Dead Space 3???

We began 2011 with Dead Space 2. It literally scared players (and their moms) out of their seats and made us whole (if you don’t get that joke, you don’t know Dead Space). Of course, Visceral Games has to hit us again with Dead Space 3, but is it more rumor than fact? It hasn’t officially been announced, and yet there is information on the web about where the story takes places and what characters will make an appearance.

If you remember, Issac Clarke survived the horrors aboard the USS Ishimura. Then, he managed to battle Necromorphs and hallucinations of his dead girlfriend while trying to decipher the meaning of the codes in his mind. He did this all while navigating the Sprawl, a huge space station that houses thousands of civilians who become victims to the spreading infection. He manages to escape with his gal-pal, Ellie, and it cuts to black as we hear a conversation that pretty much solidifies the makings of a sequel.

But is EA waiting until E3 to announce Issac’s return? Rumors state that it will take place on an ice planet and that there will be co-op. Does co-op mean that two people can play the story together? And will there be multiplayer? Honestly, multiplayer is so unnecessary in a game like this that no one would miss it if Visceral decided to take it out. It was too dark, and if you played as the humans you had an unfair advantage before of your weapons. It doesn’t work to have one team be the monsters and the other team be the soldiers. If Visceral does multiplayer for Dead Space 3, they would be wise to add a type of horde-mode, which would be a lot more fun to fend off a horde of AI Necromorphs.

In all fairness, Dead Space is a great horror series, and Visceral would be wise to keep it going as long as they stick to the conventions that make it great. Again, it looks like we’ll have to watch E3 to see if there is announcement for Dead Space 3. As for details, we’ll know more as E3 2012 kicks off with the press conferences on Monday, June 4- we’ll see you there!

OPINION Part 1: Console rumors

The rumor that’s been on my mind for a while is whether or not gamers will be able to play used games on the new Microsoft/Sony consoles currently in development. I’ve had plenty of debates with people about it, but I wanted to throw this out there to you dudes and dudettes to see where you stand on this. I want to start by saying that I’m completely undecided on how I will side if the rumor is true. But keeping in mind that it’s just a rumor right now, I’ll try to be objective in my opinions.

First of all, I’d like to point out that a big part of why new games cost so much at release is because developers are trying to re-coup some of their costs up front. It’s a sort of preemptive strike against piracy and third-party retailers buying and selling their particular game used. When you buy a used game from Gamestop or Amazon as opposed to a new copy, Gamestop and Amazon pull a huge profit from the sale because it’s legally theirs to sell. The gamer purchased the game, played through it, and sold it off in exchange for however much third-party retailers offer up for the various games that are out there.

From an outside perspective, it seems to me that third-party retailers are making more off games than the people who make them. Sure, developers pull in a decent percentage from all the new copies being sold $60 a piece, but as more people finish the game, they sell it to Gamestop where others who don’t want to pay full price lie in wait for a used copy (which is usually $5 less than the new copy if you buy it from Gamestop). They’ll purchase the game from a customer at anywhere from $15-25, by the way.

Gamestop then sells that used copy for $55, but they take a big percentage of that sale since it’s ‘their game’. After that, the scraps are sent back to the developers. If you are the person that purchases that used game, you may think you’re in the clear, but you’re not. Whether or not you paid less doesn’t really matter since developers have taken measure to increase their revenue and protect themselves against the sale of used games since they don’t make much after it becomes used. A big thing that developers are doing is inserting an online pass or implementing season passes for downloadable content.

An online pass grants you the ability to play the games’ multiplayer content online. If you don’t have the online pass, you have to pay for it or you can’t play online even if you buy the DLC. Season passes are a way for the company to make money in advance for future DLC when the game releases. For example, Gears of War 3 was the first game (that I know of) to promise five DLC packs with the next year, but charging player $30 upfront. So, when a new pack comes out, all the player has to do is download it.

The only ways to get an online pass are to purchase it from your retailer or to purchase a new copy of the game. And that pass only works for that game leaving you to buy a new copy of any other games you want, as well. Developers have been doing this a lot within the past two years, and the ways that they think of to sap your pocket are immensely clever (I’ll get into that later). But the point is that developers feel they have to protect themselves and their earnings by practicing these methods.

What would happen if Microsoft and Sony implemented a way for their systems to recognize new versus used and reject the used copy? Let’s say you had your Xbox Next or PS4; you just got a used copy of the latest Call of Duty. There wouldn’t be a need for online passes because as soon as you popped it into your console of choice, it would spit out the disc and the words ‘don’t even think about it’ would appear on your screen.

As amusing as that sounds, I can image how upset someone would be. But how would the big power players make this work? I can immediately masses of angry gamers because their lifestyle would change. They would be forced to purchase new games because used games would be rendered obsolete. My problem with this is that the third-party retailers, especially Gamestop, would suffer because it’s clear that a big part of their income is from the sale of used games and systems.

As upset as people would be about this if it does happen, how is it any different than buying a computer game? Gamestop doesn’t deal in used computer games. The installation code is only good for one computer. If you delete the game and reinstall it, that code will still be valid if only on that specific computer. But it’s impossible for a friend to borrow it because each game comes with its own installation code. If home consoles did it, the concept wouldn’t be that different.

When I worked at Gamestop, I wondered why the PC version of a game is less than the console version. I figured that the PC version has the one installation code, which actually makes sense. But then piracy is a lot higher with a PC title as opposed to its console counterpart. I believe the answer to that is Steam, but people still figure out ways to pirate things if they really don’t want to pay for it.

It’s also clear that a big reason why games are so expensive is because they only make a small profit on games once the hype has died down. A large component to the $60 price tag is covering someone’s bottom line And let’s face it, not every game is worth that much. 2011 was a big year for gaming and part of my enjoyment came from one blockbuster after another. But who wants to pay full price for a game they can beat in four to six hours? Also, who wants to pay full price for a less-than-par game?

Come on, we’ve all done it at least once. A game like Batman: Arkham City is worth the price of admission to ride, but what about Dark Void? Or Naughty Bear? Or Lost Planet 2? Or either of the Kane and Lynch games? Sports games come out every year like clockwork and fans pay $60 a pop for the same thing with a different player on the cover. I am, in no way, judging anyone who buys sports games (I enjoy Fifa and NCAA myself), but when they release it every year, it can stand to be at least $30.

I digress; the rumor of consoles not playing used games is interesting because of a few things. It’ll be something that helps both developers and gamers. Developers will make more money from each copy sold, and in theory, they’ll be able to lower the price of their games. And gamers will eventually pay less for the games they want to play. Again, this is all theory until the respective companies say otherwise. Thoughts?