expansions. Plus they'll still be raking that 15$ a month.

now ok I'm sure there's plenty of content but if you were to say get all of rockstars games off of steam you would ahve the same or more amount of content for 1100$ less.

different models, different entities. it really is not accurate to compare mmos to any other type of game. it is for the social aspect as much as any entertainment the game itself would provide, and to put a price on that is much more difficult than estimating man hours and technology. that being said - i think it's more wrong to charge $50 for a crippled, partial game(like we get now) than $1200 for a decade worth of content. not all games are equal, and they shouldn't all come with a standard price tag

note: i don't play any mmos, except occasionally eve , and that's for the space combat not any corps or anything. i never got past the 3 day trial for WoW, boring imo. i just wanted to clarify i am not defending it because i like it, but rather because i truly don't see anything wrong with it.

[yogurt_21]

6 years worth of content, a decade would be 1950$ + whatever other expansions they launch. and sure community, but that can be had for free through lans, free fps multiplayers, modable content, co-ops (though I loathe them) and etc.

I got cs for $9.95 and played it constantly for 4 years. it still only cost me $9.95 and I had all the comradery that WOW offers and more. spent 20$ on halo and got a single player and countless hours of multiplayer for at least 2 years and I still will pick it up every now and again.

other games like mount and blade have mod after mod after mod they exists as an entirely new game each time, there's more then 50 you can try each lasting 40+ hours.

look at the COD series I'd guarantee they'll get you for 350$ max over the same time period WOW is costing you 1230$.

castint off the cost of mmo's is exactly the attitude that is going to cause per track fees to be successful.

also starcraft 2 is already going to be selling premium map packs.

[digibucc]

yogurt, do you not realize you are trying to quantify entertainment value? just because it is not worth it to you does not mean you are the end all answerer of the question. it's up to each individual whether it is worth it or not for them. there can be something said about the ethics of the situation, in regards to the companies themselves - but that is far from having a concrete objective answer either.

you are arguing your opinion and only that, which is fine - it's just very different from arguing using facts or logic. you can rarely influence someone based solely on your own opinions. your opinion that it is not worth it, and others' opinions that it is - are both equally valid and invalid, as they are OPINIONS.

[Easy Rhino]

one word...fail!

[THRiLL KiLL]

case and point.

fallout: new vegas was just realeased. and its pretty buggy.

i want to say its 3 weeks old and allready they are pushing the dlc

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/15288-...-priced-at-10/

its like we are paying $50 to beta test.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by THRiLL KiLL

i want to say its 3 weeks old and allready they are pushing the dlc

And we have Dragon Age: Origins, where you less then 10 hours in the game was asked to purchase a DLC if you wanted that quest.

[Wile E]

If they charge less for the initial game, I see no problem. If they continue to charge $50-60 for only half of a game, I see a problem.

[gunsmoke]

Get the new codemarsters game and by the rest for only 60 Dollars MORE you can have the full
game set

Only from codemarsters