Capcom tries to kill used video game sales with the one-save game

[AnCap Dave]

Source

Buying used video games is great for gamers who don't want to pay full price for the latest hits. 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.

It's been confirmed that Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D for the Nintendo 3DS is a game that once finished, cannot be reset for complete replay. According to both the U.S. and U.K. game's instruction manual "saved data on this software cannot be reset."

Basically what Capcom has done is make Mercenaries 3D a one-time play affair. Once you've unlocked all the goodies and played the entire game, you will not be able to erase the game's save data and start fresh as if it were a new copy. Consider this: lending Mercenaries 3D to a friend, a little brother or sister will be worthless because they'll only be able to continue playing the game with your saved settings and create their own.

We get that game publishers don't make any money off sales from used video games, but killing off the ability to hit the reset button is just taking things too far. It's like saying Upperdeck is entitled to a cut in my autographed Michael Jordan basketball card I sold at a garage sale for $10,000 some 25 years after I bought it.

While it can be argued that used video game sales are actually more damaging than piracy, it's still a lowball move for Capcom to make, especially with a franchise as large and significant as the Resident Evil series. Will other publishers follow in Capcom's footsteps to take a stand against the lucrative market of used video games? We really hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

Gamestop responded to this:

Whoo boy, did yesterday's news about Capcom's Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D and its one-save feature explode into a fiery ball of anger. While gamers everywhere are threatening to boycott the game, the reality of the situation may not be so severe. Used-game retailers such as GameStop still plan to stock the game — used.

Originally thought to be a heinous way to lock out second-hand games from being resold at game shops, the non-resettable game cartridge is actually not as earth-shattering as everybody thought it to be. When we first got wind of the news, we were just as taken back as everybody else.

Capcom finally came forth with an official statement on the whole one-save game fiasco:


    "The game's value at second-hand in the UK is not affected by whether or not the game can have its data reset," said the company. "Customers in the UK will not experience a reduced second-hand value should they wish to trade in their purchase."

Capcom's statement was for the U.K., but it should also apply to the the U.S. version of the game as well. While the company was pretty vague on the game's replay value being reduced, with a little digging, it appears Mercenaries 3D is a game where gamers basically shoot hordes of enemies in an allotted time while racking up a high score.

To Capcom, the game's high score might not warrant a need to be reset, but for gamers, it's a different story. Say, I bought Mercenaries 3D used at Gamestop and the top high score belongs to a guy named AwesomeResidentEvilFan. If I can't dethrone his ultra high score, it's there for life — until the game ends up in a landfill where the high score will still remain forever — undefeated. And sadly, not everybody wants someone else to be at the top of their high score board for eternity.

For whatever reason Capcom decided to include the reset lock (maybe the cartridges were cheaper), the game will still be stocked at GameStop in the U.S. so it's probably a non-issue. Based on the fury from fans across the Internet (our story netted over 700 comments over on Reddit, even), I'd say it's a safe bet including a non-resettable game for a full-blown version of Resident Evil or any game with a campaign mode will not go down well.

While I probably wouldn't have gotten the game anyway, seeing as I don't even own a 3DS in the first place, I'm against this kind of thing on sheer principle. The reason the used game market even exists in the first place is because gaming companies charge money out the wazoo and not all of us can afford to pay $60 for a new game. In fact, they don't even really compete with each other as far as pricing is concerned. The complaint about used games is that the companies who make the games don't receive any of the money from their purchase, but this is quite asinine. If I buy a game, and then sell it to someone else, should the money that I made from selling the game be given to the makers of the game? They've relinquished ownership of the individual game once I purchased it. They made their money off of the game already when I bought it new. I don't like the idea that Capcom is essentially removing a key feature like erasing saved data just because people can't afford their outrageous prices. I think that is the wrong direction to take. It is kind of like what THQ did for Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 when they forced people who bought the game used to pay an extra $10 if they want to use online, despite the fact that they don't actually run the online service at all.

To the gaming companies out there, if you want to stop the used game market, lower your prices so people can actually afford them. Try actually competing with each other.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Better yet, make your games so good that people won't want to part with them.  Problem solved!

I've been playing more indie games these days.  The big names are asking for too much and delivering too little.

[Gumba Masta]

Got any titles to share?
Recetear? Terraria? Goddamned Fucking Bats are eating my Babies?

[MrBogosity]

Thought experiment: what if they made books this way?

[Gumba Masta]

What do you mean What if?
You can read books more than once?

[AnCap Dave]

Better yet, make your games so good that people won't want to part with them.  Problem solved!

I've been playing more indie games these days.  The big names are asking for too much and delivering too little.

Personally, I wouldn't sell any of my games even if they were terrible, but I'd like to think I'm a collector.

I just think it is ridiculous that Capcom thinks that this is the best way to handle the used game market. Then again, I've been hating on Capcom for quite a few things as of late. Namely when they make a game, don't like how it came out, then make a 2.0 version out of it and sell it at the same price as the previous version. The Street Fighter series is infamous for this, however, word is they want to do this as well for Marvel vs. Capcom 3. I almost find it scandalous. Not to mention, they made people pay extra in the original Marvel vs. Capcom 3 for 2 extra characters via DLC, despite the fact that the data for these characters was already in the disc!

[FSBlueApocalypse]

This isn't the first time Capcom has pulled some egregious $hit like this. Remember you had to pay $10 to download the mercenaries mode in Resident Evil 5 and it turned out all you were downloading was a key to unlock content already on the disc.

Activision has (justifiably) gotten a lot of grief for their business practices, but Capcom isn't too far behind.

[AnCap Dave]

This isn't the first time Capcom has pulled some egregious $hit like this. Remember you had to pay $10 to download the mercenaries mode in Resident Evil 5 and it turned out all you were downloading was a key to unlock content already on the disc.

Activision has (justifiably) gotten a lot of grief for their business practices, but Capcom isn't too far behind.

Yeah. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is pulling the same shit, but instead they're charging you $20 instead of $10.

Unfortunately, Capcom has been pulling 2.0 versions since the days of Street Fighter 2, and they've gotten so comfortable because they know that no matter how ridiculous it gets, people will just keep buying.

[Virgil0211]

Yeah. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is pulling the same shit, but instead they're charging you $20 instead of $10.

Unfortunately, Capcom has been pulling 2.0 versions since the days of Street Fighter 2, and they've gotten so comfortable because they know that no matter how ridiculous it gets, people will just keep buying.

I doubt that's quite what's going on. I mean, with the Street Fighter reiterations, they didn't add just a couple of new features here or there. They also modified the balance of the characters, which affects tournament play. For example, they reduced Chun-Li's base damage output, added a fireball attack and a few more combos. This had the effect of shifting her play style from a short range one to a long-range one. Further iterations made more modifications to Ryu and Ken which differentiated their fighting styles, having begun as simple palette swaps. The recent SSF4 Arcade edition made modifications to the gameplay balance between conventional attacks and projectiles, shifting focus more towards the former than the latter.

It may seem a bit like trivial details, but these things can have a significant effect on how the game is played, especially at the tournament level. When it comes to fighting game tournaments, Street Fighter is often at the top of the list. It's always seemed to me that the various iterations and new versions were made more for the tournament scene than the conventional player scene. Most of the differences between versions are subtle changes that would primarily be picked up by those who aren't just casual players, like the guys at shoryuken.com.

Then again, I may just be a bit biased, so you're quite free to disagree with me. :-P

[AnCap Dave]

Then again, I may just be a bit biased, so you're quite free to disagree with me. :-P

I disagree with you.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Thought experiment: what if they made books this way?

We'd think the book companies were raving lunatics.

[Virgil0211]

I disagree with you.

Yo momma.