Capcom Will Not Repeat Mercenaries 3D Save File Mistake

#31d0wnerPosted 7/10/2011 7:37:34 PM
Good to hear. Any publisher who pulls this sort of anti-consumer bull**** should be met with the same response.
---
shoot the core.
#32RisperdaliPosted 7/10/2011 8:00:20 PM(edited)
stonio99 posted...
I'm going to revive this thread to say that I am enjoying the hell out of this game. I've sunk a ton of hours into it and still haven't unlocked everything. I'd gladly buy this used if I didn't have it already. Capcom and Gamestop haters should think this one through. The unlockables are not the fun part of this game. It's the chase for high scores, just like on the minigames that came before it. Besides, how many 100% games do you really think will be traded in before this game is no longer desired by people with incomes greater than McDonald's can provide?

Um... You want to chase high scores? If, say, your used copy of Mercenaries has SS ranks on every level, then it will harm your ability to do so... unless you play a perfect game on every level.
#33r7gerrabbitPosted 7/10/2011 7:52:53 PM
I really don't see the big deal... I don't buy used games, and I don't resell games.

The ENTIRE POINT of Mercenaries is to play the same level over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over attempting to beat the high score.

Sure there are unlockables. But any game with unlockables like that I don't want to restart anyway. Because, again, the entire point of the game is to replay the same levels over and over.
---
http://i.imgur.com/Mqy7G.gif
#34toma13Posted 7/10/2011 8:43:50 PM
Super Street Fighter II Turbo Revival didn't have an erase save feature either and that came out 10 years ago. This is nothing new. It's a common oversight in score-based games. I really have no idea why Mercenaries is the first time that everyone really noticed this, because it's been going on for years. It's no wonder Capcom played dumb about the problem. If I'd been handling save data the same way with a certain type of game for 10 years and then all of a sudden people started internet raging on me I'd be confused too.
---
Username for pretty much everything: BngryBt
#35AmakusaPosted 7/11/2011 12:38:59 AM
Ness0123456789 posted...
Please, grow up. The world is not as black and white as you make it sound, and while I do agree it's unfortunate that the developers don't get a share of the profit when a game is sold used, trying to insist that the consumer should be punished by it is just plain ignorant.

I'm more of the thought that saying that the game's setup punishes the consumer is wildly ignorant.
---
I will rule the world, and find that truly good cup of coffee.
#36Micaiah_MagePosted 7/11/2011 1:08:06 AM
Phew.
#37niels200683Posted 7/11/2011 2:16:55 AM
TomorrowDog posted...
Used game sales hurt the video game industry no more than dubbing a tape or burning a CD hurts the music industry.

Except the industries are totally different. Videogames retail high because they don't have near the audience as films and music. Retailing higher creates the opportunity for stores like Gamestop to make huge profits off of buying used games and then placing them on the shelf right next to new copies for $5 cheaper.


Yes, but the only thing is: it doesn't hurt the game industry at all.
It might hurt a developer that made a game that disappoints a lot of people (it will be traded in more) - but what do the trade-in stores offer for your used game? Store credit. If you opt out of store credit, you usually get 2/3 or even 1/2 of the store credit in cash.

With that store credit, someone gets another game they otherwise wouldn't buy (or even couldn't afford) - supporting the game industry.

If your game is good, and has a lot of longetivity, it will not be traded in - it's as simple as that.

The best way to beat the 2nd hand game market isn't by punishing the customer either for trading it in or buying it used - but by making better games and supporting your games after the sale to keep it interesting (either by a compelling online mode or DLC).

The reason behind online access passes are rubbing me the wrong way too. Sure, the developers have to keep the servers online, but they would have to do that too if there weren't any second hand sales. The original buyer, the one who bought it new, already paid for the use of the server - and isn't using it since he sold the game.

How would you feel if in the future, the last two cd-tracks were locked until you put in an online access code, which would make these tracks available (but only on one cd-player).

Or if the making-of of a blu-ray movie you bought is locked, so you can only watch it on your blu-ray player, and not at a friends house or at all if you bought it on e-bay / returned to the retail outlet with a return policy.
---
Do you believe in the Soul Cake Duck?
Einstein: My wife doesn't understand me.
#38EoinPosted 7/11/2011 8:08:04 AM
There are two reasons why undeleteable, permanent save files are a bad idea.

The first one has been well covered - it's not good for people who like to buy used games, or like to share their games with others. Right now the only people who are arguing that this is a good idea are the standard industry sycophants so there's not much need to cover that.

The other reason for this is games are not perfect. Games can have glitches and bugs and all kinds of weird issues, and if something goes wrong and...let's say something that was meant to be unlocked stays locked, or high score tables get corrupted with impossible scores - the game is then broken forever.

toma13 brought up Super Street Fighter II Turbo Revival on GBA. Amazingly, it was brought up in defence of unresettable saves, so I guess toma13 is unaware that in that game, if you got to Akuma and won (which wasn't hard, since Turbo Revival was possibly the easiest version of SF2 ever), the game would then go and corrupt its high score tables, permanently.

With that in mind, it should be obvious that the ability to delete a save file should not be something the developer decides to leave out or chooses to include on a whim - it should be there, no questions asked.

Oh, and the fact that other companies have been doing this for a while is barely relevant. Yes, this should have been brought up as an issue before now. However, the fact that multiple companies are doing stupid, anti-consumer things does not excuse Capcom for doing a stupid, anti-consumer thing.
#39TomorrowDogPosted 7/11/2011 10:04:19 AM
It might hurt a developer that made a game that disappoints a lot of people (it will be traded in more) - but what do the trade-in stores offer for your used game? Store credit. If you opt out of store credit, you usually get 2/3 or even 1/2 of the store credit in cash.

With that store credit, someone gets another game they otherwise wouldn't buy (or even couldn't afford) - supporting the game industry.


They get some crap credit to put towards another game - possibly a used one. In exchange for that somebody is going to buy their used game for $5 cheaper than retail cost, which all goes to the retailer.

I don't see anybody profiting but the retailer.

If your game is good, and has a lot of longetivity, it will not be traded in - it's as simple as that.

The best way to beat the 2nd hand game market isn't by punishing the customer either for trading it in or buying it used - but by making better games and supporting your games after the sale to keep it interesting


I almost post a pre-emptive response to this because I see it so much and it is so silly. What games haven't been resold? The most critically acclaimed and popular games still get resold. This delusional world you live in where developers can all make games that nobody ever wants to part with doesn't exist.

The original buyer, the one who bought it new, already paid for the use of the server

For himself. When you go miniature golfing do you just pay for one person and then have everyone just take a turn playing each hole? And those greedy money-grubbing bastards want you to pay for each person playing?
---
"Happiness is nature's way of telling human resources you're overpaid." - Catbert
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii63/Cromifost/PSN.png
#40ja_schafferPosted 7/11/2011 10:22:33 AM
If Capcom was really just trying to create a perfect arcade experience, why go to such measures to ensure that save files CANNOT be deleted, no matter what? Why have automatically restoring save backups?
Most actual arcade machines can easily be reset.
No matter what Capcom "says," the evidence indicates they were trying to screw secondhand purchasers. And since I'm guessing they probably won't keep this game in print forever, they were also trying to screw the Resident Evil legacy.
---
This message was posted from Lynx.
All other browsers are for quitters.