ZTGD Article | Capcom Fires Latest Shot in War Against Used Game Retailers

Michael Futter Writes: As the war against used game sales heats up, it seems that gamers are the ones caught in the crossfire. When EA announced their “Project $10″ initiative to get a slice of the secondary market, gamers were in an uproar. (Some of you may know “Project $10″ better as a now common feature in new games: Online Passes.)

The most recent escalation by Capcom makes EA look like a knight in shining armor by comparison. Capcom confirmed today that copies of Resident Evil: Mercenaries for the 3DS will have a single save file for the life of the game card. That save file cannot be erased or altered in any way. Not only does this mean that anyone buying a used copy will have some or all of the game already completed, but you cannot even loan the game to a friend or share with a sibling.

[coryok]

dont blame capcom... blame nintendo. nintendo gives out tools to developers, developers can choose to use them or not. sure, not buying this game and telling capcom why might make them not want to do it again, but instead, not buying a 3ds and telling nintendo why might make nintendo not allow developers to do this anymore.

[lodossrage]

No, I'd blame capcom rather than nintendo. Whether nintendo makes the tool available is their business. They aren't telling companies to use them. Capcom came to that decision on their own. THEY CHOSE to make use of the feature on their own accord. Same thing when capcom did that DRM thing to Final Fight on PSN to stop game sharing. Nobody is twisting Capcom's arm to do these things.

[Leonesaurus]

First of all, I'd like to start off by saying I'm no fan of Capcom and their business choices, however, I adore the games their creators make.

I also hate that whenever Capcom does something controversial, Resident Evil always seems to become their meat shield.

With that out of the way, I have to side with Capcom on this one (yeah, HUGE fucking shock). They <<<<<LOSE MONEY>>>>> on used game sales, its a proven fact.

Think I'm a lying asshole on some stupid forum? Fine, fair enough, go ask them yourselves. Or better yet, ask ANY developer out there and see what they think?

I'm buying my game new today, and I'm gonna beat the living shit out of it like I did RE4 and RE5 (single player and mercs).

I'm not a game selling person, so I don't have to make anyone deal with my cartridge overwhelming anyone.

But people going ape shit over this is nowhere near as sleazy as the $5 bullshit they pulled on us time and time again in the pass.
_____________________________ ________________

Besides, what Capcom game, that has a beaten save on it (with multiple file choices) has ever stopped anyone from playing through the game again, playing the mini game modes, starting a new save file slot, and so on?

-Resident Evil
-Dino Crisis
-Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney Series <-- (Bought used and beaten and still enjoyed the hell out of it playing through the already unlocked cases).
-List goes on...

[PaladinXII]

So far, Capcom is the only publisher to take this step. To the best of my knowledge, this functionality (or removing the necessary feature to delete saves) would have been possible on any cartridge/card-based hardware. Do you have a link that indicates this is a new feature in the hardware?

[coryok]

any developer could have done this, but they would have to have clearance by their respective platforms beforehand. you cant make any game do whatever you want and release it on a platform, the platform has to accept your game

youre right capcom is the first to do this, out of thousands of games spanning many years, this is the first time that its happen, and it happened on a nintendo platform.

nintendo has already started going down the road of limiting saves to limit how many people play a game, all pokemon games have only one save space... maybe theyre softening everyone up for when they start letting publishers sell save spaces.

picture this: you buy a game and it has one save space, you start playing and then your sister wants to try playing the game but cant without a save space so what do you have to do? you have to buy dlc that unlocks a save space so your sister can try playing the game also

its a very real possibility now that everyone has internet everywhere they go and it'll never be possible without support from the console manufacturers. im against every type of save space limiting and im always going to blame the console manufacturers for it because theyre the ones who can put a stop to it.

[PaladinXII]

Pokemon games have ALWAYS only had one save spot. Show me a new, first-party game that is using the same oppressive technique.

Just because Nintendo allowed Capcom to do this, it isn't an indication that they are in favor of it. You're making a huge leap in logic and, unfortunately, you're argument falls short of landing on the other side.

[coryok]

just because pokemon games have always had one save spot doesnt make it any better. theyre the only console manufacturer so far to use save game management as a way to get people to buy more of their product. if it catches on it will be on every console

nintendo letting something happen is indeed an indication that they want it to happen, at least that they want it to happen more than what would happen otherwise. nintendo doesnt just let people do things that it doesnt want to happen. they choose whats best for them and they do it. in this case they decided that it was best for them to let them do it, theyre supporting it. actions speak louder than words and nintendos actions show that they would rather let publishers use this kind of tactic to sell more games than not

[CYBERHATER]

Not Good

[contra157]

With developers crying out over two yrs ago about what gamestop was Doing to their sales , nothing changed , gamestop isn't suppose to sell a new title used for 5-6 months . But gamestop dont care . I knew if they didn't stop, this kind of technology was to be formed.

[PaladinXII]

Since when is Gamestop not allowed to sell a used copy of a title for a set period of time after release? I'm seeing lots of "facts" being bandied about with no substantiation.

If this was really Nintendo's doing, wouldn't you expect that first-party titles would all carry this limitation?

[Hicken]

It's an attempt at curbing the buying of used games. But there's a problem with this approach, just as there's a problem with companies complaining about used games, at all:

Not everyone who may want to play your game thinks it's worth that full retail price. And there's already a no-return policy in the case of new games for most retailers here in the US. If you open it, it's yours, even if it sucks.

That aside, Capcom doesn't lose money when somebody buys a used game. They just don't make any; there's a considerable difference. Besides, there's no way in Hell I'd pay full price for a game 7, 8 months after it came out.

[Cat]

The situation is a weird one - and, in my opinion, publishers are intentionally trying to confuse the matter beyond recognition, in an effort to make a publisher bottom line issue into a consumer morality one.

The idea is that they "lose money" on additional sales, which is an untruth. They lose the potential to make more money, because the price you spend on a game new does not directly affect the developer because the game has already been purchased from them. The retailer acquires the product from a publisher, and consumers purchase from the retailer.

In the chain of developer-publisher-retailer-c onsumer, the group most affected by how much a game sells for and how many times it can be sold is not the consumer (most of us), but the retailers. You're right, Capcom's approach is a direct shot against retailers as it essentially locks them out of used games sales - a market critical to the survival of small game shop owners, in particular.

According to the first sale doctrine, once you buy a copyrighted item the author of that item can’t, through copyright law, stop the resale of that item. Copyright covers the right of distribution, if it extended beyond distribution the copyright holder could retain control of the item. The model is such that manufacturers can recoup their losses and acquire profits from the first sale of a product, and after that it’s all retailer gravy. Capcom's approach messes with this premise, and is - in my opinion - a direct challenge to first sale doctrine.

(and Mike, b/c we like to write/talk about the same things - http://catplaysgames.com/pe... )

[PaladinXII]

I'm using my first 4th bubble comment to say thank you for the thoughtful, well-reasoned reply! You're the bestest, Cat!

[snipes101]

Had to read your post several times to get it all, but I see what you mean and I totally agree.

In addition to neutering used game sales (the thing that keeps the game shops that provide them more sales alive), this screws the people who buy the game new. what happens when you want to start a new game? Fresh without any save? You can't because everything is already done and you can't delete the save.

This also cuts any way to rent the game out to people who would buy the game new if they want to try it out first before they buy it full price. Anyone who wants to give Activision heat for their businesses practices is gonna have to start looking sideways at Capcom too.

I will not support this business practice in any way and will not be buying this game.