Tags:

Capcom cap your play
June 28, 2011 6:15 AM Subscribe

Capcom will let you complete your purchased game. Once.

You know who doesn't like used video games? Game publishers. In a very sad twist, Capcom's fighting back against the second-hand game market with a game that can only support one save file — for life.

posted by episodic (175 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

Software hacked in five, four, three.....
posted by eriko at 6:16 AM on June 28, 2011 [7 favorites]

This is awful stupidity. I mean "awful" in the Miltonian sense.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:18 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

What about replays?

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:19 AM on June 28, 2011 [68 favorites]

Would this be accompanied by a big fat reduction in price? Then I would think about it. But probably not.

Granted, I only play used PS2 games because I'm too cheap and too prone to procrastination to own a new system.
posted by HeroZero at 6:20 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

Capcom is crap anyway. They made a ton of classic games in the day -
but what games do they have today?
Resident Evil is their biggest game - and that is lame
posted by Flood at 6:21 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Flood: They are still one of the biggest names in 2D fighters. It's a bit of a niche market these days but there has been a bit of resurgence since SF4, SSF4 and MvC3.
posted by Loto at 6:23 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Hey Capcom, remember when CPS-2 had that on-cart battery that nuked the board and also the encryption scheme that was broken wide open in a matter of years with computer that literally pale in comparison to today's average consumer model? Or the giant pain in the ass you made sure CPS-3 was to crack open? And then it got cracked open?

Capcom, I want to go ahead and say I genuinely support you giving the hacker community a challenge. The field of computing wouldn't be in the constant state of evolution its in if some company didn't say, every while since the beginning, "they'll never get past this one."
posted by griphus at 6:24 AM on June 28, 2011 [24 favorites]

One more than I'll be needing.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 6:25 AM on June 28, 2011 [9 favorites]

Don't like this? Don't buy Capcom games. All you need is one company that refuses to get on-board with this and their sales will rocket while the other companies that institute one-time play will see their sales plummet. Right? Right?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:30 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mega-Man just shot himself in the foot.
posted by ShutterBun at 6:30 AM on June 28, 2011

...but what games do they have today?

It's a bit of a niche market these days but there has been a bit of resurgence since SF4, SSF4 and MvC3.

Yeah, SF4 and MvC3 are genuinely fun to play. I just got MvC3 and I can say that I think I'm enjoying it more than MvC2. Unlike, say, SNK, they've stopped concentrating on marketing to only the elite fighting game fan with some bread crumbs tossed out in an "easy mode" that is fun to play until you hit 11 years old.

Also, they've been doing a great job with porting. They've got their classics and SF4 running on iOS (and possibly 3DS, def. for SF4), and what's more is that its not the utterly shit ports of the old eras. They're not 1:1 arcade/console, but they're good. In fact, I think iOS SF4 is free right now in run-up to the new one.

Meanwhile, Tekken x SF and SF x Tekken are both coming out soon and I'm really looking foward to that. I am both surprised and delighted they took the route that they did -- two games, two engines -- and if the one in the Tekken engine is any good, they've got a giant hit on their hands considering how big the Tekken market is.
posted by griphus at 6:32 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

There exists in practice today a nearly flawless digital restriction scheme, known as "gaming-on-demand". It allows every game to be a browser-based game, with the advantage that you don't need to actually send the game to the player; with a fast enough connection, all you need to send is video, and take the player's controller inputs. OnLive does this. Mainly they're selling it as a way to get the experience of playing the game on a better PC than the one you actually own. But as fast, low-latency internet connectivity becomes pervasive and inexpensive, I predict we'll see the companies who used to enforce asshole DRM schemes stop actually selling their games, and instead rent access to them through approved servers.

If one of those developers makes a game you like, and then they go bankrupt, you can't play it anymore. Sorry, gamers.
posted by LogicalDash at 6:32 AM on June 28, 2011

What about replays?

If it's consistent with other Resident Evil games, multiple play-throughs on the same save file will unlock new weapons or characters. Doesn't stop this being a crappy thing to do.
posted by liquidindian at 6:32 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you do something like this, you need to be prepared to give your players something in return.

I like Steam, because Valve gives its customers there a better price, allows you to interchangeably download Mac/PC versions (and doesn't complain about you downloading the game multiple times), offers value-added content, and has that nifty Cloud Save feature on some new titles. If you buy a bundle that contains a game that you already own, Valve allow you to give that license to a friend. (And in an unprecedented move, the PS3 copy of portal unexpectedly included a PC/Mac download as well)

In light of all that, Steam's DRM doesn't seem all that draconian. They sell their games as a "service" and actually follow through on that promise. I admittedly do like the ability to legally sell console games after I'm done playing them. However, Steam's an awfully nice compromise.

tl;dr; Fuck Capcom. Valve are the only publisher who actually understand the importance of not pissing off their customers.
posted by schmod at 6:32 AM on June 28, 2011 [25 favorites]

The answer to this problem is of course Steam. Buy once, play forever, wherever. You can't share the game, really. But nothing stops you from signing in on a friend's computer and letting them play on your account. (So long as you trust them not to buy anything new!).

Capcom can go suck an egg. If they think this is a winning strategy, they are in for a surprise.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:32 AM on June 28, 2011

damn you schmod
posted by caution live frogs at 6:33 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is a great reason to stop buying Capcom products. I did enjoy the Street Fighter series but Mortal Kombat is better anyway.
posted by Mister_A at 6:34 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

a) because marketing has wet dreams about charging per play and per article (hello Eve monocles)
b) because people keep buying it.

People will get exactly as much crap as they will put up with whilst buying - that's capitalism!
posted by jaduncan at 6:34 AM on June 28, 2011 [5 favorites]

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

I mashed my "THIS" button as hard as I could but the world didn't suddenly turn rational.
posted by DU at 6:36 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

Wow. I feel like I'm the only person in the world who isn't all that bothered by this. In fact, I'm picking up my preorder of the game today (it's a long hard drought for 3DS games, and Zelda is good but I need some diversity).

This is certainly an inelegant way to handle the used games problem*, but honestly it's not like you're missing out on story or plot with this game. All the save stores are leaderboards and character unlocks. If this were a story-based game, I could see a legitimate problem. As it is, I respect folks' objections but it just doesn't strike me as something worth getting this bent out of shape over. But you know. The Internet.

Ultimately, if it bothers you, don't buy the game. New or used. Problem solved.

* The best way to combat used game sales is to lower your MSRP, but no publishers have the guts to do it (and make more money and sell more copies as a result).
posted by HostBryan at 6:40 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

SF4 and MvC3 are fun to play but I still think MvC2 is better in terms of depth. Then again, I do still enjoy my SNK games. CvS2 still has to be my favorite cross-over.

I'm also excited about the Tekken crossover, though I've never thought much about the engine or 3D fighting games in general (outside of the original Virtua Fighter games and the guilty pleasure that Battle Arena Toshinden was).
posted by Loto at 6:41 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

What happened to you, Capcom? You used to be cool.

(In the arcade in my head, it's still 1998.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:44 AM on June 28, 2011

This is certainly an inelegant way to handle the used games problem*, but honestly it's not like you're missing out on story or plot with this game. All the save stores are leaderboards and character unlocks. If this were a story-based game, I could see a legitimate problem. As it is, I respect folks' objections but it just doesn't strike me as something worth getting this bent out of shape over. But you know. The Internet.

Ultimately, if it bothers you, don't buy the game. New or used. Problem solved.

What if you want to play it yourself, then let your kid or spouse play it from the beginning, though? This seems to be impossible, which is totally ridiculous. You don't even have to bring the idea of selling the game into the discussion before it's a dumb idea.
posted by odinsdream at 6:45 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is a terrible idea that harms purchasers of new games, not pirates. A much more cunning idea is what EA did with Mass Effect 2: make a load of almost-required content unlockable with a free code that comes with new copies of the game. If you don't have the code you can buy one. This undermines both piracy and the used game market, while giving new game purchasers access to everything.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:46 AM on June 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

What happened to you, Capcom? You used to be cool.

Sorry for spamming the thread, but this is the thing w/r/t all the GRAR. There's the dev end of Capcom and the bureacratic end. And you can bet your bottom dollar it isn't the game devs who never want their game played twice. Not only is this harming the consumer, this is harming the dev house, which is doubly bad.

Capcom has hella resources and a corporate culture while not free, rather flexible. I mean, they recently released a Mega Man game in the style of the old-school NES ones and that's a niche-er audience than any 2D fighting game ever will be. Hell, the game is alienating to anyone who didn't play the originals 25 years ago.

I don't mean to be an apologist -- actually, wait, I think I do -- but they're a good company with some dumb-ass management.
posted by griphus at 6:51 AM on June 28, 2011 [7 favorites]

I think the real question here is: "Who sells basketball cards for $10,000 at a garage sale?"
posted by 256 at 6:55 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

256, someone with the good fortune to meet a collector.
posted by Dysk at 6:57 AM on June 28, 2011

Oh also:

I played a Capcom game once.

Once.
posted by odinsdream at 6:59 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

I wonder how this will affect review scoring of otherwise good games?

Graphics: 9
Sound: 8
Gameplay: 7
Replay Value: 0

Overall Score: 6 (meh')
posted by samsara at 6:59 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

A much more cunning idea is what EA did with Mass Effect 2: make a load of almost-required content unlockable with a free code that comes with new copies of the game.

What?
posted by axismundi at 7:01 AM on June 28, 2011

Fail. Nice try Capcom, nice try.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:02 AM on June 28, 2011

To build on griphus' comment: Mega Man 9 is an amazing tribute to the original Mega Man series and one of the most rage inducing games I have ever played. I both loved and hated every second of it. The feeling of victory when you beat a boss, however, is sweeter than any game I've played in recent memory. Very reminiscent of those super-hard games for the first gen consoles.
posted by Loto at 7:04 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

The demand price for a game you can't resell is lower.

Think about it from the perspective of buying a car or a house. How much less would you pay for a house if you knew you wouldn't be able to sell it if you needed to move?

But this doesn't have to be bad. We've already seen with Steam that un-sell-able games can be much, much cheaper than retail boxes. And this makes perfect sense: the idea of a secondary market for an infinitely replicable resource is silly. Why buy a "used" copy of 1s and 0s? Why not just sell another copy of the 1s and 0s?

I could care less about Capcom, but this isn't really an outrage. It's a business decision that will have consequences for their sale price. If this game doesn't sell as well, they'll need to lower the price before they try this again. Ultimately, you'll find that games are cheaper because of these kinds of innovations, while more of the money spent on games goes to the producers and less to the retail chains. And that's something we should all be glad to hear.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:05 AM on June 28, 2011

EA has a different strategy, one which I dislike a little, but think is much better than this- each game comes with a one-time unlockable add on. You can resell the game, but if you want the add-on, you have to pay for it the second time. Done right, this actually could be excellent, but it tends not to be. (Extra Credits on the Escapist magazine proposed dropping the MSRP and then having the add-on be larger and more significant, e.g. the game costs $25 dollars, multiplayer costs another $25. Still less than most games out today and you can be sure that people will be paying you $25 every time the game is resold.)
posted by Hactar at 7:11 AM on June 28, 2011

Goodmorning Mr. Player...
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to complete this game. As always, should you replace your computer or be forced to reinstall your OS for any reason, Capcom will disavow any knowledge of you having purchased this game. This game will self-destruct in one installation.

Good luck Mr. Player.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:12 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

Is this different than an arcade game? You can't take the physical game home, can't save your game, get one play through and extra time in the game costs more money. Sounds like we've been there done that. Pay $10 and get 100 balls in the batting cage. No do-overs. It's just a different business model, right? If you don't like it, don't buy it.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:14 AM on June 28, 2011

different from, even.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:15 AM on June 28, 2011

You should all save yourselves the headaches by never buying gaming consoles.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:15 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

You should all save yourselves the headaches by never buying gaming consoles.

Very insightful.
posted by Loto at 7:17 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Boycott their shit. Case closed.
posted by dbiedny at 7:18 AM on June 28, 2011

Steam is estimated to have sold a $1 billion in games last year. If Valve is getting a tenth of that (which is surely much too low), that's still a truckload. And that doesn't even include revenue from their own games, all of which are massively successful. And they're doing it with generous, gamer-friendly terms.

Has Gabe Newell ever given a TED talk? If not, he should, because the video game industry is need of a very public spanking.
posted by mkultra at 7:19 AM on June 28, 2011 [7 favorites]

This is not a normal Resident Evil game. There is no campaign to complete or replay. Think of it as more like Mario Kart, with a bunch of different levels to play repeatedly and try for high scores on. All it's missing is the ability to reset the high scores and unlocks.

It's still stupid, and I won't be buying it, but it's not a game you can only play through once.
posted by Turbo-B at 7:20 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is this different than an arcade game?

Well, it is extant, for one thing. The arcade model started dying in the West just as soon as home consoles started having the same power as arcade ones (e.g. Capcom's Naomi arcade board was a Dreamcast with a hard drive.) Arcades now exist as either nostalgia-fests full of quarter-suckers from the 1980s, holes in the wall full of little more than rhythm games and fighting games (and maybe a few MVS machines) or in Japan where an actual culture exists arounds them. The arcade model was a technological midway w/r/t to gaming.
posted by griphus at 7:21 AM on June 28, 2011

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

Bravo to that. The other day, they threw me out of the cinema because I was copying the film onto my iPhone using the built in video recording function. I told them, it's only for me, for later so I can watch the movie the way I want to watch it. Would they listen?

It's like they believe these intangible things which cost a fortune to make, but which can be replicated and resold really easily should be treated completely differently to physical objects.
posted by seanyboy at 7:22 AM on June 28, 2011 [5 favorites]

Well, it is extant, for one thing. The arcade model started dying in the West just as soon as home consoles started having the same power as arcade ones (e.g. Capcom's Naomi arcade board was a Dreamcast with a hard drive.) Arcades now exist as either nostalgia-fests full of quarter-suckers from the 1980s, holes in the wall full of little more than rhythm games and fighting games (and maybe a few MVS machines) or in Japan where an actual culture exists arounds them. The arcade model was a technological midway w/r/t to gaming.

You missed my point - I was comparing the product being sold. Owners of arcade games weren't selling a physical game, they were selling the experience of playing the game. At its core, Capcom's recent move isn't selling a game, it's selling the experience of playing a game. Pay for the experience or not, but you're not paying to own a game, so don't get all bent up went you don't own the game.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:24 AM on June 28, 2011

Think of it as more like Mario Kart, with a bunch of different levels to play repeatedly and try for high scores on.

My spouse and his friends play a lot of these types of games. After a certain point, you've unlocked all the unlocks and gotten the highest scores possible. Then what? Usually, they start a new game all the way from the beginning. Otherwise there's no reason to play.

Of course, that's what Capcom wants. Sure, used game sales affect their bottom line. You know what else affects their bottom line? Gamers playing older games instead of newer ones.

Planned obsolescence sucks for the gamer, and appears awesome to the producer.
posted by muddgirl at 7:25 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

but you're not paying to own a game

Then don't put it on a cartridge.
posted by muddgirl at 7:25 AM on June 28, 2011 [8 favorites]

You should all save yourselves the headaches by never buying gaming consoles.

It's true! DRM doesn't exist on PCs! Derp de derp!
posted by FatherDagon at 7:26 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

3FLryan: "Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

Is this different than an arcade game? You can't take the physical game home, can't save your game, get one play through and extra time in the game costs more money. Sounds like we've been there done that. Pay $10 and get 100 balls in the batting cage. No do-overs. It's just a different business model, right? If you don't like it, don't buy it."

Some arcade games do allow passwords, saved games on your own memory card, that sort of thing. Derby Owner's Club is an example.
posted by mkb at 7:26 AM on June 28, 2011

Some arcade games do allow passwords, saved games on your own memory card, that sort of thing. Derby Owner's Club is an example.

And some do not.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:28 AM on June 28, 2011

For instance: I love the idea of a game you can only play once, where if you die, you're dead. I think I'd buy that game.

NetHack.
posted by xbonesgt at 7:31 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Then don't put it on a cartridge.

Yeah, it sucks, but I think they can do what they want, they are experimenting with the delivery of an experience. It probably won't work and people won't buy it. I wouldn't buy it.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:31 AM on June 28, 2011

They can do what they want, and we can complain about it.

I wonder about the cartridge package - will it prominently state that data can't be reset or that multiple save-files are not possible? Because that's certainly an unusual feature that I would want to know about before buying this game new or especially used!

(I mean, I already know about it now, and can choose whether or not to buy it, but lots of people don't follow video game press).
posted by muddgirl at 7:37 AM on June 28, 2011

In my heart I feel the deep root of this issue is software licensing. I realize that much of the modern business world is built on software licensing, but it just seems like some sort of legalistic house of cards that my simple mind dreams will one day come to an end. No one goes into a Gamestop and asks to see where the software licenses for XBox 360 are displayed. No one calls their buddy up and says, "I have acquired a software license for Modern Warfare 5. It's fuckin' sweet. You should come participate in the exercise of the rights granted to me by the license this weekend."

People buy games. People buy programs. The companies sell licenses. It's like a industry-wide cynical bait-and-switch that has become the fundamental underpinning of the market. I guess what we're seeing is what happens when a market is so fundamentally dishonest that the consumer isn't even getting what he thinks he's getting.

Book stores don't sell licenses for books (or do they?), they sell books. Help me understand: How is it that the software industry in general has been able to put one over on consumers like this for so long? How is the software industry different from any other that makes things and sells them on store shelves? What would the world look like if suddenly software licenses were somehow abolished and now you just buy a copy of the software instead of a license to use it? If the argument for licenses is "everyone would just buy one copy and share it around" I don't see how the legalistic gymnastics of selling licenses to use a sets of bits instead of just selling the sets of bits outright has much to do with people pirating the bits, which already happens all the time anyway.

On Preview, seanyboy says, "It's like they believe these intangible things which cost a fortune to make, but which can be replicated and resold really easily should be treated completely differently to physical objects.

I sort of understand this but not really. How is this different from selling books in stores? There's only one unique object, the text of the book. It might be a tangible physical manuscript or an intangible data file on the author's hard disk. So much art and media we consume is just a mass-produced copy of a tangible or intangible original. I don't understand why software gets a special pass because it's slightly easier to copy a computer file than it is to operate a photocopy machine or a dubbing deck.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:38 AM on June 28, 2011 [11 favorites]

I wonder if this has been done for evil reasons, or if the inability to have more than one save file is a game mechanic. For instance: I love the idea of a game you can only play once, where if you die, you're dead. I think I'd buy that game.

This could go two ways:

You can die early on in the game (maybe you sat on the remote and shut your tv off), leaving you with 10 minutes of entertainment and a brick for your $60. Not fun.
The game is so easy, it's nearly impossible to die. Not fun.

On the other hand, having one (erasable) save that can't be reloaded to fix a mistake can work very well. Heavy Rain used this to great effect - decisions are much more meaningful and urgent when you can't just test how something turns out and load the last checkpoint if you don't like it. And Nethack, of course.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to complete this game. As always, should you replace your computer or be forced to reinstall your OS for any reason, Capcom will disavow any knowledge of you having purchased this game. This game will self-destruct in one installation.

I'm not sure which game you're talking about. We're all talking about a 3ds game. There is no installation, the game can be freely moved between 3dses, and you are very unlikely to ever have to reinstall the OS on your 3ds.
posted by Turbo-B at 7:38 AM on June 28, 2011

caution live frogs writes "The answer to this problem is of course Steam. Buy once, play forever, wherever."

It's actually buy once, play until Steam goes out of business or otherwise stops supporting this service.
posted by Mitheral at 7:39 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Flood: "Capcom is crap anyway. They made a ton of classic games in the day -
but what games do they have today?
Resident Evil is their biggest game - and that is lame"

Ōkami (Okamiden, also?)
Viewtiful Joe
Power Stone
Breath of Fire
Devil May Cry
and of course: Mega Man (what w/9 and 10 being awesome and all)...

Some of these aren't really "new" (joe and powerstone) but I had hope for remakes or new ones.

But seriously? Fuck Capcom, now. Burn those fuckers and make em learn how to treat the users the right way.

Also: technically - how can they enforce this? Is it connecting to the network somehow? I don't get it. Obviously you can't code something like this on a DVD/bluray.
posted by symbioid at 7:39 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

What happened to you, Capcom? You used to be cool.

(In the arcade in my head, it's still 1998.)

Actually, they used to be even more evil back then.

The CP System II or CPS-2 is an arcade system board that Capcom first used in 1993 for Super Street Fighter II.

The B boards hold battery-backed memory containing decryption keys needed for the games to run. As time passes, these batteries lose their charge and the games stop functioning, because the CPU cannot execute any code without the decryption keys. This is known to hobbyists as the "suicide battery". It is possible to bypass the original battery and swap it out with a new one[1] in-circuit, but this must be done before the original falls below 2V or the keys will be lost.
Consequently the board would just die anyway, meaning even if used legally it would not play after a finite amount of time (Unless a fee was paid to Capcom to replace it).
posted by dng at 7:40 AM on June 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

symboid: the 3DS uses cartridges.
posted by Loto at 7:41 AM on June 28, 2011

For instance: I love the idea of a game you can only play once, where if you die, you're dead.

Sub-Mission (warning: guest post on my blog) did something like that.
posted by griphus at 7:41 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

they are experimenting with the delivery of an experience

I think this hits the nail on the head. They're experimenting with the delivery of an experience by taking away a feature that we've all taken for granted. It happens to be a feature that gamers tend to value, and game companies have a financial incentive to take away.

I wouldn't buy it either. I also wouldn't pirate it. But I do imagine that this will cause more piracy, not less. Also, fewer sales. (Which, in a roundabout way, they'll probably use to validate the argument that piracy causes lost revenue.) But they still have the right to do it.

I wonder about the cartridge package - will it prominently state that data can't be reset or that multiple save-files are not possible?

On account of what I said above, I bet it's in the ultra-fine print.
posted by mrgoat at 7:41 AM on June 28, 2011

Oh I missed that it was on 3ds. d'oh! So this wouldn't work on their console releases, as I suspected - then again, they'll just hook this up to a network infrastructure for controlling the files. meh.
posted by symbioid at 7:42 AM on June 28, 2011

It's like they believe these intangible things which cost a fortune to make, but which can be replicated and resold really easily should be treated completely differently to physical objects.

It's more like they believe that through a combination of corporate-friendly lawmakers and changes in technology, they can get rid of the first-sale doctrine rights that consumers have had for the last hundred years or so. Publishers have been trying to come up with tricks to defeat the used market forever, they are just finally in the position to actually do it.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:43 AM on June 28, 2011 [6 favorites]

Remember when that company invented those EZ-D movie discs that you could buy for like five bucks and they would only last about a week before they self-destructed and became unplayable? That solved the "problem" of people buying and selling used movies, and now you can't buy used movies on DVD any more, so I'm sure this will work just as well.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:44 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

this deserves to be shoplifted
posted by Tom-B at 7:45 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Turbo-B: We're all talking about a 3ds game. There is no installation, the game can be freely moved between 3dses, and you are very unlikely to ever have to reinstall the OS on your 3ds.

Nintendo has done some strange things with the 3DS, including the option for remote bricking if pirated games are played on the system. And the system has already been cracked, so there could be 3rd party mods to get around this "feature."

Ping pong, rally's on.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:46 AM on June 28, 2011

this deserves to be shoplifted

Better yet, this deserves to just not be bought or played. See, if they can find out people want it enough to steal or pirate it, the incentive is to make the packaging harder to steal and the anti-piracy measures more intrusive. What you want is a feedback channel to Capcom - a way to say "I didn't buy your game because of this weird feature."

Then ignore the game.
posted by mrgoat at 7:53 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is a great reason to stop buying Capcom products. I did enjoy the Street Fighter series but Mortal Kombat is better anyway.

Yes, Mortal Kombat, which also went straight for the throat of the resell market by essentially requiring anyone who buys a used copy of the game to pay the publishers $10 to use multiplayer.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:53 AM on June 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

How is it that the software industry in general has been able to put one over on consumers like this for so long? How is the software industry different from any other that makes things and sells them on store shelves?

Previously, there was no way to get the experience physical stuff provides without having the physical stuff.

Electronic experiences are ephemeral - as long as we have the hardware that delivers the experience as intended (computer, radio, tv, etc.), there is no need for a physical artifact of the experience.

As we move towards electronic lives, the need for physical stuff becomes less. And those that control the experiences make piles and piles of money as we go back to the trough again and again. And in the end, we have no stuff, only manufactured experiences.

/end dystopian novel

On preview, this:

They're experimenting with the delivery of an experience by taking away a feature that we've all taken for granted. It happens to be a feature that gamers tend to value, and game companies have a financial incentive to take away.
posted by 3FLryan at 7:54 AM on June 28, 2011

Turbo-B: "The game is so easy, it's nearly impossible to die. Not fun."

Well, there's always the Myst approach.
posted by zarq at 7:54 AM on June 28, 2011

The one scenario where I'd support the idea of "one save game for life" is if it allowed games to be priced according to how long you played them. So you'd enter your credit card info at the outset, and it would authorize (but not charge) for the full price of the game. Then you'd play the game, which would auto-save at intervals, and at whatever point you were done with the game, you'd "cash out" and it would charge for the amount of time you actually spent playing.

I'd go for this model because there are tons of games I'm interested in, but I get bored with 90% of them very quickly. If I could buy a game knowing that, if I didn't like it enough to play more than an hour, I'd only have to pay $5-10, instead of having to commit $50-60, I'd definitely spend a lot more money on games than I do now, since the large up front commitment scares me away from most of them.
posted by Pants McCracky at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Next up: a book which disintegrates when you turn the last page.
posted by unSane at 8:00 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Next up: a book which disintegrates when you turn the last page.

Circuit City tried that approach with DVDs. It was a raging success. Not.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:09 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

How is it that the software industry in general has been able to put one over on consumers like this for so long?

Interesting question. I suspect this has more to do with the early, early days of software development when, due to the bespoke nature of most software, a software license was more like a work contract than anything else.

I think the software my company sells would be lost without the licensing that comes with it. Interestingly, we now work an almost exclusive SAAS model, but there's still a similar license. You also see this on facebook, twitter, etc. Nobody seems to be complaining when software hosted on other servers has a license, but if it's something that got sent to them on a disk, this is somehow different.

Modern games licensing is weird also, and I don't know how the Games Stores managed to get away with reselling games. There must be either an agreement that this is OK, or some legal case must have been lost.

What's obvious to me, is that there's a lot of greed (on both sides), stupidity, and a lot of disagreement in this discussion and we're still trying to work it through. Be interesting to see who wins, and what we end with.
posted by seanyboy at 8:10 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

I guess Wal-Mart probably sells the most of these games, and they don't care about the used market (yet), but places like Gamestop make as much or more money from the used market at from selling new games, so I'd think they'll be putting out huge signs warning people they can't resell this game.

But as fast, low-latency internet connectivity becomes pervasive and inexpensive...

Powerful local hardware seems to be getting cheap and pervasive much faster than the kind of bandwidth you'd need to play games this way. I'll bet I can afford hardware to play the Witcher 2 at highest settings before I can get bandwidth to play it well via Onlive. So that business model is probably at least a hardware generation away, maybe two.

It's true! DRM doesn't exist on PCs! Derp de derp!

Thanks to hackers, this is mostly true if you want it to be.
posted by straight at 8:13 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Next up: a book which disintegrates when you turn the last page.

I recently "checked out" an ebook from the library for the first time. It was interesting - I thought it would just be a regular old ebook, but it was in a special Adobe format that you could only view through an Adobe application, which could control how long you could read the book for. So after one week it disabled the ebook.

I was...perturbed.
posted by Pants McCracky at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2011

Circuit City tried that approach with DVDs. It was a raging success. Not.

Yea, but even with shady tactics like that, Circuit City is still doing fine.....oh wait.
posted by samsara at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

It was a raging success. Not.

My favorite part of that story is that the name "DivX" (and its descendant "XviD") now lives on as a one of the most popular video distribution codecs.
posted by griphus at 8:15 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

As soon as the inevitable custom firmware/R4-esque card for the 3DS shows up, allowing the loading of games from that handy SD slot, this'll be moot: the ROM will just create a file called gamename.sav or similar, and the game's calls to save and load on the cartridge will be redirected there. And obviously, it'll be as deletable as any file. Same way it works on the PSP and DS. Another example of companies managing to create incentives for users to move over to cracked versions of their consoles, which incidentally allow for piracy.

If piracy was the only reason a user could possibly want to crack hardware, because the other desirable features (eg, the ability to transfer games to writable media so as not to have to carry around a stack of cartridges, run homebrew, move/copy/delete saves, run games from all regions and so on) were provided by the official firmware, I expect casual 'just because I can' piracy - which I strongly suspect makes up a reasonable proportion of console piracy total - would vanish.
posted by emmtee at 8:20 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Any game not worth playing twice (or more) is not worth playing at all.
posted by smirkette at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Weaksauce. If Capcom really wanted to make our lives unpleasant, they'd have done this with a collection of Sierra adventure games.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:37 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Many (though far from all) of the gamers who buy second-hand wouldn't have bought the game at full retail, so this move seems to screw over those who paid full price in favour of gaining a very small portion of the second-hand market.

If I can't afford a game, or am not interested enough in it buy it at the MSRP, then I may still buy it second-hand if the price is good. This may convince me that this title or this game company (in this case, Capcom) is actually pretty awesome and that I want to buy their future titles as soon as they come out. Via the second-hand market, they may have earned a new customer.

With this new "only one save file ever" system, unless I know from the beginning that I want the game, I will NEVER buy it (either because of cost or lack of interest, as mentioned above). As such, they have lost a potential future customer by removing the second-hand market as an option.

Also: the book publishing industry is thriving despite second-hand book stores. I think the gaming industry is doing just fine, too. Why is Capcom so afraid of used game stores? I mean, someone still has to buy the game new in order for the used market to exist at all!
posted by asnider at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Over the years, me and my friends have a phrase we associate with Capcom. It shows up when the game hits that point that Capcom loves to give you, the point when the game gets fucking hard and you're just before the frustration of throwing the controller, but you brave on, because you know it's beatable, hard, but beatable.

You push through, and you're never quite sure how you won, and you see the words, "Capcom- Thank You for Playing" - but, amongst us? We know what that phrase is - "Capcom- Fuck you for playing!"

"How's the game going?"
"Capcom - Fuck you for playing!"
"Oh, you got to THAT part. Gotcha."

I guess now, it'll take on a new meaning if they were to ever get this off the ground. (That said, I'm sure it's doomed to crash and burn unless these games are going $2 a pop and people can buy packs of 10).
posted by yeloson at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

I love Capcom. Street Fighter is in my blood. One might say I'm a fan boy.

Even when they charged money to unlock COSTUMES for SSF4 characters, or the additional characters, or any other stuff ALREADY ON THE DISC, even when they left Frank West out of MvC3, everything else they've done has been so masterful, so awesome (Seriously, MvC3 is one of the best fighting games I've ever played.)

But jeez Capcom, really? Really guys?

Come on man.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 8:42 AM on June 28, 2011

This isn't crippled so badly you can't play it over and over again. Indeed, its a score attack game designed to be played over and over again. It just won't let you delete your scores, add a new profile, or reset it so all the things you've unlocked are now locked again. Which is still obviously shit and stupid, but not quite as bad as a game you can play only once.

Also I wonder how it handles the online side of things (if indeed it even has an online side of things). I doubt Nintendo would be very pleased with a game that forces you to play under someone else profile when you sell it on, considering how obsessed they are with protecting everyone from anyone online.
posted by dng at 8:43 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

If Capcom really wanted to make our lives unpleasant, they'd have done this with a collection of Sierra adventure games.

Did Sierra games not once have limited save file slots? I am sure I remember saving only into unwinnable positions. I still miss those games.
posted by jeather at 8:43 AM on June 28, 2011

I just got back from picking up my copy. Gamestop won't be buying them back at all. I assumed they'd just offer a low TIV, but nope. Not buying them back period.

Just as a heads up.
posted by HostBryan at 8:43 AM on June 28, 2011

Whaddya expect from a company that made a game called "Trojan"?

Seriously- I've been waiting 25 years to make this joke.
posted by Dr-Baa at 8:45 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Is this different than an arcade game?"

So this game costs 50¢?

"Modern games licensing is weird also, and I don't know how the Games Stores managed to get away with reselling games. There must be either an agreement that this is OK, or some legal case must have been lost. "

In the states, it's the doctrine of first sale. Record companies lost a lawsuit against used record stores (and then engaged in price fixing and lost another lawsuit), and there's no reason to treat video games differently.
posted by klangklangston at 8:45 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

So this game costs 50¢?

What is your point, exactly?
posted by 3FLryan at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2011

Why is Capcom so afraid of used game stores? I mean, someone still has to buy the game new in order for the used market to exist at all!

I guess because of people like me -- if it's not a game I absolutely want to buy on day one, I'll wait and buy it used on Amazon or at my local Hastings or Gamestop. Apparently Capcom wants to force us to buy their games new. For me? Not gonna happen. It's not like there aren't plenty of other games out there.
posted by Pants McCracky at 8:52 AM on June 28, 2011

Why do companies keep insisting that they can sell things and yet still own them?

I suspect it is because so many of us are content to purchase things and not really own them. :/

This move will preclude game rental as well, yes? And it will make it so that unauthorized copies are the only copies of the game that can be reset? So one could legitimately claim that an unauthorized copy has more replay value than the one you buy in the store? And while used copies of other developers' games are still circulating in a decade (and longer), promoting franchise interest among an entirely new generation, people will have long since forgotten about Capcom's game that you could only ever play once because Capcom thought that making the game worse would make everyone want to buy it?

If Capcom wants to make more money, here's my free idea for them: stop paying people to develop new offensive ways to make your games less playable.
posted by millions at 8:54 AM on June 28, 2011

Did Sierra games not once have limited save file slots? I am sure I remember saving only into unwinnable positions. I still miss those games.

Yes. For beanplating though, that was a limit to the size of the array for filenames... not as explicit copy protection.
posted by Nanukthedog at 8:56 AM on June 28, 2011

(Indeed, the only reason I never bought Monster Hunter 3 was because I couldn't find a copy that wasn't expensively bundled with such a controller, which I already owned.)

...to play Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, no less.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:01 AM on June 28, 2011

In commerce you make money by creating value or by seeking to capture a larger amount of value created. I think the disease of the modern economy is that too many people are too preoccupied with that later and too few people are concerned about the former. So Capcom is expending effort to make their product worse. That is what they are doing. This isn’t how things are supposed to work.
posted by I Foody at 9:02 AM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

Many (though far from all) of the gamers who buy second-hand wouldn't have bought the game at full retail, so this move seems to screw over those who paid full price in favour of gaining a very small portion of the second-hand market.

What I find weird about all this is how GameStop, Best Buy etc. are at the exact same time the companies that are facilitating the full price market.

The only reason I wouldn't buy a game from Amazon a week or so after release, where almost 9 times out of 10 I'll get free shipping and likely $10-20 off retail, would be if there was some amazing, awesome "exclusive pre-order bonus" at GameStop or Best Buy. These stores work in tandem with the same companies now trying to screw them over to ensure that their price point and sales figures are high. Just like a movie, it's not just about selling well: it's about selling well on opening weekend.

I played Arkham Asylum and loved it. I didn't pay a cent since a friend loaned it to me. I'm going to buy Arkham City. Which is ironic, because Arkham City is apparently going to have an in-package unlock code, making it impossible for you to share the game with a friend. Starcraft 2 requires online login; even in the single-player campaign.

It leads me to believe that honestly, this isn't even as much about the rental and resell market--it really is about fucking over people who just share games with their friends when they're done with them. Multiplayer is the highest echelon for the companies with this. I really feel like half the "we want to create more interactive opportunities yadda yadda" market speak is bullshit. The more a game is multiplayer, the more every individual who plays it has to pay for it. (And in the case of CoD, three additional $15 map packs and now a monthly subscription service)

The difference between GameStop and borrowing from a friend, from the publisher's perspective, is the difference between a library and the 99-cent bin at the Borders. They care far more about burning down the former than the latter.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:05 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you buy a bundle (on Steam) that contains a game that you already own, Valve allow you to give that license to a friend.

Careful, there. This is only true for a very limited number of games. For the most part you're SOL when you buy a bundle of games and already own one or more.
posted by ODiV at 9:05 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

unSane: "Next up: a book which disintegrates when you turn the last page."

Prior art, although I expect that 3FLryan will shortly point out that not all books disintegrate and thus my attempt to make conversation is totally invalid.
posted by mkb at 9:08 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

THANK YOU FOR SAVING THE CITY, MEGA MAN
NOW GET BACK IN YOUR BOX AND LIVE THERE FOREVER
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2011 [12 favorites]

(And in the case of CoD, three additional $15 map packs and now a monthly subscription service)

Neither of those are required though. I don't play CoD but honestly they've been better about not requiring online passes and such than other franchises.

It leads me to believe that honestly, this isn't even as much about the rental and resell market--it really is about fucking over people who just share games with their friends when they're done with them.

I don't have an concrete numbers, but I have a feeling the used game market is a much bigger factor than sharing amongst friends. But it's really all the same in the end anyway. They don't see any revenue from the transfer of a physical copy, so they're trying to wring money out of everybody playing any way they can.

I still hate places like Gamestop though. There's barely a discount at all for used games. $18 vs $20 or $55 vs $60 is ridiculous, especially considering the pittance they pay for buying games back.
posted by kmz at 9:21 AM on June 28, 2011

Next up: a book which disintegrates when you turn the last page.

William Gibson did this! Sort of.
posted by byanyothername at 9:22 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

This Capcom thing is ridiculous too, but even more so is the fact that the 3DS's infrastructure allows them to pull this shit. Whatever else is wrong with a 360 or PS3, at least you can access the filesystem to delete your savefiles.
posted by kmz at 9:26 AM on June 28, 2011

Ultimately, if it bothers you, don't buy the game. New or used. Problem solved.

The most elegant solution. I don't know why the game-complain community does not do it. If someone set up a boycott that really worked for 6 months, you'd get every change you wanted and these outrage-filter posts would go by the wayside. They are dependent on you. All you need to do is control yourselves for six months. They will beg for mercy, literally beg.

Just refuse to buy videogames from any provider that does this or installs DRM or anything like that. A totally legal response that no lawsuit or lobbyist in Congress can do anything about.

As long as you resist via hacking and pirating, you will get this. Resist with the power of the purse and they are powerless. Use the system to your advantage. Make them pay.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:31 AM on June 28, 2011

kmz: That is the difference between the game medias not the system itself. Before the CD bases systems took off, all cartridge based systems allowed for the same sort of behavior since the saved game itself is located on the cartridge and not the system.
posted by Loto at 9:44 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

"What is your point, exactly?"

That comparing these games to arcades is at best facile.
posted by klangklangston at 9:48 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

That comparing these games to arcades is at best facile.

It's a different price point. A book is still a book whether it costs $1 or $50. Using price to destroy my comparison doesn't work.
posted by 3FLryan at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2011

If someone set up a boycott that really worked for 6 months, you'd get every change you wanted and these outrage-filter posts would go by the wayside.

That's the trick, isn't it?
posted by ODiV at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2011

Just refuse to buy videogames from any provider that does this or installs DRM or anything like that.

Well, we don't have any info on the JP release, but assuming it works the same way, a simply boycott won't work. There are two distinct markets with two very disparate cultures that would need to do this -- "this" being both boycott and resist piracy -- in order for it to work. You'd have to convince Japanese video game players and good fucking luck with that. You're talking about a country where games (well, at least Dragon Quest) are released on weekends so traffic isn't held up. Game doesn't sell stateside due to boycotts? Capcom can just stop releasing these games stateside. They take their ball and go home, and then no one wins.
posted by griphus at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2011

Well, this is one game I won't be able to get from Gamefly...
posted by spitefulcrow at 9:56 AM on June 28, 2011

3FLryan: Do you see a difference between, say, renting a movie from Blockbuster vs buying a movie from Best Buy?
posted by kmz at 10:00 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

3FLryan: Do you see a difference between, say, renting a movie from Blockbuster vs buying a movie from Best Buy?

Does the movie I buy from Best Buy allow me to watch it only once?
posted by 3FLryan at 10:03 AM on June 28, 2011

So you're saying if Best Buy sold DVDs that you could only play once, at full price, with no warning on the external packaging, you would be fine with that?
posted by kmz at 10:18 AM on June 28, 2011

The whole basis of this story (which I've seen all over the place), is one line in the instruction manual that says "saved data on this software cannot be reset." Even though there are review copies out, I haven't seen anyone actually looking into how it works. Capcom has responded by saying that they were not trying to kill used sales of the game. Sure, it sounds fishy, but I think everyone is jumping to conclusions. It looks like it's supposed to be a one-save game where your progress is continuous, even when you "restart" (like, say, Dead Rising). And if Nintendo doesn't have a requirement that you have to be able to delete your save, well, I can see why that wasn't a priority. It wasn't necessarily malicious.
posted by Sibrax at 10:24 AM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ironmouth, easier said than done. You may as well ask people upset at sexist practices in Hollywood to "boycott Hollywood movies for six months". We're talking about millions and millions of people, worldwide, and even if everyone spoke the same language, it's not as if there's a Governing Council of Videogame Players. Even if there were, there are people like me, and my "boycotting" of a company means nothing because I pretty much never buy anything the day it comes out.
posted by kavasa at 10:27 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ironmouth: If someone set up a boycott that really worked for 6 months, you'd get every change you wanted.

Cat: Why don't we raise the defensive shields!

Kryten: An excellent idea, sir, with just two small problems: First, we don't have any defensive shields. Second, we don't have any defensive shields. I realise that technically speaking that's only one problem, but it's such a big one that I thought it was worth mentioning twice
posted by emmtee at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2011 [8 favorites]

So you're saying if Best Buy sold DVDs that you could only play once, at full price, with no warning on the external packaging, you would be fine with that?

Yes, this is essentially what Capcom is doing. I'm fine with them doing it, but I won't buy their product. If there is no warning on the label, I think there should be a warning since you could argue the current packaging is misleading to consumers, but only because consumers have an ingrained expectation of the wrapping this thing comes in. If someone is dumb enough to buy it despite the warning, that sucks, because then other companies will think they can do the same thing.
posted by 3FLryan at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2011

It looks like it's supposed to be a one-save game where your progress is continuous, even when you "restart" (like, say, Dead Rising). And if Nintendo doesn't have a requirement that you have to be able to delete your save, well, I can see why that wasn't a priority. It wasn't necessarily malicious.

It's 2011 now. It looks like the 3DS has on-board memory as well as an SD slot. Why the fuck are we still saving games on cartridges?
posted by kmz at 10:37 AM on June 28, 2011

"It's a different price point. A book is still a book whether it costs $1 or $50. Using price to destroy my comparison doesn't work."

It matters if I get one read for $1 or one read for $50. Likewise, it matters when ebook distributors place restrictive licensing on libraries. There's both a difference in expectation and custom.

So yeah, facile.
posted by klangklangston at 10:39 AM on June 28, 2011

I've always wondered what it would be like to live through the golden age of something. Early 20th century novel writing, The 60s and 70s for American film... well, it looks like we're quickly leaving the golden age of video games.
posted by codacorolla at 10:45 AM on June 28, 2011

It's a different price point. A book is still a book whether it costs $1 or $50. Using price to destroy my comparison doesn't work.

So your point is that this is basically the same as arcade games, because arcade games "sell the experience of playing a game", right? It's not really the same business model at all though. Arcade games existed (and ceased to exist) because it was not feasible for individual people to buy state-of-the-art videogame hardware. So when Capcom created the game 1942 in the 80s, the only way people could play the full version was on custom hardware, and they sold that custom hardware to arcades. The arcades then made their money back by charging individual players money to play the games. No other business model was really feasible back then, especially before home consoles started opening their systems up to third party developers more. After a while game developers tailored their games to the arcade business model, moving away from games that required skill to play very long, and toward games that let all players play for a short time before having to put in another quarter. When people could actually afford to own systems that were comparable to arcade systems in most ways, arcades went into a nosedive and games moved away from arcade-style gameplay and more toward deeper and more narrative styles.

Now if I want to play Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D, I have to buy a 3DS from Nintendo and the game from Capcom, the exact same way I did when I bought Mega Man for the NES. The only difference is that they apparently removed the ability to restart the game from the beginning, which has been an option in pretty much every game ever. It's not a new business model or even a return to the old business model, it's just an attempt to remove a very useful feature that apparently Capcom thinks is hurting their ability sell as many units as they possibly can.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:30 AM on June 28, 2011 [2 favorites]

I would personally love it if all games adopted this and dropped to something like $15/per play-through. Of course that's never going to happen but how awesome would that be?
posted by neuromodulator at 11:37 AM on June 28, 2011

Interestingly, the only game I've bought new since I got my 360 two years ago was a Capcom game (MvC3). The rest are all used (including, as it happens, a used copy of the original SF4).
posted by mellow seas at 11:42 AM on June 28, 2011

Of course that's never going to happen but how awesome would that be?

Anywhere from "understandable but not ideal" for sprawling, epic games like Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls to "inapplicable and/or regressive" for games dependent on multiplayer like the Capcom fighters and Call of Duty games. What no one has mentioned so far is that Capcom is already trying stuff like this with the iOS wherein you buy virtual "quarters" to play Final Fight, etc.

You can already have games for $15 for as many play-throughs as you want by just waiting. If you want the game now, you pay a premium and you get the game and not a chance to play it. Going back to the arcade format is ridiculous at best and profit-grabbing at worst.
posted by griphus at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2011

As long as you resist via hacking and pirating, you will get this. Resist with the power of the purse and they are powerless.

I think the suggestion that these companies are constitutionally capable of recognizing sales lost due to pissing people off and sales lost due to piracy probably gives them too much credit.
posted by Zed at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

You can already have games for $15 for as many play-throughs as you want by just waiting.

Right, at the expense of not getting money to the people who made the game, which is not a value-less loss from my perspective.
posted by neuromodulator at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2011

They were already compensated for the game. Why should they be paid twice for the same hardware/software package?

If I buy a computer with Windows from Best Buy, then sell it to someone else, should Best Buy and Windows take a second cut?
posted by muddgirl at 12:09 PM on June 28, 2011

neuromodulator: Don't the people who made the game work on salary?
posted by ODiV at 12:11 PM on June 28, 2011

Not to mention, once the used price hits $15, the new price is probably $20 or so. So if you really want to give the game makers your money, you can buy it new for not much more.
posted by kmz at 12:12 PM on June 28, 2011

If you buy a bundle that contains a game that you already own, Valve allow you to give that license to a friend.

Only certain games (you can se the list in their help section). Otherwise, it's just wasted.

In light of all that, Steam's DRM doesn't seem all that draconian. They sell their games as a "service" and actually follow through on that promise.

I love Steam in general, and I use it daily. However, their VAC ban policy and refusal to give anyone the chance to defend themselves if there is a potential false positive, or give any details on the alleged offense, is quite draconian to me. It hasn't happened to me, but it did happen to someone I know. He lost multiplayer server access to all the games on his account that had that function and had to create a new account and repurchase his games. I absolutely trust his word that he did not cheat. And so, that's a huge red mark on Steam, in my opinion. I'm wary of any company that can take away access to my games with a press of a button.

This is why, even though I'm a frequent Steam user, I still much prefer physical media.
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:15 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

neuromodulator: Don't the people who made the game work on salary?

"People who made the game", in this case, is not anybody who worked on the game. It is in fact the executives and stockholders of the company that employs the people who actually worked on the game.
posted by kafziel at 12:16 PM on June 28, 2011

Yes, that was the point I was making.
posted by ODiV at 12:17 PM on June 28, 2011

Valve are the only publisher who actually understand the importance of not pissing off their customers.

This. Valve's refund policy basically says "no refunds", but when I ordered Portal 2 for my Mac -- after missing the very obviously-posted note about a newer version of OS X than I had being required -- and it wouldn't install, I asked for a refund because I couldn't upgrade the computer I was on. Within 24 hours an actual person responded, offering the refund if I still wanted it (although by then I'd managed to get the computer upgraded anyway, so I thanked them and started playing my heart out.)
posted by davejay at 12:30 PM on June 28, 2011

Yeah. All this is doing is creating an economy of game cracks.
posted by clvrmnky at 12:37 PM on June 28, 2011

ODiV, I don't think you quite get how put-upon Capcom's shareholders are. You're depriving them of the fruit of someone else's labor!
posted by kafziel at 1:01 PM on June 28, 2011

So your point is that this is basically the same as arcade games, because arcade games "sell the experience of playing a game", right? It's not really the same business model at all though.

I think you're overlooking the biggest hole in the arcade-game analogy: remember all the times in the last year you've gone to the arcade and spent tons of money because arcades are the only place to find the newest games and the best hardware, so you're forced to play there even though the value is awful? No? Well, that's probably because you have hardware at home that outperforms any arcade console in existence, and because the advent of console gaming rendered pay-per-play obsolete, so that arcades quickly went the way of the dodo.

Whether CapCom likes it or not, the expectation of any gamer (for values of 'gamer' extending to 'anyone who has picked up a controller in the past 20 years') who pays retail price for a video game is that their game is infinitely replayable. CapCom is free to try to change that perception, but if they're the only ones locking down replays, then they are selling an inferior product, and doing so at their own peril.
posted by Mayor West at 1:06 PM on June 28, 2011

So your point is that this is basically the same as arcade games, because arcade games "sell the experience of playing a game", right? It's not really the same business model at all though.
-
It matters if I get one read for $1 or one read for $50. Likewise, it matters when ebook distributors place restrictive licensing on libraries. There's both a difference in expectation and custom.

So yeah, facile.
-
I think you're overlooking the biggest hole in the arcade-game analogy:
-
Despite structural changes in the market, what we have in both cases (1) arcade and 2) what Capcom is doing) is the consumer paying for one run-through. The point of my analogy is to show this similarity, and we can examine why it will fail now but worked before. Due to many factors, such as the middle-man being cut out and the prevalence and expectation of replayability, this model won't work on new infrastructure.

Facile? I think saying "A and B are comparable because they share essential quality X" is a useful distillation of complex processes, not just a glossing of details.
posted by 3FLryan at 1:11 PM on June 28, 2011

*rolling eyes* It is so trivial to corrupt a save game on the 3DS. The default behavior is for the game to then delete the corruption and start you over. So when you get 'done' with the game - unlock something that causes a save, and pull the cart out while it is saving. Bam. A new game awaits.

Publishers. Gah.
posted by jopreacher at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2011

You know what's killing their bottom line? Pricing. There is not a Wii game in the world worth $59.99. Not one. But every single store sells games at full MSRP, or, if you're lucky, ten dollars off, tops. And many of Capcom's Wii games require the additional expense of a $25 Classic Controller. (Indeed, the only reason I never bought Monster Hunter 3 was because I couldn't find a copy that wasn't expensively bundled with such a controller, which I already owned.)

Uh ... the default price for new Wii games is $49.99, same as last gen. In fact, when Monster Hunter 3 was new, it was $59.99, because it came with that $19.99 classic controller. PS3 and 360 games are $59.99 as a default, but that's it. Whatever other complaints about the Wii there may be, "$60 for a game is too expensive" isn't one of them.

The only difference is that they apparently removed the ability to restart the game from the beginning, which has been an option in pretty much every game ever. It's not a new business model or even a return to the old business model, it's just an attempt to remove a very useful feature that apparently Capcom thinks is hurting their ability sell as many units as they possibly can.
...

Whether CapCom likes it or not, the expectation of any gamer (for values of 'gamer' extending to 'anyone who has picked up a controller in the past 20 years') who pays retail price for a video game is that their game is infinitely replayable. CapCom is free to try to change that perception, but if they're the only ones locking down replays, then they are selling an inferior product, and doing so at their own peril.

This is starting to drive me crazy, and it's not like I feel some burning need to defend Capcom as a rule. As was explained above, Mercenaries is a score attack game. While it has unlockable costumes and the like, it is NOT a story based game, where you start it, solve some puzzles, beat a boss once, and watch an ending cut-scene. Again: it's like selling a game of Pac Man where you can't delete the scores of the guy who owned it previously. It's weird and annoying, but it's still perfectly playable from the "beginning," over and over, forever, if you do so choose.
posted by Amanojaku at 1:59 PM on June 28, 2011

Uh ... the default price for new Wii games is $49.99, same as last gen. In fact, when Monster Hunter 3 was new, it was $59.99, because it came with that $19.99 classic controller. PS3 and 360 games are $59.99 as a default, but that's it. Whatever other complaints about the Wii there may be, "$60 for a game is too expensive" isn't one of them.

Those are American prices. Canadian prices are higher. (Despite the strong Canadian dollar. Don't even get me started.)
posted by Sys Rq at 2:04 PM on June 28, 2011

Facile? I think saying "A and B are comparable because they share essential quality X" is a useful distillation of complex processes, not just a glossing of details.

You said "Is this different than an arcade game?" and then a bunch of people explained in detail why this situation is completely different than an arcade game.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:07 PM on June 28, 2011

You said "Is this different than an arcade game?" and then a bunch of people explained in detail why this situation is completely different than an arcade game.

All I am seeing are detailed explanations of why "paying for one run-through", a quality shared by both, won't work this time.
posted by 3FLryan at 2:24 PM on June 28, 2011

Sys Rq: That's not even bringing Australia into it.

Poor Australian gamers. :(
posted by ODiV at 2:31 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

They're poor because they've spent all their money on a game you see.
posted by ODiV at 2:31 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

neuromodulator: Don't the people who made the game work on salary?

It is in fact the executives and stockholders of the company that employs the people who actually worked on the game.

ODiV, I don't think you quite get how put-upon Capcom's shareholders are. You're depriving them of the fruit of someone else's labor!

We seem to be missing some part of the point, and it's the "employing the people who work on the game" part. Game studios fail, all the time, often really good ones, and it's because they don't make money. There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, and piracy/the secondhand market is not the only one. Still, while it's awesome when 10 people love your game, it's not so awesome when only 1 of them paid you for it.

The publishers are usually fine, of course, barring some ridiculous string of mismanagement like Activision is known for. But if your game doesn't make the suits money, at some point they stop paying you to make games.

You, as a game enthusiast, are not responsible for paying anyone's salary. But you are voting with your dollars when you buy games secondhand, and it may not be the vote you mean to cast. So game companies try to find ways to live despite the fact that people very often choose not to pay them for their efforts. Almost all of those ways are shitty: DRM, online authentication, limited installs, etc. Certainly, all of them are shittier than what they'd prefer, which is that you pay them and them specifically for their games that you enjoy. But the gaming community doesn't seem to prefer that option as much, for various legitimate reasons like high price points for frankly mediocre product.

But let's not kid ourselves about one thing: the secondhand market is a really big problem for the industry at large, and the people who suffer the brunt of that problem are not usually The Man. One of the reasons that Steam does so very, very well is that there is no secondhand market that doesn't go through Steam. This is not a coincidence.

Of course a secondhand market is a critical and, in my view, fundamental consumer right. I just think it's funny that people value it more than subsidizing primary efforts. GameStop loves this argument, because they make fuck-you money on every used sale. Are you kidding, we can sell this one thing like 5 or 6 times? That's just printing cash, and let me assure you, it's printing cash for their shareholders. So I think that patronizing the formal secondhand market as envisioned through Best Buy, GameStop, et al is really just swapping one set of shareholders for another, except the GameStop shareholders don't actually enable content in any way.

I'm not personally inclined to support middlemen more than necessary, especially when those middlemen are constantly distorting the shape of an evolving industry to preserve their first-run and secondhand physical profit margins. Why is your digital download $60, when it's just a pile of bits with no packaging costs? Because GameStop will absolutely threaten not to stock your game at retail if you drop the price for a more convenient product. They'll buy back copies and sell those, no question, because again, fuck-you money, and to the consumer it won't look much different. Why is your physical game $60 at all? Because they want their first-run profit margin. There's greed in vats all over the game industry, but it's hard to beat the retail outlets for pure avarice without much ameliorating contribution.

tl;dr: the secondhand market is a necessary and fundamental consumer right; as often as possible buy games directly from developers or from new printings; I encourage you not to subsidize the Gamestop/Best Buy-model used market if you can afford not to.
posted by Errant at 2:34 PM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

So the argument is that gamers get no value (or jollies or what have you) from unlocking content? From, essentially, acheivements? Because that's not what I hear.

I don't have a problem with a game company wanting to sell a cartridge where content can only be unlocked once. But they shouldn't charge full-price for it.

No, the argument is that the game isn't "about" unlocking content. Would you expect a game where all the content was available from the beginning to cost less than one where you only got one doo-dad each time you beat it? If you're an unlock-junkie, I get that you would be drawn to games that give you a little "ding" periodically. But games in general are not crippled because they don't do so. Achievements are nice (not really, but for the sake of argument), but they are not the game. Sony didn't have Trophies for the first two years of the PS3, but people still managed to force themselves to play games during that period, somehow.

The design of this game such that you play it repeatedly and try to beat your score, and this bizarro move of Capcom's doesn't in any way, shape, or form deprive you of that. That they "removed the ability to restart the game from the beginning" or that the game is not "infinitely replayable" is a misunderstanding of what this game even is -- you play the game from the beginning every time you play the game, period.

Those are American prices. Canadian prices are higher. (Despite the strong Canadian dollar. Don't even get me started.)

Jesus. Forgot about that. Then change my comment to "yeah, agreed."
posted by Amanojaku at 2:39 PM on June 28, 2011

but they are not the game

I feel that at the point where I'm repeating myself.

Every person decides whether a game is worth the price or not. Some people would pay more for games where unlockable content was part of the game play, especially if that is one major point of replaying the game over and over, as is the case with this game. So I would expect to be told in advance if the ability to reset unlocked content. I don't know whether this is printed clearly on the outside of the game box or not. From what I've heard, it's found inside the game booklet (which I generally can't read until after I buy the game).
posted by muddgirl at 2:45 PM on June 28, 2011

The design of this game such that you play it repeatedly and try to beat your score

You play repeatedly to try and beat your score, and to unlock content. Both are undeniably part of the game. So removing the ability to reset the game to zero and start over undeniably "breaks" part of the game for some players.
posted by muddgirl at 2:46 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is Capcom's best idea since they shut down Clover Studio.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 3:39 PM on June 28, 2011 [4 favorites]

But you are voting with your dollars when you buy games secondhand, and it may not be the vote you mean to cast. So game companies try to find ways to live despite the fact that people very often choose not to pay them for their efforts.

I'll tell you about an even more horrible, industry-destroying practice that frankly must be shut down: libraries. These places will take published content of any sort, be it books, music, movies, and yes even video games, and brazenly hand them out to any idiot who bothers to show up! They ruthlessly take advantage of unfortunate legal loopholes to only pay once for a copy of something and continue letting all sorts of ne're-do-wells use it indefinitely without giving a single extra cent to the poor hardworking publishers. Really, once you are doing reading a book or playing a video game you should either burn it or pay to have it sent back to the publisher, because anyone else who enjoys it without paying full price directly to the publisher is a bad person.

And really the video game industry as a whole is in an extremely vulnerable position right now. With yearly revenue totals in the US only slightly larger than the music and film industry combined, it's enormously difficult for the handful of giant publishers who control the market to continue buying out their competitors and rehashing their old intellectual property. The unimaginative sequels, questionable DLC offerings, and annoying DRM schemes are not symptoms of greed, they are cries for help. The ungrateful freeloaders buying or borrowing used games have been holding down these massive and highly profitable corporations for too long, and must be stopped before it is too late and the massive profits stop growing at the expected massive rates. In these times of recession, all of us need to forget about our own looming credit card debts, unpaid student loans, and underwater mortgages, to look out for those least fortunate and most deserving of our charity: video game publishers.
posted by burnmp3s at 3:39 PM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

We seem to be missing some part of the point, and it's the "employing the people who work on the game" part. Game studios fail, all the time, often really good ones, and it's because they don't make money. There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, and piracy/the secondhand market is not the only one. Still, while it's awesome when 10 people love your game, it's not so awesome when only 1 of them paid you for it.

There is no way that a strong secondhand market should kill your profit margin. If it is, then you need to do some hard thinking. More than likely you've got some large bloat going on or you are making some stupid decisions.

I'm not defending piracy and I don't pirate games, but I'll buy a used game and feel no guilt over it. I even buy Steam games, because I feel like the sale prices plus the added benefits make up for not being able to resell. But I'd prefer not to lose the right to resell altogether.

The publishers are usually fine, of course, barring some ridiculous string of mismanagement like Activision is known for. But if your game doesn't make the suits money, at some point they stop paying you to make games.

It seems like these days it's more like if your game doesn't make the suits an increasing or continual amount of money, then you're in trouble. That's just my perception, not having looked at the numbers.
posted by ODiV at 3:46 PM on June 28, 2011

Some people would pay more for games where unlockable content was part of the game play, especially if that is one major point of replaying the game over and over, as is the case with this game.

Hrm. I was ready to disagree, having seen no evidence that that was the case (the Mercenaries modes from Resident Evil 3 through 5 have been score attack modes, plain and simple), but then I looked that the product page on Amazon (which generally lists box copy) and:

"In depth skill and abilities unlock system that encourages and rewards replaying."

Yup, okay, it's a selling point. So yes, if that's on the box, then the inability to delete saves should also be there, at the very least.
posted by Amanojaku at 3:49 PM on June 28, 2011

It seems like the publishers aren't interested in games that are simply profitable. They're looking for WoW-killers, franchises, and games that can be sold on a monthly subscription basis. They want games they can license to each member of the family instead of one game working for everyone. They want to increase the amount and the frequency that they are paid as much as possible.
posted by ODiV at 3:50 PM on June 28, 2011

If you want your RE4 fix but don't want to deal with this BS then get Suda and Mikami's Shadows of the Damned. I heard it has a similar experience.
I'm still pissed off at Capcom for closing Clover Studios, but at least that lead to Platinum Games.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:56 PM on June 28, 2011

Also: people BUY DS games?
Piracy aside used games are just cheaper. Sorry. Especially in Aus, where a new game is $80 - $100 and a used one is around $20.
Any love for Dead Rising?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:58 PM on June 28, 2011

Piracy aside used games are just cheaper. Sorry. Especially in Aus, where a new game is $80 - $100 and a used one is around $20.

That's impressive -- in the US, the price of a recently released game, used, in GameStop, is about $5 less than full price. It's one of the reasons I don't buy used -- five bucks ain't enough for me to deal with missing booklets, scratches, scuffs, etc. I'd rather just wait a month or two and buy the game on sale, but still new.
posted by Amanojaku at 4:04 PM on June 28, 2011

Oh, when they just come out it's only $5 or $10 less. But older used games are amazingly cheap and new ones are very expensive.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:13 PM on June 28, 2011

Step 1: Go to Good Old Games
Step 2: Download a whole bunch of the best games ever for like $6 a pop on average
Step 3: Play the living shit out of them and enjoy your balls off in modern retro bliss. I got the whole Interplay pack for like $90. A couple of duds but you get the first 3 Fallouts, the Descents, Freespace 1 & 2, Giants, Sacrifice, Redneck Rampage, and dozens of others
Step 4: lol hard and loud at the desperate, slimy, sneaky, shit-sucking tactics of modern publishers

Oh and if you ever find a copy of Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis anywhere, grab it and play it, it's mad fun.
posted by tumid dahlia at 4:20 PM on June 28, 2011 [3 favorites]

I'll tell you about an even more horrible, industry-destroying practice that frankly must be shut down: libraries.

You know, sometimes it really is hard to figure out why anyone should say anything remotely serious around here at all. What's even funnier is that you ignored all the places where I called the secondhand market legitimate, fundamental, and necessary. It's like if I asked people to purchase an author's work directly if at all possible and you interpreted that as a call to burn down all the libraries and disenfranchise the poor.

No, wait, that's not an analogy, that's exactly what happened. You apparently also interpreted my comment as a cry on behalf of publishers, when I said in multiple places that publishers were not the people who are unusually affected by the secondhand market and are not the main concern. So, I have to ask you: have you been to a library before? Because they offer classes in literacy, and you could use one or seven.

But hey, at least you got your damn-the-man tirade off your chest, and all the kids in your freshman socioeconomics class are super impressed. I hope you feel better now.
posted by Errant at 4:46 PM on June 28, 2011

No, wait, that's not an analogy, that's exactly what happened.

Actually I recognized the argument that you were making (that while the secondhand market is a consumer right, but that it is "a really big problem for the industry", and people should stop supporting used retailers) and responded with a silly and over-the-top comment. Personally I think the secondhand markets can continue to coexist with sales of new works, and that people should buy and sell used products if they feel like it. I can understand how you could interpret my comment as being much more mean-spirited than I intended, but the sarcastic tone of it was not meant to be any sort of personal attack.

So, I have to ask you: have you been to a library before? Because they offer classes in literacy, and you could use one or seven.

Thanks, I'll look into that!
posted by burnmp3s at 5:13 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

There is no way that a strong secondhand market should kill your profit margin. If it is, then you need to do some hard thinking.

I agree that hard thinking is needed. I'm not so sure about the "no way" part, though, although I am quite sure about the bloat. Secondhand markets have damaged the profit margins of every major media industry across the board. Now, one can certainly argue, I think successfully, that those industries ought to be stripped down anyway and that publishers/distributors are increasingly, although not totally, obsolete in a digital distribution world.

I'd argue that one of the main concerns for the game industry with regard to the secondhand market is that, unlike the film industry, the game industry hasn't really figured out how to make money on every game they make. Most films that get released make a profit or at least recoup their expenses; this is obviously not true in the game world, although it's getting there. You can thank this market force for the prevalence of shooty-men games, which are about as close to a sure thing as there can be. Lots of publishers also use light and edutainment games to make up the overall numbers. If the prevailing Affleck wisdom is one blockbuster, one indie film, the game industry's version of that is four Imagine: Petz, one Beyond Good and Evil.

I think a lot of the concern is not so much that there's a strong secondhand market as that the secondhand market seems in many places to be stronger than the primary market, at least where the developers are concerned. Publishers are doing fine, of course, but that's in part because they've consolidated so dramatically that there's basically only three or four major publishers at this point. Now, I don't know whether there's a lot of money and it's just not getting to developers, or whether publishers simply don't promote games that aren't as sure a thing as possible, or whether gamers just aren't as supportive of primary sales of less-visible games as they could be. I kind of think it's all three and probably more besides. But of those three things, the one I can most affect directly is the last one.

I do not think the secondhand market is bad, I recognize it as a vital parameter of consumer rights, and I firmly believe that people who buy a thing own that thing and are not just licensing it or whatever the legal phrase is now, with all the associated rights and responsibilities therein. People can buy as many used games as they want without feeling bad about it. I can believe all of that and still believe that people sometimes do so without recognizing that there's a knock-on effect from trafficking only or mostly in the secondhand market, and that the primary market is the best way to support the people who make the things you like. I'm a little surprised that this is a controversial position.
posted by Errant at 5:28 PM on June 28, 2011

Maybe digital distribution is the only solution, especially for a company like Capcom. I have a very slow connection and bad bandwidth caps but I'd pay around $10 - $15 for JUST the Mercenaries mode (no story) if I could get it on XBLA.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 5:41 PM on June 28, 2011

RIP Capcom
posted by 1000monkeys at 7:14 PM on June 28, 2011

They probably have an Energy Tank or two in reserve.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 7:37 PM on June 28, 2011

And it looks like they finally unlocked the last special move - the "Dick".
posted by tumid dahlia at 9:37 PM on June 28, 2011

Can you beat people up with a giant purple dildo in Dead Rising? You can in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the upcoming Saints Row 3, but I don't think Capcom's sandbox franchise lets you do that. Seems like it would though. DMC's Stinger is kinda phallic, I guess...
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 9:57 PM on June 28, 2011

Yeah I used to smack zomblies around with the dildo in Dead Rising 2. It...didn't do an amazing job.
posted by tumid dahlia at 10:04 PM on June 28, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's probably the lack of movies featuring big dildos, purple or other wise, as zombie fighting weapons.
posted by Mitheral at 1:00 AM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Errant writes "Secondhand markets have damaged the profit margins of every major media industry across the board. "

That's probably true of every company making a durable good.
posted by Mitheral at 1:41 AM on June 29, 2011

Doesn't this game only track high scores as far as progress goes? This isn't too bothersome.
posted by Reaveg at 5:49 AM on June 29, 2011

You want to risk your $60 game that this won't just brick it?

I'm in the middle of finishing a 3DS game right now and going through Nintendo Lotcheck standards. If that were to brick the product, Nintendo wouldn't let them sell it.
posted by jopreacher at 8:42 AM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I wonder if this has been done for evil reasons, or if the inability to have more than one save file is a game mechanic. For instance: I love the idea of a game you can only play once, where if you die, you're dead. I think I'd buy that game.

Well, I am still working on the beta version of a game that integrates the Basilisk Fractal so that when the character dies the player dies as well. Playtester overturn has been a major pain, though....
posted by happyroach at 9:42 AM on June 29, 2011

« Older As de Waal says, couldn't the full range of human ... | Vatican officials unveiled a n... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Capcom cap your play June 28, 2011 6:15 AM Subscribe

Capcom cap your play
June 28, 2011 6:15 AM Subscribe