With new copies of Madness Returns, EA's Online Pass will give you the first Alice for free. That's one hell of a bonus, and gives some weight to their "Project $10".

No mention of the PC at all. So I'm not exactly fussed either way.

I don't care either way because I own the game already in a box, but it is kind of weird they didn't mention PC. The game runs fine on Windows 7 64bit, all they would need to do is upload the files.

Umm, because they're not. Project $10 is a program to reward gamers who purchase games new rather than used. The difference in price is usually $10. I don't agree with several of their choices such as witholding online access should it be bought used but offering incentives like a copy of the original game seems like a very solid idea to me. In that way they really are rewarding the person who buys it new. Offering online play or skins that should be available regardless if bought new or old, not so much.

Pretty much all games based on Unreal or id engines still run fine (with a bit of tweaking). That's why other publishers licensed them - or should have.

OPTIMISM POST

They didn't mention Alice for PC because the summer publisher for GOG is EA and Alice is under contract to be released only on GOG for a certain period of time.

OPTIMISM POST

Yeah.

It's probably more likely they don't want to deal with tech support for a 10 year old PC game though.

I never really got the objection to project $10 anyway. If really primarily targets used game store rip-offs like GameStop where they sell new games for $5 below release price. You can still save money by buying it used online. Anyway, I see no reason why publishers shouldn't be able to monetize the used game market.

The reason is that they already got their money. So why should they get payed twice for the same copy? In no other business does the manufacturer, publisher or whoever monetize on used sales.

Used sales result from people seeing no value anymore in their purchases. In other words, they are no more satisfied by the thing they bought, so they sell it in order to buy other things. The solution is not to cripple used copies, but to make games so good that people just won't want to sell their games. Sounds hard? That's because it is. But there is payoff, just look at Blizzard, their games are years old yet you can still buy them at retail stores (meaning people are still buying games that are over ten years old at the retail store).

Project 10$ is essentially just admitting that their games are just not good enough.


And one more last thing, there is nothing rip-off about GameStop. GameStop does not hold a gun at your head forcing you to return your game so they can sell it used. They offer a service and customers are making use of it, because they want to. GameStop is not the cause of the problem, it's a symptom.

I don't like how stores pay a small price to buy a 2nd hand game off you then sell it close to the retail price. The original publisher has been paid but the 2nd hand store keeps trading in the same copy and getting lots of revenue. The publishers see this and want a piece of the action. I can understand it because a used game store could be making lots of money which doesn't go back into making new games it just becomes profit for them.

I would normally say a business had been paid once so that's it but there's so many places trading in games that the high street market for new games is shrinking. Place that only sold new games now buy and sell used games thus cutting out the original publisher. You can trade used games in at the supermarket ffs. I don't think it's piracy that adversely affects game sales but the over saturation of second hand stores. Why buy new if you can buy it cheaper just after release with no special effort by being able to go to any supermarket and not having to go to a skanky Cash Generators.

The solution imo is making a game cheap enough and good enough that the gamer doesn't want to trade it in. Nice bonuses like this are also very welcome. The solution businesses are actually using (on the pc) is to render a game usable by one person and tying it to a account with a one use key so a game can't be traded in. That and/or forcing a user to be online. I'd rather Project $10 than a forced internet connection or limited activations.

GameStop are the shadiest fuckers in the business. Releasing a high-profile game like LA Noire? Good luck getting it sold at GameStop without throwing in some "reward" for shopping at GameStop. It's easy for them to get their way, because of their large share of the sales in retail. It's only a pleasant experience shopping there if the employees there are good, and I've only been to one GameStop that wasn't run by scum.

These days, I only buy from Amazon or digital download establishments like Steam, D2D, GamersGate, GOG, etc.

Well, I was referring to the whole concept of buying and reselling used games. I have only been to two GameStops and the prices were ridiculous, both for new and used games, and the staff was mostly arrogant assholes. But GameStop ist still successful, so they must be doing something right.
Customers want to get rid of their old games and seek a way to get games cheaper. A retail store is much more convenient than selling your game at eBay. Many older people still don't trust the internet and for children GameStop is the only possibility to afford games, since their pocket money is limited and they can't shop online. I do not like GameStop, but it is undeniable that their power came from customers wanting to use their services.

You are being too soft. Used games market has been existing as long games themselves, so why is it such a big deal now? Why do we have to accept any kind of customer punishment? So if the big ones tell me to pick my poison, I simply tell them to choke on it themseves. We don't need them, they need us.

They're overpriced and don't pay enough to people that trade in. Apart from that, I don't see any problem with that. It's not really that different than when you used to be able to buy used Sega carts from Blockbuster or currently used discs from Gamefly.

These stores do provide a service that has value, some ask too much for it, but that's how the markets work. In this case the markets seem to be working just fine.

If the publishers can't figure out a way of encouraging people to use them as the broker without crippling copies, then they don't deserve a slice of the revenue as their not providing anything of value in those transactions.

EDIT: I suspect I addressed that to the wrong person.

Well they would if they could...