Here is the write-up. In short, Capcom's upcoming latest release in the Resident Evil franchise for the 3DS will be a one save progress only copy. Once you play through the game in its entirety the cartridge will essentially lock itself preventing any new save data, no selling it back to a game store, no buying a used copy, no letting your friends borrow it.
Is Capcom overstepping thier bounds here? obviously they have the right but will gamers stand for this? And what do you think the other video game development companies will take from this?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or beyond used games, what if you simply like the game and want to play it again?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It is possible that they just played the game and realized how horrible it is, and assumed that no one would want to replay it. So if your friends dont believe you when you complain about the ending where everything turned into My Little Pony, they'll just have to buy it themselves.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So if your friends dont believe you when you complain about the ending where everything turned into My Little Pony
I can't believe anybody would complain about that either!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Bronies, btw is my favorite internet spawned vercacular.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I will never buy a game that I can only play through once. Not that I play through every game multiple times, but I want to be able to if I choose. Not to mention the fact that I tend to share games with my brother, so a minimum of 2 save files is a must.
Screw you, Capcom. A lot of people aren't going to accept this, and for perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with reselling games. Besides, I would imagine that the big money makers are the console titles, and since files are saved onto the user's hard drive this strategy won't help them there. This whole thing makes no sense.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's a terrible idea, seriously, it boggles the mind that there are men and women getting paid lots of money to churn out concepts like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hope, for my faith in capitalism, that this is an experiment; "Let's see how much of an impact this has." There really the only way it makes sense, as a gauge of measuring the resistance, heh.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If that is true then I would hate to be the person responsible for deciding to gamble on a Resident Evil game.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I see Capcom being very quiet about this particular feature so that most people will rush out and buy the game having no idea.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: I see Capcom being very quiet about this particular feature so that most people will rush out and buy the game having no idea.
I'm hopeful somebody will find a way to clean the cartridge of saved data.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If they are trying to prevent resale this is the stupidest (effective) way to do it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If they tried something else - irreversibly locking the game cartridge to the specific handset, for instance - I'd think it was a worthwhile test.
Evidently they are going for extra sales in the segment that includes "would buy a secondhand game, but would also consider buying the same title new if secondhand [fully functional] is not available." I kind of doubt there is much overlap with the segment that would boycott the game over a resale-prevention mechanism.
But a REPLAY-prevention mechanism is going to irritate a lot more of that target segment.
Edit: either way, if the mechanism isn't made clear in the standard product description, then they will purposely take advantage of a consumer expectation that won't be met, and I think it's immoral to do that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Stupid idea, will result in opposite of intent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder if, pending documentation on the actual box people can see when they buy, there might be eventual grounds for lawsuit. I've never played nor even heard of a game that disallows any replay at all once beaten. I would never expect not to be able to without specific warning.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Punishing people for legally purchasing a game, sounds like Sony's copy protected cds all over again.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Its like reading a novel, and the very last line says "This book will set on fire in 5 4 3 2"
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The fight to protect digital intellectual property is hilariously quixotic. Doomed to failure.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So Capcom's response is, "Don't worry, the game is really not that great, besides a high score you won't be saving anything anyway! No unlockables, no story, no worries!"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Capcom's been stepping in a lot of poo piles lately. Just this month they lost a battle with the gamers over Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition DRM.
quote: Capcom's original plan for SSFIV: AE was that less than half of the game's roster - just 15 out of the potential 39 - would be available if the game wasn't hooked up to the internet. Fans were rather upset about this limitation, saying legitimate consumers would have a worse experience than the pirates.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Capcom hates used games? I hate almost all video games. Except 8-bit NES
Give me 8-bit Nintendo, or give me death.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :