EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You

[jtesauro]

One final point I'd like to bring to this, if I may.

John Funk mentioned people not taking into consideration how games are made ( He's RIGHT by the way ). Now alot of this DLC debate concerns two recent titles released by the now EA owned Bioware; Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.

Consider the time and resources that go into these two games, VS the end profit. Now compare that to the development costs, etc on a game like Modern Warfare 2. The point I'm trying to make is that given the kinds of games they make, it's not as easy for Bioware to make the kind of money on their product that an Infinity Ward does. That being the case, if this DLC can get me some new content, WHILE bolstering an already hurting industry and possibly company ( Pandemic another EA Subsidiary closed their doors recently ), then I'm happy with that. The same reason I don't pirate content, I think there needs to be a balance between the needs of the industry and the consumer.

Just something I hope we can consider.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Agreed. But its even more clear cut to the company - "Do we reward the customers who pay us money, or the customers who don't?"

Exactly, this is the part I always laugh about. People complain about this, and I feel like I have to ask:

If all the content that comes free only in new copies were available in all copies, would you buy used or new?

If you would buy new, then what are you complaining about? You get exactly the same content, regardless.

If you would buy used, then why exactly should EA give a damn what you think?

 

[StriderShinryu]

If you look at Ten Dollar as being nothing more than, say, a cloth map, or a art book, then it becomes apparent that the used game retailers have no incentive to lower their prices due to its absence.

I agree. The incentive, as you state, really is for the buyer/player. Unless this sort of thing becomes the norm and really starts impacting sales you are not going to see retailers reacting by adjusting their prices. It's up to the player if they want to pay $5 more for a new copy and get the extra content or if they want to pay $5 less and not get the extra content (for free). At the moment, it's pretty much a no brainer to go for the new copy unless you really need to save that $5 (and then you could argue why you're buying a game at all if $5 means that much to you).

Say a new copy of $60 and a used copy $30.

Wow, where do you buy your games that the price difference between new and used is so high? hehe

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I'm fully behind EA's plan. I bought a new copy of Mass Effect 2 on launch and the collectors edition. And now every now and then I get a little extra content. Nothing game changing, nothing that important. But I think it gets me more content and them more money to make my more content. And if I don't want to buy a certain game on launch and wait until its cheaper. Then I'm probably not going to be able to afford it until its dropped significantly in price and then I can spend my saved money on MS points to buy the code if I want the extra content.

 

[JakobBloch]

You can't say the downloadable content is insignificant unless you have played the game without it.

I disagree. The reason I do that is because I am stupid.

Now that needs a bit of explanation. My first play through of DA:O was done without any downloadable content. Not shale, not the dragon armour and not the keep. Why you ask? I was not aware that the content came with the normal game (not counting the keep as I did not buy the special edition). For my second play through I decided to buy some DLC and it was then I discovered my mistake. So I played it again. Getting the extra content didn't retract from my experience of my first playthrough. I got Shall and I went into that keep and the experience got some extra depth but ultimately my choices in the individual play through had more effect on my enjoyment of the game.

As for whether day one DLC is off the devil or manna from heaven I am of 2 minds. On the one hand I see that companies want to protect their property rights. on the other, however, I can also understand the grievances of the consumers. Ultimately I think that the frenzy of the community against this is premature. Wailing against this new thing doesn't really get us anything useful. What I think we as gamers should do is just inform the publishers and developers of what kinda content is just fin for day one dlc and what they shouldn't do. Sorta like this:

* Adding fun but ultimately inconsequential extra Character - fine
* Adding extra multiplayer content at inflated price - bad
* Adding special items for different purchasing schemes - fine but would be nice with a way to get them afterwards (baring the special edition items which kinda deserves the pedistal)
* Adding purely decorative items for purchase - fine (personally I wouldn't but I am biased by my own purchase intent which is very lacking for purely decorative stuff)
* Adding DLC content to some platforms but not other - Very bad (I am looking at you Ubisoft)

It could probably be set up better but that is the general idea.

 

[Slycne]

Snip.

Where is your avatar from? It looks snazzy.

It's Skull One from the Robotech/Macross series.

 

[aPod]

This is a good thing, that will look like a bad thing to everyone who only cares about the game getting in thier console and doesnt give a rats about the people who put it there.

I dont know the figures but i would put Used games up there with piracy as far as loss of revenue on games. The main reason it might seem like a load of crap is that Used games, when the game is new, sell for 6 or 4 dollars less than a brand new copy. So if you wanted to get the content that the new copy had you'd actually spend more money in the end.

Whats not brilliant about that? One of two things are probably going to happen. Either you're going to buy that new copy instead, or the people selling used who see sells going down are going to drop thier prices. Then its up to you to decide if that content is worth it too you or not.

I think its a brilliant alternative that's relatively unintrusive, and it lets you the consumer decide what is important to you.

Will there be mishaps? Yes, of course this is new... and people are greedy.

 

[LordZ]

EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You

EA's "project ten dollar" incentives are an offer you can choose to refuse.

Read Full Article

Blackmail? No. Remove content and re-add it to charge extra? Yes. You know, I'd like to call bullshit on the characters not being ready but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one, even though it stinks highly of bullshit. However, I do call bullshit on them removing the storage chest from the camp and putting it as the reward to a quest that adds dick all to the story and is loaded with over powered crap just to entice anyone who sucks at the game into buying it. Here's looking at you Warden's Keep. If you have proof that the developers are too mentally challenged to have added a working storage chest directly to the camp(where it obviously was meant to be), I'd love to see it. On a related note, I hear there's a mod for the PC version that puts the storage chest in the camp.

No, you aren't being forced to buy it. In the case of people without an internet connection, they're missing out on it either way. They actually have an incentive to buy it used since they wont get the DLC either way. However, they have clearly lowered the value of the game by removing stuff for the express purpose of charging more for it. In addition to not addressing people who don't have internet access, you failed to address the concern that DLC servers will not last forever. The diminished value of the game isn't just diminished to people who buy used but to people who buy new too. There are plenty of games still being played several years after the developer ceased to exist. How many people will be playing that DLC after the servers cease to exist?

EA - and every other publisher - deserves to make as much money as it can from its games, and giving a bonus to people who buy new is a pretty reasonable and non-intrusive way to do that.

Publishers deserve to make a profit, if they publish games that are worth buying. I'd hardly say they deserve a blank check to as much money as they want. Also, removing content from a game and adding it back in, laced with extra DRM, isn't a bonus. A bonus is a freebie that was added onto the disc or that anyone can just visit the site and download and install. These "bonus" dlc you mention require you to log onto their site, download it, install and activate it and then launch the game to play. You have to do this every time you install the game.

If they really wanted to increase their profits, there's a lot of other things they could try. They could lower the price of the games. They could lower the cost of producing games(games don't have to be loaded with eye candy to be fun and entertaining). They could stop treating their customers like criminals. It's not their job to play copyright cop and lace everything they make with DRM. It's the job of law enforcement to stop copyright infringement. Taking the law into your own hands normally gets your branded as a vigilante and you usually face penalties for crap like that.

A prime example of a game that raked in a ton of money and did it without being a so-called "AAA" title is Torchlight. It's a fairly mainstream game and it sold like hotcakes during the $10 and $5 sales they had on Steam. The launch price of $20 is not at all excessive and they didn't yank out the town chest and decide to sell it for $15 in some pointless DLC quest.

Even if I was somehow convinced that they didn't yank that stuff out just to claim it was bonus material, there is one thing I simply can't forgive about Dragon Age: Origins.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/

 

[Silva]

That comment was made in specific regards to the horse armor and street fighter packs that another poster challenged someone to say it wasn't exploitative. And after digging around for my Dragon Age box, it does indeed have a disclaimer box, not even in tiny lawyer font, exclaiming "One time use codes available with full retail purchase".

You're right to say that you were speaking about something slightly different, I'm sorry if my comment was a bit unrelated. I also thank you for the effort in searching through the pile, but even if it's not in fine print, do you really think purchasers tend to read that message? Fair enough to say that it's legally justified, but ethically? People could still be given better warning. Like, say, a mention of the DLC in the store from the guy selling it... and an explanation of what DLC means, if necessary.

This is just like the massive legal agreements people have to say they've read through before they install basically anything on Windows - it's not something that exists for the convenience of the customer. It's there to cover the backside of the people who made the product, possibly from legitimate suits.

It just comes back to this idea of the buyer having to be wary of what's being sold to them, and I think it smacks of anti-consumer philosophy.

I didn't miss that part, I simply think that you're making an assumption that I don't agree with. You seem to feel that someone who doesn't care about DLC is suddenly going to be upset that they don't have it. I disagree. Most folks buying a game just plain want to play the game as is, and don't really care about Live or PSN or anything else. You're suggesting that those people will be incredibly upset to discover that their used copy doesn't have the battle armor that someone else's new copy has, and while in some cases that will certainly be true, I think that in the vast majority of instances it won't be.

In other words, people who don't care about DLC will continue to not care about DLC. Their criteria for "enjoyment of the product" is different. That's my take on it, your opinion may differ.

All of that said, this is supposing that we're still talking about the kinds of items that are currently being bundled, like extra characters and colorful armor. These are not "better equipment," they're window dressing. If the DLC in question is more substantial, then the likelihood that someone will be upset that they didn't know they had a choice certainly increases.

Though you're perfectly right to point out that I hadn't explained my logic, I wasn't quite basing that premise on assumption. My thought process was that, if people are "whining" in the first place, then clearly the scenario is effecting their enjoyment of the product. Especially since those same people often go ahead and buy the game they criticise anyway (which is, I certainly think, a bad attempt at activist consumption), and I've seen many a person say "I just got [insert any new game here], but there goes my fun because I have to use DLC I didn't know about to finish the damn thing" in their next Facebook status. Live is an especially popular service, even if the majority don't use it, so it's not like the experience isn't common.

People can believe one thing one day, and change that belief the next when they discover new information. It happens all the time. Still, player discontent is an impossible thing to quantify with any accuracy, so I'm happy to leave that point where it stands, partially unprovable.

However, as a player who has the free Blood Dragon Armor, I can tell you that it IS better equipment than a good portion of what you have for most of the game. I'm in the double digits of levels and have gathered most of the races for the Blight, and I still can't even equip it; the Strength requirements are that high. I haven't finished the game though, so maybe it's not the best available equipment. Either way, getting it and using it early will help your progress, so it's not just window dressing.

 

[Meggiepants]

I don't really see a problem with this policy. As people have already said here, if it pisses you off, don't buy the game. This is how capitalism works. If the $10 policy affected their sales negatively, EA would stop doing it. My guess is though, EA doesn't really care if the people who rent and buy used games are pissed off. They don't get any money from you regardless of what you say. It's kind of like complaining about the flavor of New Coke when you only buy Pepsi. As far as I can tell, the people who buy new games are pretty pleased with the policy. And in business, the people who are willing to hand you their money are the only people you really need to keep happy.

 

[Slycne]

That comment was made in specific regards to the horse armor and street fighter packs that another poster challenged someone to say it wasn't exploitative. And after digging around for my Dragon Age box, it does indeed have a disclaimer box, not even in tiny lawyer font, exclaiming "One time use codes available with full retail purchase".

You're right to say that you were speaking about something slightly different, I'm sorry if my comment was a bit unrelated. I also thank you for the effort in searching through the pile, but even if it's not in fine print, do you really think purchasers tend to read that message? Fair enough to say that it's legally justified, but ethically? People could still be given better warning. Like, say, a mention of the DLC in the store from the guy selling it... and an explanation of what DLC means, if necessary.

This is just like the massive legal agreements people have to say they've read through before they install basically anything on Windows - it's not something that exists for the convenience of the customer. It's there to cover the backside of the people who made the product, possibly from legitimate suits.

It just comes back to this idea of the buyer having to be wary of what's being sold to them, and I think it smacks of anti-consumer philosophy.

I quite agree. I think that many of the problems with DLC and DRM as a whole could be solved with more transparency at the sale.

 

[nomadic_chad]

My chief issue with DLC is that who's to say that eventually we won't get to the point where maps and/or other content is not pushed to get onto the disc. Did I explain that accurately?

I'd just hate to see things get to the point where instead of trying to get a game out the door with 15 multiplayer maps, they say "fuck it" and push it out the door with only 5 in order to later sell the other 10. Sure, it's great if they're not overpriced and are great maps and all. But think about it. You'll get charged full price for the game for sure. Then to enjoy what everyone else is likely going to buy and play, you have to fork out more cash.

So you ultimately end up with games being sold at a higher price point when you include the DLC. Yes, I understand the argument that if it's not necessary to play, then all is well, but when the DLC becomes the mission for the developer, I have a hard time believing that the main product won't suffer for it.

You can also say "vote with your dollars". But you know a large portion of the population will still fork out the money and thus cement the process as SOP. Once that happens, your only way to "vote" will to not buy any games since the rest of the industry will likely follow suit in order to get higher profit returns.

Just my two cents.

 

[Icehearted]

Don't misunderstand me, folks, I'm all for good add-ons, but in many cases DLC has been a tool of consumer exploitation by companies, sometimes against their will. Epic Games wanted to release map packs for one of their games (I think it was Gears of War) and MS pitched a fit and said no, so Epic released them at a price and then after a certain period of time was permitted to give them away.

Now if you want to talk about updating, improving upon, or otherwise enhancing a gaming experience, look no further than examples such as Bioshock, which not only delivered a nice addition, they did so for free. Whereas on the opposite end of the spectrum companies like Capcom release Resident Evil 5 without certain features only to release them as premium DLC on or about day one.

I also don't buy this deadline business either. I'm pretty sure that Fable 2 was said to have been "finish and done and dusted" -(P. Molyneux) well before a patch was announced well before the game was on shelves. They release it when they're ready, and if they do not it's because they figure that unfinished content can be repackaged and sold at a premium to unquestioning people with more disposable income than common sense. Oh, and before anyone bothers questioning my insight as to how the business works I happen to be very closely related to a lead programmer for a major gaming company.

Again, I don't poo poo the idea of selling quality products to willing consumers, but the milking is way past out of hand. I don't get this "bygones be bygones" mentality when it comes to mentioning something like Horse Armor, as A) it was an action that bordered crooked, B) it readily (and very easily) exemplifies everything that's wrong with this "micro-transactions" system.

It isn't about forcing me to buy anything either, it's about wanting a complete experience with the money I put down for a game. All too often companies continue to release unfinished products, or better yet, intentionally hobbled ones just so they can squeeze you for extra money because you wanted to play Resident Evil in VS mode.


...and once again, I reiterate that I am not against DLC, just the money sucking bullcrap they attempt to pass off for DLC, whatever excuses apologists make on any company's behalf.

Long post is long *whew*


TL;DR
I ♥ actual DLC that was made as DLC.
I do not ♥ garbage that is passed off as DLC to pigeons that don't care that they're just paying extra for the rest of the game they bought.


Also, just to be clear about being OT: I think this is a pretty neat idea on EA's part, even if the company isn't exactly on my winner's list of "quality before money" game publishers. Incentives like this seem like a fairly smart way to get people to buy new more often, as long as their incentives aren't skins, or an extra track, or some other uninteresting whatnot.

Edit:

I quite agree. I think that many of the problems with DLC and DRM as a whole could be solved with more transparency at the sale.

Hear hear.

 

[Muffinthraka]

This is perhaps the most stupid thing EA have done since DRM on Spore. With that simple move they lost a huge number of customers and created a new wave of gamers willing to pirate games. This is exactly the same thing. People are distrustful enough of pc games (will it work on my system, is it any good, it's a lot of money, GFWL, drm) but this will alienate people. Regarding console gamers, I know piracy exists on consoles to, I just don't have as much experience with it.

 

[Fearzone]

You can't say the downloadable content is insignificant unless you have played the game without it.

I disagree. The reason I do that is because I am stupid. /snip

Technically, you may be agreeing with me since you DID play through the game both ways, so I respect your opinion. Funny, Shale was the exact example that I had in mind. I didn't get the extra DLC either because EA was asking for personal information to set up an account (beyond the unlock code and an email address) that I wasn't in a mind to provide. Still, in the area where Shale was encountered, it felt to me like something was missing. There was a little gap there. I'm not saying it was impossible to have fun without it.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

As a PC gamer, the only way this would impact me in the slightest would be for companies to saddle their DLC-redemption codes with expiration dates, as I buy all of my games new now (just not always right at release).

Assuming they don't do that, I honestly couldn't care less if they want to bundle DLC at launch - it's not like I can buy the game used!

 

[Muffinthraka]

In no other category could something like this happen, if I sell an item to someone second hand it is not necassary to pay a percent to the manafacturer. Once I have bought the item it is mine and as long as I am doing nothing illegal with it I should be able to sell it on or use it as I wish.
I've just been given an interesting comparison; in Harry Potter and the.... goblins believe an item belongs to the creator, the buyer merely rents it, when you are done with it you should return it.
EA are goblins.
PCG wrote (a few years ago) that the DRM in PC games was ending the preowned market and they wondered if this was the whole point, (First Spore's drm, now this) maybe it was.

 

[Miral]

As a PC gamer, the only way this would impact me in the slightest would be for companies to saddle their DLC-redemption codes with expiration dates, as I buy all of my games new now (just not always right at release).

As far as I am aware, they all do have expiration dates -- typically six months to a year after the original release date.

 

[Calatar]

Even if I was somehow convinced that they didn't yank that stuff out just to claim it was bonus material, there is one thing I simply can't forgive about Dragon Age: Origins.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/

I just found that DLC annoying, because they advertise it in-game. With floating exclamation points. Where you always have to return to. Late DLC is excusable, maybe laudable; more akin to a mini-expansion pack. Project $10 clearly isn't that however. It is, as Matt_LRR said, an attempt to cut down on the used games market. Of course $10 here and there isn't a huge deal, and if it's just going to cut down on the prices of used games, then consumers should technically win. Except that whole DRM and 1-use only problem, which limits replayability if the user ever changes their computer. They would have gotten that content ordinarily for free, because it was ready on launch day, but now they get it for free, but with a one-install-use only, not to mention the other DRM which requires your computer log into the server to access your entire game, just because you thought you'd give the DLC a try.

I repeat, it's annoying. No it's not a huge deal, but it just ends up adding hassle to the game. I don't like it, it's not going to change what I buy significantly, but it still kinda sucks. I'd liken it to Pokemon Red/Blue or whatever colors there are now. They're REALLY very similar, and obnoxiously if you wanted all the content, you needed to buy both. DLC is kind of like that. Non-essential, missing bits tempting you to spend more for them, when the company could have easily just put all the parts in.

Just because something makes economic sense for a company does not make it good for their consumers.

EDIT: I'm aware that the DLC might not be finished by "on-the-disc" deadlines, and that devs don't want to just scrap their work, but prefer to continue work and release it in a commercially viable way. But preemptively putting an advertisement for it on the disc is still just plain obnoxious. Let the game get news from the internet to advertise DLC on the TITLE screen, not IN-GAME, where it does ruin immersion. Do you want your games packaged with adware?
I don't have any real problem with DLC as an inherent concept: neither charging for it, nor giving it away for free. It's in the execution where it's been annoying, the limits and the online activation and access required to play and continue to play your game with the DLC. My only experience with pay-to-play DLC thus far has been Dragon Age, so perhaps other venues are better delivered. But I hate, and will continue to hate digital rights management, where I am constantly forced to prove the legitimacy of my software, despite the tediousness having absolutely no diminishing effect on piracy.

I still resent the initial implication that those who "naysay" EA's DLC business plan are "unrealistic whiny nancyboys." It's rude, a strawman, and somewhat immature.

 

[LordZ]

This is perhaps the most stupid thing EA have done since DRM on Spore. With that simple move they lost a huge number of customers and created a new wave of gamers willing to pirate games. This is exactly the same thing. People are distrustful enough of pc games (will it work on my system, is it any good, it's a lot of money, GFWL, drm) but this will alienate people. Regarding console gamers, I know piracy exists on consoles to, I just don't have as much experience with it.

Piracy on consoles works the same as PCs with the exception that you never need a crack because you installed a chip into your console to take care of that for you. That or you bought a console that was already modded. If you ask me, piracy is a bigger problem for consoles than PCs.

I used to not care at all about EA. Then they bought up a company that I actually liked, Bioware. I don't like Bioware anymore and I hate EA. However, I have moved on. There are plenty of other companies that still make quality games and Bioware seems to be losing its touch anyways.