Saved games...the last option to challenge game players

[isiolia]

Nier sort of does this with New Game+ - basically, on your third playthrough, you can choose (as part of the game's plot) to sacrifice yourself, erasing the memory of the main character from the minds of the other characters...and deleting all your saves (intentionally). It also won't let you use the same name again.

More of a meta extension of the events of the game, but still, it does add a lot of weight to making an in-game decision.

[Gamerforlife]

Nier sort of does this with New Game+ - basically, on your third playthrough, you can choose (as part of the game's plot) to sacrifice yourself, erasing the memory of the main character from the minds of the other characters...and deleting all your saves (intentionally). It also won't let you use the same name again.

More of a meta extension of the events of the game, but still, it does add a lot of weight to making an in-game decision.

Darksiders 2 also has some kind of "true death" mode and then there's that super expensive mech game from Capcom

[Gamerforlife]

That villain already exists. It's called Sony. See the tons of save copy lock games on the PS3. Either pay Sony to use their cloud like save feature with PSN Plus, or risk forever losing your saves if your hard drive crashes or there is simply a power outage while you're saving your game

And for people who say that Sony has nothing to do with this, I would ask why there is a higher percentage of games with this feature on the PS3, and why a game like Lollipop Chainsaw doesn't let you back up your saves on the PS3, but you can do it just fine on the Xbox 360

http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/genera ... hread.html

My guess would be that the feature exists on the PS3 and doesn't exist on the 360. And said feature existed long before PSN Plus was even a thing (look at Demon's Souls). So I wouldn't really call it Sony's fault.

But some games let you copy just fine, and some companies have removed save copy lock through patches after complaints from fans, which makes me wonder why they were there in the first place...looking at you Sony

[sonic2041]

Minecraft also has something similar to this called hardcore mode. If you set up a server using this option, when a player dies they are banned from the server, and when all the players die the world is deleted. Kind of interesting in how it makes death a lot more permanent, thus making you be a lot more careful, but it doesn't really appeal to me.

[isiolia]

Darksiders 2 also has some kind of "true death" mode and then there's that super expensive mech game from Capcom

Those would just be additional examples of permadeath though, right? Which is rare, but not that unheard of.

[SteveyMajors]

If you lost in the final battle you lost all your saved games.....if you won.... you simply got it back in one piece.

Yikes. People have enough problems in their lives, they don't need a video game bullying them.

[Gamerforlife]

If you lost in the final battle you lost all your saved games.....if you won.... you simply got it back in one piece.

Yikes. People have enough problems in their lives, they don't need a video game bullying them.

Yeah, I'm very much against that kind of stuff, but you know some players love it because they want to prove that they are SUPER HARDCORE MAN!

[MrPopo]

But some games let you copy just fine, and some companies have removed save copy lock through patches after complaints from fans, which makes me wonder why they were there in the first place...looking at you Sony

Again, stop assuming that Sony is pushing that. If Sony was pushing it then devs wouldn't remove it in patches; Sony would fail the cert. My guess is that devs don't want you loading up a save file from GameFAQs to do things like unlock achievements.

[Gamerforlife]

But some games let you copy just fine, and some companies have removed save copy lock through patches after complaints from fans, which makes me wonder why they were there in the first place...looking at you Sony

Again, stop assuming that Sony is pushing that. If Sony was pushing it then devs wouldn't remove it in patches; Sony would fail the cert. My guess is that devs don't want you loading up a save file from GameFAQs to do things like unlock achievements.

I get what you're saying. I just find it odd that it happens so much more with PS3 games than 360 ones. I don't believe in coincidences. Though I suppose it could be a system architecture thing like you said earlier. Otherwise, I can't imagine why so many devs ONLY worry about the GameFAQs thing with PS3 games.

It's hard for me to ignore recurring patterns.

[MrPopo]

But some games let you copy just fine, and some companies have removed save copy lock through patches after complaints from fans, which makes me wonder why they were there in the first place...looking at you Sony

Again, stop assuming that Sony is pushing that. If Sony was pushing it then devs wouldn't remove it in patches; Sony would fail the cert. My guess is that devs don't want you loading up a save file from GameFAQs to do things like unlock achievements.

I get what you're saying. I just find it odd that it happens so much more with PS3 games than 360 ones. I don't believe in coincidences. Though I suppose it could be a system architecture thing like you said earlier. Otherwise, I can't imagine why so many devs ONLY worry about the GameFAQs thing with PS3 games.

It's hard for me to ignore recurring patterns.

Oh, I agree that devs wouldn't care about only PS3 vs. 360. But I'm not aware of any 360 saves which are locked to the console, so I'm fairly certain it's just an architecture thing.