ForceTime: Why Are Gamers Letting Rage Screw Them Over?

Against the Rage Machine

Recently, in what seems to have been a widely overlooked story, Rage developers id Software announced that they are cutting a part of the singleplayer out if you buy the game used. Granted, according to them it’s only the underground sewer system and “most people will never find it”, but still, they are cutting out a piece of the singleplayer game!

Why isn’t this a bigger fucking deal?

I don’t care how small or insignificant the piece of content, the idea behind taking anything out of the singleplayer experience and putting it behind a paywall is incomprehensible. How do I know this is the only thing they’re taking out? Am I just supposed to assume because id was upfront about this particular aspect that they aren’t concealing much more from people who don’t pay for a new  copy?  What’s next? Are they going to start making you pay per fucking character in RPGs?

Yes, I will admit it. This is a “slippery slope” argument in nature, saying that essentially if one company does it, they’ll all soon follow. And you know what, that might not be true. Unless, of course, there’s a goddamn precedent for it already. Or, you know, if a company thinks they can get away with it. “Why not make people pay for bits and pieces of the singleplayer if they don’t buy it new? Screw them! They’ll still buy our game even if we make them pay per megabyte.”

Why is this attitude okay with people?

Because you know how gamers respond to somebody pointing out that publishers, developers or even GameStop’s practices are bullshit and are fucking you over:

“You don’t have to buy it, and you don’t have to shop there.”

That not the fucking point! It’s not supposed to be about whether or not I have to buy Rage, it’s supposed to be that they shouldn’t be allowed to pull this crap. And yet people are letting them, instead turning their attitudes to the few who are trying to stand up for the consumer base as a whole and say  “You know what? No. This is wrong. It’s not fair for you to screw people over like this.” The responses to this article are almost guaranteed to be in a similar fashion. When did gamers become cannibals?

I’m not at all saying that Rage is a bad game, or should be boycotted or anything like that. Quite the contrary: it looks fantastic. But that doesn’t mean that it should be okay for id to take content, no matter how small, out of the singleplayer experience. Online passes for multiplayer are bad enough, but leave the singleplayer experience – the story, the part that is supposed to be the central focus of games – alone.

One Response to “ForceTime: Why Are Gamers Letting Rage Screw Them Over?”
  1. Encrazed Crafts says:

    First off I don’t really get the whole rage about Rage in the first place. You said it yourself, the game looks fantastic. That’s. About. It. I see a Fallout 3 and Bioshock hybrid, little else. I don’t see innovation, heck, I don’t even think the graphics are *that* good at this point. I give them credit that they can blow a screen shot up to a 20 foot picture, but it doesn’t look that different than Battlefield 3, to me anyway. I need more than shinies to get MY shinies in their wallets.

    For comparison, Bioshock Infinite is basically the same game as the first, only now it’s a metal bird vs a metal diving suit, you’re in the sky vs under water, and the chick has special powers instead of just being a drug/blood bank. Still a shooter, but the innovation is there. Mind you, I’m a total Quake 3 fanboy. I try to play quake live as often as I can, and to this day think Q3A is the best competitive shooter ever made. (Quake 4 was good, but not *as* good.) One could say that Q3 fanboy in me would defend iD till the end, but nah. I’m seeing nothing worth attention in Rage. If there is anything good in there, the marketing has failed thus far. I’m not going to get a game for the sake of a brand. Skyrim is in the same boat, looks like rehashed Oblivion which was ‘okay’ at best back then, and we all require more *now*, but that’s off topic.

    As for the with holding of content, I agree this is a slippery slope, but I have two thoughts about it. First, this is for resale ONLY. This is mostly to cut down on the rampant resale of games that has gone on for yeeears. This does not affect me, nor should it anyone else. If you go to a gamestop right now and pick up any title, you’ll see MAYBE a difference in price from new to used as like five bucks. If I have to shell out 45 on a used game, I might as well get the brand friggin’ new one for 50. I’ll pay the extra for peace of mind and knowing this one has no scratches in it at all. If I get ‘free’ DLC for it as well, cool.

    Again, if you are getting the game out of the box new, this whole thing doesn’t even affect you. At all. Since I think it’s… I’ll go with ‘ill advised’ to get a game used and only save a handful of percentage points of the cost in the first place, I don’t see this as a bad change. It is a GOOD change as it will force gamestop to lower their used prices which have been far, far too high for years. (Anyone remember funcoland?) You should be complaining that gamestop over-charged for used games *in the first place.* Heck, iD even went the extra effort route and said it doesn’t affect the game that much. They COULD have made it a huge aspect of the game you needed to get, in this case it’s just a free day one dlc.

    In short: Don’t buy used in the first place, the whole thing is a scam >.> (Barring rare titles or very old games you can get off ebay, of course. But even then they won’t have DLC charges because most companies just tried to make a good game back then, not a platform where they could charge you when they please.)

    Second, where was all this rage when companies FIRST came out with DLC? How about when EA and the like started rolling out booster packs like clockwork? *That* stuff actually affects my gameplay. That affects *everyone*’s gameplay. Battlefield 2, for example. Came out with new maps and weapons and all that. If you don’t have the pack, you can’t play the map. Or any server that did play that map. So they just segregated the playerbase on who bought and who didn’t. Again, I think it was ‘ill advised’ for anyone to purchase it as it didn’t really offer that much and since I paid for the game in the first place it should have just been included with the initial purchase.

    No one cared, people just bought it. Now we got almost monthly map packs in CoD and DLC left and right. Bra-vo. Little late to care about getting charged too much if you ask me, the whole market is in on it and those who are ‘ill advised’ will constantly pay too much for hollow content. The devs should include ALL the maps at launch, or patch them in for free. Keep adding new content and people will keep playing. They will tell friends, and if you built the game right in the first place and focused on customer care vs customer’s currency, the popularity and sales will go up naturally.

    Saying the sky is falling or starting a riot to prevent this ‘slippery slope’ a good six years too late is about as useful as Willy Wonka telling the German mom “Help. Police. Murder.” when the kid is bobbing like a cork in the chocolate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

  • Copyright © 2010-2011 Bits 'n' Bytes Gaming
  • All rights reserved. Reproduction of content permitted only with Editor-in-Chief's consent.
%d bloggers like this: