pneuma08 said:
shMerker said:
If people are waiting to buy your games used it's because they don't see your games as being worth the full retail price.
I don't agree with this. Many times I buy used not because I'm unwilling to pay the full retail price, but because it's the *same game* for *cheaper*. Furthermore you lost me when you said that lower trade-in means higher price, which lowers peoples' inclination to buy used.
Sorry, I sort of made a mess of this when I said it the first time. First, what I'm saying is you pay, what, $60 for the game? When you trade it in you recoup some of that. Your net loss is $60 minus whatever your trade-in value ends up being. I'm assuming that used game sellers are going to give a trade-in value about $15 lower because of the missing DLC voucher, thus increasing your net loss by $15.
Also, I'm not so much speaking to the people who go to buy a game and discover that there is a used copy for cheaper, but those who search out deals and even wait around for used copies to surface to avoid paying full price for these games. The reason stores like GameStop exist and rake in so much money is that there are a lot of gamers who feel that their games aren't ultimately worth the money that publishers charge for them.
I mean, some of your arguments don't make sense. If someone wasn't going to buy the game and truly isn't interested, but is intrigued by marketing and indeed goes ahead and buys the game, only to be disappointed and ends up selling the game to the secondary market, that's one sale for EA and one more used title in the secondary market. That might be one more strike against EA, but add it to the heap. The only person who potentially loses out is Bioware, who isn't able to say much about the above situation anyway. That and the used consumer, but hey they are paying less in the first place. In combination with the free DLC, it's more incentive to buy new, which, if anything will drive the price point of used sales downwards.
Exactly, lower used price means lower trade-in value which means higher net loss for anyone who buys the game and then resells it. You're right that the used game customers probably don't lose much. The resale price is probably going to reflect the missing DLC, so that works out even. There is the potential for feeling ripped off, though, if it isn't made clear to them that the used version and the new version are materially different from each other.
I also don't really understand the opposition to DLC, and especially free DLC. I just don't follow the logic of, "everything they develop before the release date of a game is meant to be in the game, therefore I deserve it as part of buying the game". That's....not true. I mean, there's a subtle line between lobotomizing a game and extra bonus stuff, but essentially the argument is that you would be happier if you got less and the developer worked less. This makes no sense, and even less so when it's *free*.
Well for starters it isn't free [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL]. Given that, as well as the fact the content is ready, it seems like it would be best for the customer if they just packaged it on the disc rather than force them to go through whatever redemption process is required to get it.
And you're correct that this will probably net EA some profits in the short run that they wouldn't have otherwise. My argument is that it will be at the expense of customer goodwill which will cause fewer sales for future games. The goal should not be to monetize disappointed customers, but to avoid disappointing them in the first place.
