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

After recently stating that no additional price cuts were planned for the PlayStation 3 console, Sony has announced today that the company will be placing virtual ads inside their games to help offset the loss they take with each console sale.

A company spokesperson explained the benefits (for advertisers):

“Various game titles are played by fans who like certain things, which can offer opportunities for targeted ads … Online games allow greater flexibility for advertisers as to when, where and how long to advertise …”

In other words, gamers fork over cash and advertisers are served up a nearly perfect match for their product each and every time. Blasting away at zombies? Take a break and head on over to the nearest theater to check out “Politically Correct Zombies 4″.

Today’s news should really come as no surprise, as the in-game advertising model is nothing new, and Sony themselves openly discussed their intent to plaster ads all over their PlayStation home service months ago.

Is this an effort to keep costs down? An effort to make back what has been lost? Or is this simply an example of a corporation seizing an opportunity to profit in a connectivity driven gaming market?

As sad as it is, I firmly believe that the day will come where every game capable of connecting to the internet will offer some form of in-game advertising. Gaming for so long has been a means to escape from everything that is the real world, and it seems that we may not be able to enjoy that  much longer.

Maybe Sony will consider a change to their slogan. I suggest: “Live in your world. Succumb to advertisements in ours”. Just a thought.