News Article

SEGA, Aksys and Konami All Use Permanent 3DS Save Data Too

Posted by James Newton

Not just Capcom

While Capcom continues to take flak for the Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D save file debate, it's worth pointing out that it's far from the first publisher to use non-deletable save data on 3DS.

As owners of Super Monkey Ball 3D, Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 3D and BlazBlue: Continuum Shift 2 will attest, these games also offer save data that cannot be erased, yet they've all evaded the public thrashing that's rained down upon Capcom's 3D action game.

The profile of this issue has undoubtedly been raised by Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D, but it is not a one-off event. If you know any other games that offer permanent save data, let us know in the comments below.

From the web

Related Games

User Comments (108)



Corbs said:

There is absolutely no reason to not allow players the option of deleting the save data and starting a new game. None.



bonesy91 said:

Same here, Jeez we pay a boatload for the System, and now we don't even get the option to delete saved games.................. _



Terave said:

Man, they're driving some people nuts. It's is nice that you can sell your games you don't want anymore to affort new ones? This is a really bad idea, and just for making money. Maybe they get more, but at the other side, they don't. Maybe some people sell their used games to buy new ones, so this is gonna be a problem. I don't want this more in future... please no...



retrox said:

Good job, guys. Whether it bothers some people or not, this information needs to be out there so that everyone can at least make informed decisions about what to buy and what to avoid.

So is it safe to call this a trend for 3DS publishers yet? I would love to hear Ninty's perspective on this. Matter of fact, I think I'm done purchasing new 3DS games altogether until that happens.



cyrus_zuo said:

Somewhere Capcom is wondering why they got singled out and attacked.

Welcome to the age of internet reporting and the firestorm of uneducated rage it creates when issues are so badly researched and reported on.



legochesser said:

Dang. Not fun at all. And I was looking forward for Shinobi, but I can probably scrap that one off my list then, if Sega will continue this bs. Hope this won't be a standard "feature" on new 3DS games, since it can completely destroy it's legacy. :/



MasterGraveheart said:

You guys are getting bent out of shape over this. If you want this to stop, then you need to pass by used game sales. This is the hole we've dug for ourselves, y'know.

My hope is that either the used game sale market won't be as big of a threat to game developers (another reason why marquee games get shunned for "party" and "family" games) or new game sales pick up enough to ditch this.

...or at least having more than one game save file. Just in case.



SanderEvers said:

Nintendo should revoke the Seal of Quality for games that won't allow you to remove the savegame.



AVahne said:

Just gonna buy New games anyway
Besidse, thsi might have something to do with 3DS' security system...though that makes little sense



legochesser said:

EDIT: see post 19

@brandonbwii: You could delete the data, but it isn't stupidly enough enywhere mentioned in the manual (whoops, my fault, overlooked it in my manual, thanks for the mention guys ). You've to hold A + B + X + Y + L + R at the Nintendo iNiS screen and then you can delete it.



DarkKirby said:

I knew this already, I'm sure many of the people who made articles about the "outrage" that Mercenaries was that "no other" game did knew too. But by being economical with the truth they spread fear and anger which a lot more people will be interested in reading then the much less fascinating truth. I'm surprised so many normal gamers never realized most cartridge games have no delete file button, just overwrite buttons, and bought into this nonsense of Mercenaries being the first.



The_Fox said:

You're arguing semantics there. Most cartridge games allow you to delete saves by starting a new game and overwriting the old file.



legochesser said:

@DarkKirby: But still, with those overridebuttons you could set back an default save file image (which probably is set in the ROM of the gamecardridge, just like the game) to be ably to play the game like you would boot it up for the first time. And these games don't have that default save image and/or the overwrite buttons assinged, so there is only one save file, but there's no backup of it, and thats probably the whole story.



Tare said:

While perhaps we are a bit responsible for this, it's rather like talking in a library and having someone come up and punch you in the gut. It's an overreaction.

The point of trading in games was so you could get new ones. It's not really pleasant having someone dictate whether or not you can erase a saved file. a little luxury we take for granted.

I don't think this strategy will be widely popular down the line though. Capcom is taking a lot of heat for this and I don't think this "Stand" against second hand sales will do any good for their cause.



SunnySnivy said:

I refuse to purchase any game with a permanent save file. I hope their sales go down even more because of this, and I hope that other companies don't follow this. It's ridiculous and like a stab in the back for those people who buy new games.



wwww said:

@legochesser Instructions to delete EBA data is in the manual, what are you talking about?

EBA manual pg.11: "Deleting Saved Data"
When you see the screen to the right, press and hold A+B+X+Y+L+R at the same time to delete saved data.

It's also on page 9 of the Ouendan manual ("Concerning the erasure of save data") and page 10 of the Ouendan 2 manual ("Erase data"). Do you guys not read manuals?

edit: ninja'd, oh well. Took me a while to find my Ouendan 2 box.



JusticeColde said:

@cyrus_zuo: Capcom knows what they did, They know what they did to SNK.

Anyway, This is a really stupid idea, I really can't see any good reason for this feature other than the companies making people buy more copies of the same game just to get a new start.



Katernity said:

I'm pretty sure Sega's "Feel The Magic XY XX" from way back in 2004 has permanent save data. I bought it used and everything in the game was already finished, couldn't figure out any way to erase it.



FonistofCruxis said:

This ridiculous, I hope Konami don't do this to MGS3 on 3DS too and I hope it doesn't become a trend. When I get Resident evil: the mercenaries and Blazblue: continum shift 2, I'll make sure not to get used copies of them/



pntjr said:

This means no Shinobi, Sonic Generations, MGS3, and no MegaMan. Meh.



SilentJ said:

I really hope this trend doesn't continue otherwise I'll have to pass on the 3DS which I really don't want to do. I like buying my games new but I also like deleting saves and restarting games at my leisure.



Tasuki said:

Wow if 3DS games keep going this route the 3DS will be a flop like the Virtual Boy. When I do get a 3DS I guess the only games I will be buying for it are the VC games.



Supremeist said:

Why did this have to become a trend? It won't influence me to not buy a game, because I don't mind THAT much, but what reason do they have to do this?

It's just making the company worse, and people are already thinking of selling there 3DS Consoles!



BlueBandanaJake said:

Again, I still dont see the big upset for all of this, they only thing those games save are unlocks and high scores, it's not like they're files in Ocarina of Time (which would be terrible if you couldnt start a new game in).

With Monkey Ball all the levels are available, and all the medals are unlocked, and that's it, its not that huge a deal. I was always against buying used copies anyway, I kinda dislike the idea of Gamestop making a cool $20 for little to no cost to them.

But then, considering that this ISNT that big a deal, then this seems like a weak way to combat that at all, which makes me feel that this is a mostly pointless strategy anyway :/



CanisWolfred said:


It's a trend. That's a big deal. Just because these are the only ones that have been affected so far doesn't mean they'll be the only ones effected ever. Once they start affecting other games, you'll be eating those words.



BlueBandanaJake said:

When that happens I'll be upset, but I'm not gonna be outraged now until that happens, so far the trend appears to be only games whose saves arent really that important. If Bit.Trip Saga and the Pacman and Galaga games also had this feature it wouldnt really be too bad because they're of the same mold of gameplay.

And honestly, whats so bad about eating my own words? They came from my mouth in the first place.



Capt_N said:

@SilentJ: I agree.

@Koto: "Besidse, thsi might have something to do with 3DS' security system...though that makes little sense" That's what I've been sayin'. I seriously wonder if it is a part of the 3DS dev kit/security/anti-piracy system(s)?! I mean, logically, it's Sega, Aksys, & Konami, in addition to Capcom! Not just 1 dev, but 4!



TKOWL said:

Well, at least Nintendo isn't doing this... yet.
I'm only going to be buying one game from all of these companies anyways, and that'll be Sonic Generations. So please, Nintendo, don't follow this stupid policy.



exDeveloper said:

Oh, c'mon. EVERY game MUST delete a corrupted savegame. It MUST. So, whenever you want to reset your save, pull out the cart / turn off the system while saving and then boot it again. There. Fresh saves for everyone.



armoredghor said:

Well this isn't targetted at the players. It's an attack to gamestop and bestbuy's trade in programs. They want to see at least a little bit of the profit from the games they spent years developing instead of gamestop and bestbuy receiving all of the profit.
ps didn't we have an article a few months back about how developers didn't like the trade-in games for this reason?



MegaAdam said:

Wait, was this common on DS games too and I just didn't notice? I feel like it may have just been an oversight on the part of the developers and not an intentional "screw you" to the players.



Colors said:

I'm sure the fact that RE:M was much more hyped then those three launch games had something to do with it.



JaxxRaxor said:

Capcom's game had a lot more publicity than the three other games mentioned in this article. So that is probably why Capcom got a lot more flak.



Token_Girl said:

It is aimed at the players, to reduce the incentive to trade in games used, because they'll be worth significantly less money. The only one of these games I was planning on possibly picking up was Monkeyball, but I won't anymore. While for most players it doesn't matter, it does remove an option for me. It hurts people who purchase the game legally and offers less than games used to in the past on games that cost more than any other portable games on the market right now.

So, no, I won't be buying any of these games. Not even if Monkey Ball hits the bargain bin, because I don't want to support the expansion of this trend. $40 isn't worth a gimped game. Supply and demand, Sega, Aksys, Konami and Capcom, supply and demand.



Hardy83 said:

Wait... Why would they all do this? Is there some sort of restriction on Nintendo's part about saves? It seems odd.



Dodger said:

I probably would risk it and count on Nintendo's customer service if it breaks. They are pretty good most of the time.

And preloaded stuff on smartphones is really annoying. Mom and Dad got androids. All sorts of game demos they don't want. Bing is the default search engine no matter what, and it keeps showing things that nobody searched for in the list of previous searches. It's really annoying.

Anyways, it comes down to this. If I buy the game, it should be my property. If I want to sell it, I should be able to. If I want to start over, I should be able to. Deleting save files is something games have been able to do since forever, they shouldn't go backwards to get a few more sales.

And I was thinking of getting Monkey Ball someday too. I don't really care about it that much. I'm not going to say that I would never get a game with 1 save file, but it is something I would really consider. There are a million other games I would like also, and if something I really have to consider comes up, I probably would go get another game without things I really have to consider.



SavageBlackWolf said:

Simple enough. I won`t buy the games that do support this and if that does become the new trend, i`ll sell the 3ds. Just about done with their so-called "compromises".



Ark said:

There exist devices that allow one to remove save data and back it up on the computer, then inject save data back inside the cart. They can't take ROMs, so no piracy if you're wondering.

Essentially, these devices make this issue meaningless unless it spreads to other consoles or you don't feel like investing in potentially sketchy Chinese hardware. I might pick up one of these data removers (depending on the legality, I'm not sure where these things lie), simply because it's nice to have backups of game data.

I think Nintendo would have been better off taking a PSP-like approach where save data is concerned, allowing it to be imported and exported at will instead of storing everything on the cartridge.



James said:

Perhaps the title should have been "used" rather than "use". We'll see if these companies continue this trend.



bahooney said:

Honestly, what's the big deal? Sure, it's a nuisance, but the uproar you guys are creating is incredibly beyond any reaction I could have expected. Used game sales give companies absolutely no revenue. This is a completely logical and, to be honest, fair solution for them. They're a business. It is the majority of gamers, myself included, who buy used games and hurt their sales.

People saying they're going to sell their 3DS because of this issue are completely wrong, because it's the majority of us who got us into this mess in the first place. The solution is simple: don't buy used!



kkslider5552000 said:

I just bought Super Monkey Ball. I'm unintentionally supporting this nonsense.

also, what are you doing Aksys? You are not huge enough to not be affected by fan backlash, what are you thinking?



MeloMan said:

Imma look into that delete data option from legcheeser when I get home... I surprised I missed that and I read ALL manuals to ALL games and systems

There may be the question of "why care?" but honestly, there's no reason for a developer TO do it. It doesn't hurt anything having the option, so... why do this? Baffles the mind.



CanisWolfred said:


Not buying used games isn't going to automatically make developers stop using this kind of bullcrap. If anything it'll support it because it'll tell them that it works. Personally, I like being able to delete my saves, so I'm just not going to support companies that do this. If you ask me, that's a far simpler solution.



Sneaker13 said:

I really couldn't be bothered. And I don't see why almost everyone is making such a big deal out if this. It's not that at the end of the game, you can't replay levels or something. It is just for unlocks and high scores (those type of games).



mantez said:

If I couldn't buy used and trade games in I would be buying maybe 2 games a year if that. Now I have Uncharted 3 collectors, Kid Icarus, Skyrim and PSV pre ordered because I could trade in and buy used.



C-195 said:

Honestly, how does one of the basic, funamental concepts of video games elude these people when they develop for the 3ds. faceplam



Traxx said:

I had no problem selling my PES 2011 3D. Thx to the many cry babies out there I will when trying to sell Mercs. THX a lot...



Henmii said:

Maybe from now on they should print on the box: THIS FILE CAN NOT BE DELETED! But they probably won't do that, since they know they are wrong! Or you Nintendolife guys could mention it at the info-box to the right, so everyone knows what the situation is.

I guess those developers won't pull this act when they develop for the PSvita. That's how the cookie crumbles! And since I heard the PSvita will only cost 170 Euro's (Oh my, that's even cheaper then the original DS!) I maybe better could forget about the 3DS!!



DJ_Triforce said:

Why not, instead, just give the customer a code that comes with the game. Once they enter the code, it unlocks the game to your system and your system alone. Then you could delete saved data as often as you want. Games with online functionality do this already on the 360 and PS3... I think this is a good idea.



Kirk said:

Why the hell are developers doing this all of a sudden?

It's totally stupid and I can't see any benefits to any gamer out there at all.



JGMR said:

I do not know how it goes in other countries, but here in Holland, most shops let you swap your newly bought videogame within 24 hours for another one if you don't like it.

What if you don't like it? Or completed it within a day? What should you do then? Keep that game? Or swap it for a game that might already have saved data on it, which cannot be erased? No 3DS for me. Shame, because i was becoming more interested in it.



jdarrell said:

If you're selling a non-resellable game for over $20, it better be one hell of a game. I think they've crossed a line here so congrats to the ones that were smart enough to do it first.



Wheels2050 said:

As I mentioned in a previous comments section, this isn't Capcom's first time doing this: Super Street Fighter II Turbo Revival for the GBA couldn't erase the save file. I bought it only a month ago (obviously used), and everything is already unlocked...



retrox said:

This raises so many questions... If retailers agree to purchase used copies of these crippled games (and I refuse to refer to them as anything but crippled), albeit for greatly reduced prices, how cheaply will they re-sell them?

For example, if Amazon's buyback rate for games with no save management is roughly 1/2 of what they would normally reimburse for a recently-released used game with save management, does that mean they will re-sell that product for around 12-15 USD? 100-125% is still a healthy profit for them.

If those of you who insist that the perma-save issue is no big deal to most gamers are correct, doesn't it stand to reason that activity in the used games market could actually increase?

I mean, if I don't necessarily care about not being able to reset save data, and I want a game that happens to have this "feature," why the heck am I going to pay 40 bucks for it when I can get it used for 15? That's an additional savings of roughly 20 bucks when compared to the average going rate for second-hand games. Pretty substantial. I've never purchased a used game in my life, but man. My gaming budget really likes the look of those numbers.

Granted, the idea is probably to crush resale value to the point of it not even being worth the trouble to trade in... but is that how it's really going to work? Let's all wait with anticipation and see!

I should probably stop thinking about this and go play a game or something. Bah, who am I kidding, this is the most fun I've had with my 3DS yet.



komicturtle said:

I doubt it has anything to do with Nintendo, so don't be quick on them when they are pretty much irrelevant to the cause of this (OoT and Pilotwings should be more than enough examples). I do want to know why they are doing this. Because the complaining... Well, it's annoying. It doesn't greatly affect me at all, but I can see why it affects others.



MasterGraveheart said:

@retox: It's a general statement about gamers in general. I've NEVER supported the notion of a mass used games distributor like GameStop. Game developers get NO money towards that and the mass buying of used games is only a net negative for gamers in the long run since the stuff that's being bought new is either bundled with the systems or the casual party games that are most likely purchased from shops that don't dabble in used games to begin with.

By waiting for that copy of Batman: Arkham City to be available used, you helped solidify Wii Music as a higher seller. (retorical statement)

Once again, I use the term "you" as a general statement and not directed at anyone particular, so don't take it personally if you supported your favorite game developers and not GameStop exclusively.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with places like GameStop or Amazon or anywhere else you can get used games. However, just because you purchased Tales of Symphonia from GameStop used doesn't mean it registers with Namco to want to make more in that particular series.




remember the old days when we all complained that too many games had no save feature? now it's the complete opposite!



Fuzzy said:

I don't buy many second hand games anyway, as the stores here only sell them for about $5 or so cheaper, so I don't bother. But if I'm trying to get a game that's out of print, or hard to find, then this would be a bother for me buying second-hand.

But at the end, this doesn't bother me nearly as much as region locking.



Capt_N said:

"If you know any other games that offer permanent save data, let us know in the comments below."

Certainly James, & all Nintendolife: Mario Golf Toadstool Tour: Once you put (custom) characters from Advance Tour on, they are on for good. Granted, you can delete your GCN MGTT save file, & (also granted) I only have one pair of custom characters on my file. I don't know if once all four slots are filled w/ characters, that you can still add more, albeit by overwriting the first set, or not. Just thought I'd add that, even though it has nothing to do w/ the 3DS.



endO said:

if this becomes more widespread I might just have to sell my 3DS. - me too This is what kill this Platform. I don't want to buy these games, maybe other games?. F*** U Capcom Konami. But... ;( SEGA? That's ridiculous! If Nintendo released more games with permament save data i will sell my 3DS and I don't want to buy any Nintendo platform in the future.



retrox said:


Yes, I understand that argument completely. It seems to be the only one with any potential validity whatsoever. I just don't believe it's entirely accurate. Aside from the obvious bits, like publishers not seeing a first hand return-on-investment from second hand consumer transactions, most of your talking points are without merit because they're... well... conjecture. Maybe Wii Music isn't a higher seller because everybody waited to buy Arkham City used, maybe there were just more people in the world when the game hit shelves who wanted to play Wii Music. Or maybe Wii Music had seven hundred thousand super-cute TV commercials running 24/7 for the month leading up to it's release and Arkham City got a few banner ads on a few gaming sites. It's a sin, I agree. But prove me wrong. Let's see some data. I'm not challenging you, I'm just pointing out the futility of this argument (although if you can produce data, I'd be interested to see it).

Am I to believe that exceptional games don't generate plentiful piles of revenue for publishers because of all the poverty-stricken, destitute gamers who wait for used copies to show up on shelves before they invest their meager cash reserves? Isn't the concept of that just a little self-contradictory? The used market is a product of consumerism, not some evil plot cooked up by a bunch of lousy cheapskates to undermine the greater causes of capitalism. Games, cars, furniture, electronics... Craig's List. E-Bay. Carmax. Are the people who use these venues somehow cheating Ford and Toshiba out of their rightful dues? I realize you said you don't have a problem with used game dealers, but you only said that after you'd finished waggling your virtual finger at the people who use them. So nyah.

Do you honestly ever expect an announcement from Konami that the Castlevania series will be discontinued due to poor sales because of the proliferation of used copies that are draining all the precious money away? Seems to me that the proliferation of used copies is due to one, or some combination of, three factors: either a crapload of people bought the game new at full market price, the game isn't good enough to make people want to keep it, or there is something else new on the shelf that they want more but can't justify paying full price for. Want to keep used copies off the shelf? Make games that are so good people want to keep them forever. Want to encourage people to keep their beloved old games forever? Re-evaluate your pricing on the new stuff. If you can't figure out a way to do it without losing at the bank... you fail. Business.

This is not about profit, it's about profit maximization. Also a goal of corporate capitalism. There are guys who pull in six-figure salaries every year who sit around board room tables and discuss different ways to do it, whether they're called Nintendo, Toshiba, or Ford; and sometimes those guys get sneaky, sometimes they forget how they got to where they are, and sometimes the great decisions they come up with in the boardroom turn out to be horrible mistakes in the marketplace.

If this truly is a move to marginalize the used games market (and Occam's razor is telling me it is), then it qualifies as a horrible mistake. It's going to cause nothing but anger and frustration amongst the people who are the most important: The people who can afford to buy the game on day one. We're the ones who get stuck paying 10 dollars more for a product with fewer features. All so that publisher X can sell 904,394 units instead of 889,273.

Hell no. Think about it, brother. If you want better games, you better start making those six-figure suits think outside their cozy little boxes once in a while.



Azikira said:

Well, I am enjoying this game a lot. And I know for a fact that several games I own (And HAVE owned) do not delete save data. But this game doesnt really suffer from it. If it was Revelations, and had no New Game options, then it wouldnt be worth a purchase. Adventure games need it, short stage-based games dont.



FantasiaWHT said:

The fact that other publishers are doing it to doesn't make the uproar over Capcom any less deserved.

And as far as used games go, if reselling games was banned, the price for new games would have to plummet, because a portion of the price people are willing to pay for a game partially reflects the ability of the owner to recoup a portion of the "loss" by reselling it. If I buy a game for $50, play it for awhile, and sell it for $30, it really only cost me $20 to play the game. If I'm unable to sell that game, I'm going to wait until the new price drops to $20 before I buy it.



FantasiaWHT said:

Another point - game stores like Gamestop couldn't exist without used games because the profit margin on new games is too low to JUST SELL new games. There are no stores in existence that I'm aware of that only sell new games. The stores that don't sell used games (Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc.), sell hundreds of thousands of other products.

Whatever else you say about GS, they have a larger selection of new games than any other store that sells video games. Without the used game sales, they would be have to hold onto only the more popular new games like Best Buy, et al. do.



Sakura_Moonlight2421 said:

When you live in Hawaii where the cost of living is more expensive than those on the mainland, pinching pennies helps a lot. Do you have any idea how much it costs to ship things here!! We're talking big bucks here, when the economy goes south the consumers here always gets hit with price hikes. So don't try to think that the used game market is a travesty. To me its a blessing that they offer such things regardless of the resale value. Money is money no matter how small the amount. (Something my dad taught me. Save where you can to survive.)



Debageldond said:

Let me start by saying that while this is a fairly alarming development, there is no way it becomes a meaningful trend due to very simple economic principles: if a game is this draconian, very few people will buy it. Ever heard of Spore? EA had a public relations nightmare when they locked that game down with the obnoxious DRM Apple used to put on its music downloads. Keyword: used. As in not anymore. If you look on Amazon, Spore was carpet bombed with one-star reviews by angry gamers because of this. Of course, since the game had been hyped for years, there was a sense of disappointment in the content, but it was still a very fun game, and if you look at the reviews, it's easy to tell why the bad ones are so bad. EA even released a tool to de-authorize computers because of it.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere near that, however. Certainly, if a company were to do this with a high-profile story-driven game (for example, had this been done with the 3DS Ocarina), it would cause a massive uproar. Even at its current level, when people find out, they're quite angry. Hell, I would be, and it's an understandable concern. However, when I read comments like "3DS BAD! I AM BETRAYED!", it shows incredibly poor critical thinking skills. This is certainly never going to touch the big-name titles, and my guess is that if it becomes a major PR distraction, Nintendo will likely put a stop to what most would agree are the more blatant abuses.

That doesn't mean it's not an issue and it's not something to get worked up about, regardless of what companies do it. Those who say that we essentially brought this upon ourselves: what level of ownership do you expect to have of any product? If I pay for a microwave, use it for five years, and then sell it, does the company which makes the microwaves lose profit? Perhaps. However, this is basically like saying "you own this microwave but it will cease to work in 10 years", the rationale being lost profits. That, in my mind, is wholly unacceptable.

This discussion is complicated by the sub-discussion concerning portable gaming and value. The reason why someone, in this day and age, will own a 3DS or Vita (when it comes out) is because there are games available which are well-designed by professionals and are more immersive than your average mobile app game. This is why we pay $40 instead of $1-5. With that added cost comes an added sense of ownership which, personally, I don't feel when I buy a $1 game on my phone. Naturally, with the extra money and sense of ownership comes with a responsibility on the part of the developer to produce a quality product, which includes save file flexibility, which has never been a problem. Now, some of the developers in question are pretty big names, but they've also been historically pretty hit-or-miss. While it's easy to see this move as evil and greedy, I think in reality it's more indicative of laziness. It comes across as a whine, because if developers would consistently make good games, they'd be making enough money not to resort to this sort of pathetic desperation move. So, while I'm alarmed and irritated, this sort of thing can not and will not stick unless some other concession is given by the company. A significant reduction in price would make sense in tandem with this, but my guess is that this lost profit is mostly phantom lost profit in the first place. Stop whining and make good games on a consistent basis.




It wouldn't stop me from buying the game second hand tbh. I hope it doesn't inhibit my second hand trades though as I knd of rely on that. If ot wasn't for being able to trade in my games, I wouldn't have played those 75 DS games and 75 Wii games (approx) thae games industry may be shooting itself in the foot here.



XCWarrior said:

If it helps weaken the stronghold that Gamestop has on the used market, I have no issues with this. I don't sell my games or delete my data, so no problems here.

Though what I need are reason to own a 3DS.



MasterGraveheart said:

@retox: I think you looked a little TOO deeply into my retorical statement about Wii Music/Batman and missed the point completely. Yes, advertisement has a lot to do with a game's success as well. As a comic fan, I know how this goes. My favorite comic book being released at the moment is the new Spider-Girl series, taking place in the actual 616 Universe and staring an original character, Anya Corazon. It got zero advertising and next week's issue is the finale. I wanna slap someone at Marvel for that one. Meanwhile, Moon Knight will no doubt make it through issue 25 before cancelation becomes a consideration, considering the advertising they put into his new series.

If I gave the insinuation that companies like GameStop wanted to bring down the new gaming market, then we clearly had a lapse in communication. GameStop is a beneficiary, however, I will say that any used game sale only goes to hurt the companies involved with making the title in the grand scale of things. Sure, not everyone can buy everything shiny and new, but what I was getting at was that if it's a product you genuinely want to support, let the companies know and buy new if at all possible. I'm not going to hate on people who buy second hand for personal financial reasoning, especially if they're doing so outside of venues like GameStop and go local instead.

Funny you bring up Castlevania. Remember Strider? How about Toe Jam & Earl? Alex Kidd? Gunstar Heroes? Wizards & Warriors? Final Fight? Heck, even EarthBound. Once upon a time they were all beloved franchises, but when they ceased to be truly profitable, businesses did the only logical step. They ceased production of the unprofitable and shifted focus towards more profitable endevors. Some of them got a second lease on life, like Kid Icarus, Sparkster, Shinobi, and others, but that's only because of an existing interest in a different market. If Castlevania ever became unprofitable, Konami won't think twice about shelving that franchise to shift attention towards other projects. Nobody makes games hoping to be well-loved, but poor-selling, because the sales they take back are what's not only going to keep their lights on, but also fund their NEXT project. And hey, if the game they made sells well enough, then you can toy with the idea of a franchise.

Say what you will about Wii Music. I've said my fill in other forums. It sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide. Then take Punch-Out, one of my absolute favorite Wii games. That didn't sell quite nearly as close at below 1.85 million worldwide. However, I'd like to offer this up as food for thought. Take that one away from the Punch-Out sales charts. Punch-Out only sells 850,000 worldwide. With an underwhelming response, Nintendo pulls the plug on future Punch-Out titles for the time being. Sure, they could try it on the handheld, but console owners would be left out in the dark. It only takes one unprofitable endevor that game makers had their hearts set on to end a franchise, potentially forever.

I won't ever say that some developers get downright lazy. Take a look at the dragging-through-the-mud that Sega took, not to mention the Sonic franchise name. Both were totaled and nearly eliminated entirely. Yes, they pulled through, but the effects still remain. SquareEnix's Final Fantasy titles are going through the same thing with their latest installments, hoping to make it on name alone. One of my favorite examples is comparing Marvel: Ultimate Alliance to Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2. Play the first one, then the other, and see exactly what wen't wrong. No polish, lazy, and a headache to play at times, that second one was. Even Nintendo is guilty of the same thing with some titles. Did you know that Kirby's Epic Yarn started off as a non-Kirby title, but changed? Once upon a time, Nintendo would have breathed fire to make sure that Not-Kirby's Epic Yarn would have succeeded and birth a new IP. Sure, Epic Yarn did great, but we got cheated out of a new IP which some gamers are desperately clammoring for from Nintendo. While I love me my Nintendo Holy Trinity of Mario, Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, I'd like to see something new from them too just to see them flex their muscles. Eternal Darkness was GREAT. Geist was... ambitious, at least. So, yeah, some designers ARE lazy, but they're also in the market to be profitable, and sometimes that means cutting corners.

And we are back to the game save issue. I'm not certain its something the companies even WANTED to do, but they had to think of something. Personally, I think there were other ways to curve the sale of used games then take away something that's been available since the NES days. Maybe sync the game with the handheld so it'll only play on that? Maybe a little extreme, but it'd give you the desired effect since used copies of the game COULDN'T be played at all. Maybe also a bad idea too, but hey, all your features are there., that's just mindblowing... referring to the ability to delete game saves as a game's "feature"... okay, now THAT'S wrong.



Doma said:

They're doing it because it's a nicely deceptive method of limiting what customers can do with a game once purchased. Any publisher that uses this BS deserves the backlash, because it's completely inexplicable and only affects the customer in a bad way.



7th_lutz said:

I am a person that actually like play the same game I already beaten. I don't think it's right that game companies for consumers like me from trying to beat the same again without it me buying another copy.

The other problem I have with that is my younger brother and I share the same game.



Ristar42 said:

Those who only buy new games and never trade would need to be very wealthy and have a lot of storage space.

Imagine if this was common place historically, if all those carts and memory cards could not be deleted or over-written? It would be awful and wreck the point of retro collecting.

I would also suggest that trade in and second hand purchases allow people to play many more games than they might if they had to buy everything new, generating interest they may not have otherwise had in possible sequels.



retrox said:

Great read, spot on.

Good points. Ugh, Wizards and Warriors. Haven't thought about that one in a while. I'm a huge D.W. Bradley fan.

I feel your pain, but even as our favorite IP's wither and die, for whatever reasons, I think there will always be other great ones being born as the years go by to fill in the gaps. We've just got to stay hopeful and, like you say, keep fighting the good fight with our wallets as best we can.

And yeah, it feels totally wrong calling the ability to delete/restart games a "feature." I'm just not used to not having that option, you know? And I'm pretty sure I'll never get used to it, even if the publishers of these 3DS games insist that I should. It's kind of a big deal to me, just on principle.



dizzy_boy said:

so, what happens when people complete their games with these permanent memory arrangments.
i would assume it would send you back to the beggining, right?
at the end of the day, if we`re given information to which games have the permanent save feature. all we have to do is not buy them.
consumers have more power than the seller. if something isn`t right, the consumer won`t buy, and the seller is forced to amend what is wrong. it works with anything that comes out to retail.



Shane904 said:

Used games are a form of recycling. These people will destroy the earth one cart at a time



Tate24 said:

Sorry dont know why everyone is having fit over this like said at top capcom not only company that doing this so just get over it.

I dont know many people that would complete game unlock everything and then decide to delete it all start again?

That just sounds like wasted hours



magos2k7 said:

I remember the "good ol' days" when you bought something, it was actually yours. Any company selling hardware with apps is going to protect those apps from piracy. But punishing (and it IS a punishment) consumers as a whole because of the acts of a few is ridiculous. It happens over and over; read one of those "licensing agreements" some time... you'll find that you're actually LEASING someone else's property, and there are rules for usage! You don't actually OWN it. It's on software (both downloaded and discs from the store), and on firmware. The apps and downloads for the iPod are the same story, as is the iPod itself. It's corporations sliding their fat li'l fingers in there to control the consumer with a slew of legal excuses. Uh... I did ramble on...



caitsith2 said:

In regards to the pulling the cart while the save is being written, even that method is NOT foolproof. It is true that game developers have to DELETE a corrupted save. However, if they did a CYA, then it is possible that they keep for each save slot, 2 slots, primary and backup, and in such a way, that whichever one has the higher revision number is current, and the one with the lower revision number, or the one which is corrupted, is the slot overwritten.

(If I were developing a system of that sort, I would verify not only revision number, but whether a given slot for that revision was not corrupted. (If it was, then I would attempt to overwrite that slot, rather than the known good one. If done right, then it would be effectively impossible to abuse cart pull while writing to clean the slate.))

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...