Violence and video games is a topic almost as old as time itself, and we’re all getting tired of hearing people discuss whether or not violent video games are a stimulant for violence & aggression. While the entire gaming community will probably answer that query with a resounding, unanimous “NO”, many analysts and therapists alike disagree. The comedic, critical duo of Penn & Teller recently tackled this topic in the latest episode of Showtime’s Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, and the outcomes of the so-called “investigation” might surprise you.

The first part of the episode is embedded above, courtesy of Kotaku, and the second & third parts are embedded after the jump. Everyone’s favorite Floridian makes an appearance in the episode, but unfortunately, they made him out to some sort of game-hating misanthrope, rather than the forthright, but misguided man he seemed to be when I heard him speak at SGC last week. While I enjoyed the episode, and thought they made a lot of good points, I could’ve done without the crying kid at the end. Luckily, no one at his age probably watches or even gets Showtime, or the kid would be teased for life.

A few days ago I published an article talking about the impact of used game sales and rentals on developers. The piece revolved around comments made by Frontier Developments’ founder, David Braben and his idea to create two price points/versions of a game — a model he compares to the film industry.

I really disagreed with the idea as well as the notion that the used game market is the root of the problem. Instead, I discussed an alternative solution which involved DLC content or “additional incentive” to buy a game new. That said, never in a million years did I think devs would be willing to consider making a vital part of a game — such as a final boss fight — accessible only via DLC.

Well, if you believe the comment made by Epic Games president, Dr Michael Capps, it seems that this concept has its share of supporters:

“I’ve talked to some developers who are saying ‘If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free‘. We don’t make any money when someone rents it, and we don’t make any money when someone buys it used – way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it…”

Are you shitting me? A game that ships with no accessible ending? That is the best solution these assholes can come up with? Screw over the gamer? When I said that I supported DLC content as added value — I meant it. Added value doesn’t mean you strip away a game’s ending.

What a shame. If it ever comes to the point where large corporations start utilizing these types of tactics to improve their bottom line — I have one wish. I hope the greedy SOBs at the top all find themselves sick in a hospital bed at some point. Desperately in need of an organ transplant to live, they are greeted by a good doctor who walks in and utters the following words:

Sorry, organ donors are impossible to come by these days. Dr. Phil had a show on it. It seems that the lack of used products available to consumers has made people bitter. The overwhelming feeling is, if we can’t benefit from another person’s used stuff, then they won’t benefit from ours either. It’s a shame really — I wish there was more I could do.

Call me a sick fuck, but it would serve them right, and I sure as hell wouldn’t feel sorry for them. The moral o the story, be careful what you wish for.

Source: GI.biz

Look, I’ve been reading a heap of articles lately citing both the Eurogamer and GI.biz sit down with Frontier Developments’ founder, David Braben, and I simply couldn’t take it anymore.

For those of you that missed the hoopla, Braben’s gripe is that the used game market will eventually kill the single player aspect of games and force all developers to focus instead on multiplayer due to its high replay factor. While I agree that multiplayer does offer a much higher replay value, I certainly don’t agree with his proposed fix.

My argument is that for every game there are two versions. One is personal, not for resale and it’s made abundantly clear you can’t sell it. And it’s made available for something like GBP 25 [$40]. And a resale and rental copy, which in film is actually about GBP 80 [$130].

Huh? That has got to be the most ass backwards solution I’ve ever heard of. I understand the need for a developer to generate higher revenue, but handcuffing a consumer to their product is not the answer.

The better solution, which is admittedly more difficult, is to come up with incentives that motivate gamers to buy games new. Companies and retailers alike are already putting this plan into action. Look no further than the upcoming release of Gears of War 2 to see this in action. Those who buy the game new will get access to fan favorite levels from the original Gears. Other titles like LittleBigPlanet have been offering up tons of exclusive costumes, levels, and even real world branded merchandise for pre-order customers.

While both of these games have multiplayer aspects, there’s nothing preventing the creators of single player only titles from utilizing these tactics as well. They may not have the luxury of relying on an internet connected consumer, but that wouldn’t prevent them from embedding content into their games that requires a one time use code to unlock via telephone, smoke signal, bong juice, or bat signal.

The point I am trying to make here is that there are other options. And when you’re a company comprised of the type of talent and creativity capable of putting together an interactive game, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. If you can’t think up ways to help strengthen your consumer bond without the use of restraints, you need to stop pointing fingers at consumers and retail chains and instead point them at yourself.

Chains like GameStop have every right to sell used games without developers pointing their fingers at them in disgust. Looking at the situation realistically, chains like GameStop will cease to exist as soon as more consumers begin to realize that they don’t need fancy middle man pawn shops, offering ridiculously low trade in value, in order to connect with gamers looking for used content.

Personally, you will never catch me selling a used game to a chain like GameStop, but that’s not because I don’t believe they should have the right to sell used products. It’s because I believe the price they offer consumers in exchange for their game is highway robbery. If I have games (or anything for that matter) that I want to sell, I use this lovely tool called the internet created by Al Gore in the 70s. And when I don’t feel like doing that, I whip up a yard sale sign and sit my ass in a lawn chair on my front lawn.

In closing, the solution is not to offer us less by doing away with single player content and it’s not forcing us to retain our copy by placing legal copy on the back of each box. Gamers will respond unanimously to one thing and one thing only — a superior product. If that means the addition of multiplayer, do it. If that means going above and beyond with extra promotional content, do it. Knapsacks, notebooks, pencil sharpers, condoms, lunchboxes, viewfinders — whatever it is — do it, do it, do it, do it.

Deliver a high enough quality product and gamers will not only never sell your title, they’ll worship your box art by framing it on their wall for the whole world to see.

Afterthought: Ok, my rant time is over. What say you loyal readers? Have I lost my mind? Is Braben on to something or should games come with boat loads of swag and other cool perks if we are willing to dish out the cash to buy them new?