Insomniac Twitter Response to Resistance 3 Boycotters

I say they shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they're selling the copy of the game, I should be able to resell it if I so choose. If they're selling the rights to play the game, I should be able to play it on whatever available platform I want. So if I buy Mass Effect 2 cheap on Steam today, I should either have the right to sell it when I'm sick of it, or I should have the right to play it on my PS3 as well as my PC.

Well, developers, which is it? Are you selling a copy or the rights to play. ONE OR THE OTHER!

Sorry bud, NOTHING stopping you from reselling the game, absolutely NOTHING.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. How does one resell a game purchased on Steam? When many people ended up with 2 copies of Half-Life 2 from buying the Orange Box, then Steam "generously" allowed them to "gift" one copy, but specified that it could NOT be sold, only given away.
That was a special case, normally a Steam game is tied to your account forever. It's the same for any other online distribution service I'm familiar with.

Sorry, I should say publishers, not developers. I guess I missed the point of the article :)

Buy it, play it, looove it. Now stfu, whiny boycotters.

This is how the DLC and F2P models became so popular today. Buying the products will only reinforce its use in future products. Gamers are such lemmings.

I don't know. It makes sense to buy something you like...but I have no problem paying for a new game when doing so supports the awesome developers that made it so they can make more awesome games that I enjoy. Go figure.

ya really, gamers love to whine about other gamers when they buy something they dont like, dont like it, dont buy it and dont ***** about other peope buying it.

I think De-Ting is right (in both posts). But this doesn't effect me for 2 reasons: 1) I play games for the single player mode. 2) I use a PC to play my games. PC's Rule! Consoles Drool! (Bite little fishies...bite.)

ROFL, you know that pcs actually have it WORSE than this right? instead of getting a 1 use code to play multiplayer, you get a 1 use code that ties the whole game to you permanently, wont be long before every game shoves that crap steamworks down your throat, already heading there.

Yes, everything you say is true, but I won't be paying $10 to PSN to play online if I buy used. Anyway DRM sucks, but check out GOG.com. (Witcher 2 is the only new game, but everythig is DRM free!)

I wonder if they're testing the waters to see how much they could get away with this. Maybe soon they give you a code that's tied to a single console, so you can't play that game anywhere else other than that one console that code is tied down to. Not saying that will happen but then again I didn't expect them to limit the amount of installs you could do on some PC games.

It makes sense from a business standpoint. With how garbage the economy is, many gamers are prefering to forgo getting brand new titles and wait for a second hand copy. When a customer purchases a game second hand, the developers and publishers get 0% of that money, but are still expected to refine multiplayer with updates and adjustments, bug fixes, and what not.

Paying a online fee, for use of multiplayer on a second hand game, as unfortunate as it is for gamers is a direct result of gaming companies no longer getting the same value out of their products, and people expecting more and more quality stuffed into a game. Multi-million dollar, year+ long development cycles, and than 2 months after release you get an influx of people who have never paid that company a cent utilizing the same game features others paid $60 for.

It might be possible they're using it to help revenue, and I'm all for game companies staying in business (really, reflect on who's closed up shop in the last 19 years, kind of a sad list) And as long as it's kept sensible, I figure when you're buying used, you're purchasing it for what, 25-30 bucks, a $5 tip to the people who built and published the game is not "evil", and considering how this affects only multi-player, quit acting like the games gimped.

That being said, it raises the quality requirement for multiplayer, a company that tries this and delivers a DNF style multi-player will be **** out and passed by

Icepick, I understand what you're saying and honestly agree in some ways. That being said there are a few places we differ of course.

You pointed out a company has to continue to refine the multiplayer experience and take care of bugs. Bugs, in a perfect world, should never make it to me. I understand that you can't catch everything but they are still a defect in the product and should be the responsibility of the company to resolve without money from me.

You also stated that 2 months later a game experiences an influx of people that have never paid developer/publisher a cent and that other gamers paid $60 dollars for. While that is true, this very statement also means that 2 months later a game has to experience an outflow of gamers that no longer playing the game. Therefore, there should be no real change in what the developer/publisher should be experiencing on their side, other than people are still playing their game.

As far as companies not getting the same value from their products, is it not their responsibility to figure out why and find was of improving that cost situation. If that is not possible and your company is going to go under than you might consider straight up raising the cost of your product. There should be a model in place for maintaining profitability before development even begins.

All of that being said, I understand the sentiment of wanting to tip a developer/publisher $5 dollars. The part that starts irritating me is when I feel like I'm being nickel-and-dimed to death with access codes or DLC that truly feels like it should be in the games already.

As far as the consideration that it only affects multiplayer and therefore the game is not gimped, I can agree with that for some games. Yet, for something like Homefront where multiplayer is what much of the marketing was aimed at, I feel that game was gimped.

Sorry for all the spelling/grammatical errors!

Say the "online pass" is $10. Wouldn't, by nature of the invisible hand (econ nerds), the used game retailers lower their usual used price by $10?

No, not unless demand dropped. They will charge what the market will bare. If I'm wrong, I don't think I ever have been yet, and they do drop the price $10, you can be certain they will pay $10 less to the person trading in the game.

ROFL! DAMMIT I'M NOT SPAMMING!