Just because a publisher prints something on the back of the case, doesn't mean they can legally do it. To say EA can legally close down the servers is an incorrect statement. They reserve the right to, but even that doesn't mean they can. Some of these games are still sold new - to purchase them only to find the online is gone would be infuriating. Not everyone reads game news. Yes EA has a message saying to check their website for closures of online services, but no-one would or should be expected to check online prior to purchase. The worst thing is that some people may have paid for an online pass. Someone could have bought one yesterday. How pissed would you be that you just threw away $10 for nothing. It's no so much the money as it is the principle. EA should have never been allowed to run their own servers. They're the only publisher that does, and it's all because MS wanted to get them onto their system, when prior to this arrangement, EA refused to bring their sports titles to the platform. Who are buying EA's games anyway? I don't know anyone who does, except for Mass Effect players.
My only drive to have ever sought a mod was for games that weren't released here or where changed for our release. I had my original xbox modded to play Ninja Gaiden and Ninja Gaiden Black, because I wanted the non-censored version (ie. to be able to cut off heads). And I made a backup copy of my Mavel vs. Capcom 2 to play, so to not ruin the disc (which had already been scratched by the EB that I bought it from). I am a collector and treasure my games. I don't like to see them damaged. Sometimes I buy second copies of my favourite games if they are cheap, but I'd rather avoid that. The ability to install games on consoles now with the NXE on 360 means my discs don't risk being worn, which has helped. But you still have to pull the game out and put it in the machine, which is terribly inconvenient... And Australia's obligation to accept changes to its laws because of trade agreements is arse. America can shove its laws.
I absolutely agree with imprezawrx500 and Sablicious. I'm sick of these stupid articles that rehash the same crap over and over again. They keep talking changing people's attitudes is the key to stopping piracy, yet developers/publishers won't sit down and take some responsibility for the piracy that occurs. Not once have I heard a developer/publisher talk about what it can do quality wise to make people want to buy their games. How about game developers/publishers change **their** attitudes - ie. realise that people don't want to pay good money for garbage. Games have gone downhill in so many ways over the last 10 years. They were never perfect, but they exhibited higher levels of quality than the trash that is released today. I am not saying all games today are garbage, but there are a whole heap that are, or at the very least - missing polish or any kind of substance. People don't want to pay for and play games which are as buggy as hell. It tarnishes the entire experience, and makes you feel cheated out of your money. I don't buy a new car, and have them tell me that everything is fine except the brakes sometimes don't work, but don't worry about that. It will be patched up in the coming months. Oh, and we had to cut the back seats in the last minute, because we didn't have enough time. So you can't have your friends drive with you. Sorry about that, but it was either that, or all of the brakes missing... Piracy is partially due to the game industry expanding faster than its consumers can handle. I would rather the entire industry push out a 3rd of the games it does each year and have that 3rd a polished, thoroughly enjoyable piece of entertainment that I will revisit again and again, then deal with the buggy rubbish we're subjected to. If you want people to buy your games, you need to make it appealing for people to purchase them. It's as simple as that. Piracy as a crime is one thing, but the behaviour comes from somewhere - and it's not all because "we don't know it's a crime". Anyone with a primary school education would know it is theft. What people don't know is what kind of quality is this game going to be, and are nervous what they are forking their money out on is going to be incompatible, buggy or won't last them very long. When will developers/publishers realise that (despite the dollar value either way) no-one is going to pay $120 for something that they do not trust will entertain them. I don't care what people say - $120 is still a lot of money (it equates roughly to a weekly grocery shop for me). And if I'm not getting my money's worth out of it, time and time again, burned - each game worse than the last, can you blame consumers to be hesitant with opening their wallets? As far as PC games are concerned, there are no guarantees the game will run on your system, let alone run well. I know of a lot of people who will pirate a game just so they can see if it runs well on the PC - if it's choppy and buggy as hell, they won't buy it, because they won't get the intended experience. And people can't keep buying new components for their PCs on a half-yearly basis to keep up. Game developers should start putting some effort in and earn those dollars, rather than put effort into education campaigns and DRM. It is the best strategy - what better way to have people come back to spend money on the stuff you make again and again - because they want to, because they like it, because they think it's worth it. So far all that the majority have done is tease and cheat us out of dollars on countless occasions. Once you do it a handful of times, how can you blame people for being very cautious with what they spend their money on?!? And for gods sake, reduce the price of games in Australia. It's ridiculous.
Each game sold after you take into account currency conversion should only cost an extra $10 for the greater shipping cost. No more. The manufacture cost, profit and base shipping are already factored into the original US price - they only need to take a little more to pay for the "burden" of shipping things here. If it only costs ~$10 to ship a game here individually in a padded envelope, boxes or shipping crates of them would be half that, due to the bulk shipment discount. None of this remote area bullcrap - they have no excuse. I am lucky I have made use of online stores since a long time ago, and nothing gives me more pleasure than walking into an EB store, touching their things, having the sales person hump your leg for a sale and then leaving empty handed stating "I can get it cheaper from DVDcrave or Play-asia". The only good thing local game retailers are for are the "must have" new releases I must have right now (although I usually get them for $30 cheaper online), or the occasional bargain or clearance sale, and even then it only brings prices down to compare with online/overseas retailers. Australian retailers can kiss my arse. And I'm sorry but you can't say that games are sold at a higher price due to the second-hand market. That is just bullocks. Game companies have gone on about that for years, and the facts are: if you sell your game new to some dude who then decides he's had enough with it and sells it on to the next - it's still *one* sale - one physical disc. And it's a sale they wouldn't have made as people who buy second hand rarely buy new (I know many people like this), and people who buy new and sell their games on consciously think about selling it on when they make the initial purchase, knowing they can make some money back on it.
It is strange the Conclusion speaks about both being practically even, when throughout the article they said the PS3 had blurrier visuals and missing details from games/lower frame rates. I'm unsure how it equates to equal. The grass and shadows disappearing on the PS3 version of Pro Street when flicking between the two pictures was really shocking. I think the biggest issue is that developers are not spending enough time with the PS3 to actually make it look good and use the power hidden in there. I have both consoles but I am often buying the 360 version of multi-platform releases because they are often rated superior (with the occasional exception). The last game I got for the PS3 was GTA IV, which I am happy with, but I am finding it increasingly worrying that developers are moving toward installations on the PS3 as a quick fix in trying to get games to run better. With the above differences already apparent, I wonder how bad these games were without an installation. It just seems like sloppy work on behalf of the developer. Primarily, with more and more games coming out for the PS3 requiring installations, it is bringing to console users one of the main things they hate about PC games - waiting for installs and managing hard disk space. This is all said to be a by-product of BRD - data just can't be read as fast as a DVD (at the moment anyway). Choosing a car in Motor Storm is an excellent example of this - I thought something was wrong with my disc when I changed cars only to wait for 10sec for it to show me what it is. Seeing the game instore and verifying my disc is in mint condition - it turns out it's just the game. The 360 is happily streaming content, and the PS3 is stuck with an install, among other issues, like visuals. I suppose you have to use the big HDD for something...
jivemaster's comments