EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You

[iamthehorde]

snip

well, i will be getting the game new for exactly that reason, because i would feel bad to pay 15$ for 2 maps. it´s just friggin audacious from ea to charge that much for 2 maps and imo the worst way to hold up customer loyalty.

but i know some people that really don´t have the money to buy games at full price. the used market is a blessing for those people and believe it or not, some of those folks are grateful for the three 20$ used copies they are able to afford within a year. videogames are expensive enough and ea is rather excluding people from it with that. also, if every new copy has virtually two maps more, a used copy without them should even be cheaper, because it has less content.

ea is fooling around and trying to sell it to us like it´s all cool. unless bc2 drops used to prices like 15-20$ it makes no real difference for those people, they simply won´t buy anything above 40$ because they can´t afford it. i like that i´m able to play the occasional round of skate2(another good example of dlc done wrong, basically making you pay so you have the same amount of camera options than in the first game, wtf?) online with my broke ass friend who only has that one game.

user loyalty is a funny term. i don´t feel any loyalty with a big ass publisher. ea doesn´t want our loyalty either, they could give a damn if we like their games as long as they make cash with them. if any loyalty issue comes into play at all, it´s loyalty to dice because they make awesome games and i´d like them to get rewarded. i don´t even dislike ea now because of that and also this is strictly about bc2 and its mappack, which, i repeat, is no dlc, but locked on the disc. i dunno about the other "project ten dollar" games.

the only industry that´s coming to mind that uses incentives like this is the videogame industry. in every other industry the standard is, that the product you buy used is the same as it was when it was new, albeit in a worse material shape. if you buy a used dvd it still has the same content than the new version. it´s only happening in gaming because games are the perfect media for that kind of business practice through its long tradition with additional content.

sorry for the long post again. i don´t want to argue too hard, i also understand your points. i just fear that in the long run, it will get worse. i think many gamers are not critical enough about shady business practices and we shouldn´t buy into every thing they´re telling us is a good deal because mostly it´s not.

but what if the first reprint of bc2 doesn´t include the unlock code anymore?

EDIT: i guess we all know the answer then.

Yes, the Dragon Age "Free DLC Codes/Vouchers" in a new game package have an Expiration Date to April 30th of 2010.
If you buy the game (even new) after that date, you will have to pay the $15 for Shale for example to be able to Unlock the DLC.

I believe the Mass Effect 2 Codes are set to expire January 1st of 2012.

To complicate that further it also says on the card that "EA MAY RETIRE ONLINE FEATURES AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON WWW.EA.COM"

 

[WestMountain]

Do we not like it because it promotes game companies to take things out of the games and sell them as overpriced day 1 dlc?

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Imagine being able to only have a chapter or character in a novel if you buy the novel new. Ridiculous right? Why shouldn't the same thing be true for video games? They are both fun escapist experiences.

Again, this has been explained. If you're missing a chapter in a book it ruins the entire experience. If you're missing the DLC you haven't missed anything important to the intended experience of the game. I could've done without Shale, Zaeed, and the Normandy crash site and it wouldn't alter my enjoyment of the game. In fact if they were included in the game I would have been critical of them - they just aren't necessary.

 

[Lost In The Void]

Do we not like it because it promotes game companies to take things out of the games and sell them as overpriced day 1 dlc?

Please...please take the time to read through the thread before you comment. Your little 'complaint' has already been addressed

 

[mrcomment]

We don't have this problem in Poland when it comes to our Xboxes, as Microsoft hasn't introduced Live into Poland yet, so EA doesn't give us the codes at all.

Nice,isn't it?

 

[shadow skill]

Imagine being able to only have a chapter or character in a novel if you buy the novel new. Ridiculous right? Why shouldn't the same thing be true for video games? They are both fun escapist experiences.

Again, this has been explained. If you're missing a chapter in a book it ruins the entire experience. If you're missing the DLC you haven't missed anything important to the intended experience of the game. I could've done without Shale, Zaeed, and the Normandy crash site and it wouldn't alter my enjoyment of the game. In fact if they were included in the game I would have been critical of them - they just aren't necessary.

You can still make sense of a book even if it is missing two or three chapters in the middle.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Imagine being able to only have a chapter or character in a novel if you buy the novel new. Ridiculous right? Why shouldn't the same thing be true for video games? They are both fun escapist experiences.

Again, this has been explained. If you're missing a chapter in a book it ruins the entire experience. If you're missing the DLC you haven't missed anything important to the intended experience of the game. I could've done without Shale, Zaeed, and the Normandy crash site and it wouldn't alter my enjoyment of the game. In fact if they were included in the game I would have been critical of them - they just aren't necessary.

You can still make sense of a book even if it is missing two or three chapters in the middle.

No offense meant by this, but if you examine that statement and it really holds true, and you can take chapters out of your favorite books and the books will still be just as enjoyable and make sense, and you can honestly compare optional DLC to those chapters - then you have been reading some really awful books.

The metaphor just doesn't work.

 

[GeekFury]

On the case of DA:O I got that for the X-Box 360, NEW I might add, with The Stone Prisoner and the Blood Dragon Armor, all well and good, BUT when I put the codes in, 'These Codes Are Invalid' WTF I thought. So I send an email to the EA Customer Support to be told 'Sorry nothing we can do if it's second hand', second hand I thought? This was bought NEW sealed and as untouched as a Vestal Virgin, so I start asking around and ALOT of my friends say the same for the game on 360, PS3 and PC and EA just claim the game has to be pre-wned.

Morale of the story? EA are the devil.

 

[domicius]

Considering I rarely finish games and seldom worry about replaying them, I have to applaud EA's decision. It's a soft option, and for most people easy to remedy even if they bought a used copy: sell used copy, then buy new copy.

In any case, they're entitled to sell a product any way they want to, on the understanding that I'll only buy it if I want it. Now if they could only find a way to strip the multiplayer out of games so I could buy the single-player cheaper off the bat, we might really be talking about something I can get excited... about. Dang, I hate repeating myself

 

[karmapolizei]

I agree with you, Susan, as long as they make it work the way it seems now. I do have a few objections, though:

1. There seems to be a slight tendency to turn a game into a sales show. While ME2 was pretty laid back about it, that quest giver in Dragon Age is bad. As in "immersion-crushing bad". Well, maybe not "crushing", but you get the point. As long as developers and publishers can resist the temptation to have every other NPC sell me something and have the game go completely meta, I'm fine with it. But looking at how "sensible advertising" isn't a very strong suit of the business world, I have my doubts.

2. The main point you're making, if I'm getting it right, is that it's up the gamers if they go and pay for the DLC or not, it's their choice. While that's true, I'm not sure gamers are (or can in fact expected to be) that aware of the consequences of that choice. To be able to enjoy all that additional content, you first have to sign up to the respective company's online service and register the game with a one-time-only key, and I think that's a bit problematic.

Let's say I've bought the game, registered it for DLC, downloaded and used the DLC. Now, some time later (maybe I've stopped playing halfway through and pick it up again) I try to continue my playthrough on a different console/PC and happen to don't have my login for the online service anymore. Or, even worse, the company, in their infinite wisdown, have shut down the online service and although I do have the login, I can't do it anymore. (Before you dismiss that as hypothetical - it really isn't) Can you really expect an average gamer (that non-gaming press reading, just-stuff-buying type) to factor this kind of consequences in? I don't think so.

This is not about any conspiracy on the publishers' part to ruin the game. It's also not about them coercing me into anything. I'm also aware that none if this anywhere near as crucial as online activation or Ubi's hideous schemes. But it's about common courtesy and responsible business practices. I know there's no way anyone's entitled to that, but it's not necessarily "whining" to complain when a company's lacking it.

 

[Knight Templar]

Imagine being able to only have a chapter or character in a novel if you buy the novel new. Ridiculous right? Why shouldn't the same thing be true for video games? They are both fun escapist experiences.

Well thats not really the same, its more like paying extra gives you a Hardcover book or a chapter of the next book at the end. It's not even that, the metaphore just doesn't work.

 

[Seneschal]

Oh, great. I'm glad all the people who buy games on day one are being indulged. If EA sees this as a good market strategy, then obviously there are enough new-game customers to justify game development costs, earn a profit, etc.

It's funny how everyone keeps ignoring those few posts that mentioned being outside the US and not having access to DLC at all in some cases, along with inflated prices due to import and all that.

I guess the world isn't marketable enough for EA, because we're basically being exchanged for American customers with high disposable income. A new game on release costs $100 where I live, which is around 18% minimal monthly income; you buy that and, if you're an average citizen, you won't be able to afford another one for months. I'm the only person that I know of who buys games (and I buy them at $10-15, usually older titles).

Now, the Project $10 is currently looking great - if it keeps the developers fed and working, while not penalizing anyone, it's a great idea. What I'm worried about is the precedent. Mr. Funk has already emphasized that DLC is a natural byproduct of game development that usually goes to waste, and that reusing and refining it for further sale is profitable for both gamers and publishers. However, unlike film studios with their recuts/unrated versions/director's cuts/collector's editions, videogame developers have an abysmal relationship with consumers' rights. You buy a DVD with an unrated version of a movie and it's yours. Watch it, rewatch it, melt it and make yourself a ring, as long as you don't use it as a murder weapon, you're not doing anything wrong. I'm sure most of the posters here are aware how the videogame industry lags behind every other major industry in how it treats its consumers. It doesn't even stand clear on whether we own the games we buy anymore.

With the trends of online activation, downloadable contents and online profiles that buyers need to make, which often request personal information that not everyone is willing to give away, doesn't anyone have the feeling that gaming is moving back to being an exclusive hobby of those that can be bothered to go through all the scrutiny and the procedures and those that can afford all the fees and microtransactions? Isn't it becoming more regional than ever? Because EA is practically spoiling its American customers and ignoring its overseas ones, even though I, for example, pay higher prices. It may be fair on the US market and exclusively there, but internationally? Depending on where you live in Europe, Asia, South America, wherever, you may not even have access to the DLC at all, you may be paying more or less for a new game, half of the features may not be supported...

I don't like it, and it makes me feel unconfortably insecure as to where the entire policy is going. The 90s must have SUCKED hard for the industry if they're trying so desperately to move from a preownership-model to basically being an internet delivery (or leasing) system. Too bad I kinda liked it and I bought games like crazy back then, as did a lot of the people I know. Now no one here will be able to afford the opening-day-with-free-DLC edition, and will remain without the option to buy it for $10 either. Am I wrong in feeling left out?

 

[dochmbi]

I'm really curious about understanding peoples reason for not pirating games when buying them seems to put a considerable financial strain on them and they could so easily get them for free. Is it a remarkable display of morality or something else? I can understand why people wouldn't commit murder even if there was no penalty for it, or wouldn't steal from a helpless old woman, but why not pirate when theres zero chance you will be caught and the harm you are causing is quite minor and indirect?

This is probably the wrong place to be asking such question though, maybe a psychology forum would be better suited...

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Do we not like it because it promotes game companies to take things out of the games and sell them as overpriced day 1 dlc?

Please...please take the time to read through the thread before you comment. Your little 'complaint' has already been addressed

It doesn't mean we have to believe it. I really can't believe that the DLC available on launch day could not have been included on the disc. Now before someone comes back at me with "You don't understand how games are developed!" - I do, I understand that once you stop working on a particular project you stop working on it and start working on something else, you don't carry on working on it when you have decided that you aren't going to put it in the finished product (I am looking at you, Stone Prisoner).

The thing is that EA are trying to do the impossible here - control the market. I am very confident this will backfire badly within a year, and here is why. People will still take in EA games for trade ins, that is inevitable. But due to the DLC content missing from the game on the disc this will mean is that the retailers will sell those second hand games even more cheaply than they already do.

Yes, you will get less for your buck than you do now when you trade in, this will give you even more of an incentive to buy second hand.

If you buy second hand, you will get the product even more cheaply, maybe even cheaper than second hand copies of Too Human.

This is why I whole-heartedly approve of this, until they start releasing games where you require the DLC in order to actually play it (which is the logical progression of where this path will take us).

 

[m_jim]

100% agree. You can get yourself a big mac combo at mcdonalds, but if you want to supersize it, you've got to pay extra. the exact same thing goes for video games so don't complain, get your priorities straight.

This made me cry tears of joy for the beauty of it. Brevity is indeed the soul of wit.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

People complain about stuff like this? Really?!

Wow. I don't think it's unfair, or even that it's consumer blackmail one iddy diddly bit. It's an extra incentive to buy new copies of games. Having said that, I do still think that DLC is Satan incarnate.

 

[matt87_50]

what A load of tripe!

I bought a used car the other day, but I had to pay toyota $4000 if I wanted a steering wheel... (or breaks that worked... ehm.. anyway). it is complete bullshit, and not the way the world works, so OF COURSE people are going to be pissed off when someone with the opportunity tries to rip us off more by effectively doing the above. I could mention many other similar examples to drive home the lunacy.

the ONLY people who get money with every transaction, new or used, is the government. THATS the way the world works (and thats bad enough). and of course if a company comes out and says "we want more too" people are going to be pissed off! and its not fair or reasonable! just to be clear, I work in the games industry, as a developer, I make a living off of selling games. and even I think this is retarded!!

and its perfectly fine to say "oh, its just for extra content" but thats bs, this is 'extra content' that the buyer of the original gets for 'free' how are they going to know the difference if EA all of a sudden decide, "well you get the menus and the credits in the box, the actual GAME is via project $10"

I know, you laugh, but I wouldn't put it past EA, every single public statement they have made recently has made absolutely no sense to any intelligent human being, wasn't it just last week they were saying that "all of our games are going to have a multi-player aspect"

wtf? thats as random and short sighted as saying "all of our games are going to have sharks with lazers on the heads. don't care how we get 'em in there, but they'll be there"

it's amazing, there is always someone to defend anything. please explain how this makes life better for consumers in ANY WAY.
its only bad, except for them, where they get more money.

W T F!? are you seriously under the impression that EA is strapped for cash!? really??
I doubt it. lets reflect here, MW2, basically MW1 with a couple of new levels and some variables tweaked, made more than most $100 million movies do...

F*&# OFF THEY ARE STRAPPED FOR CASH!! (yes I know that wasn't ea, but you get the idea)

and even so, are you suggesting that it will be bad for consumers because it will mean poor old EA will shut down?

FAN FING TASTIC!!

don't let the door hit you on the way out!

oh yeah... and I bet EA are as we speak drafting the royalties scheme dictating how much of the $10 the developer gets. being the massive hypocrites they are, I can guess that it would be between 0% and nothing!

I can understand where they are coming from. digital distro games... you can't sell them on, which is a shame, but it kinda slipped under the radar. but its shit.

they are all looking at this from the wrong angle, less people buying used games means less people selling their new copy. trying to stop people from being able to sell their new copy is wrong. I always remember the "pre-pwned" section as a big "DO NOT WANT" list. "right, I'll steer clear of them"

the PROPER thing to do would be focus on WHY people are SELLING their games, because if people don't sell, no one can buy. I can imagine EA would be completely flummoxed by this given the quality of most their titles so I'll give them a hint: IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE SHIT!
every game I own (which isn't many admittedly) I wouldn't sell because they are all awesome.

In conclusion: EA: if your response to the problem was instead "we are going to solve the used game problem by making our games so good that no one would want to give them up" I can guarantee you would have got a much different response...

worse but still better than this would be adopting the "license" model, which is known to most people now, where games would be licensed to you and simply not transferable. sure this is WORSE but people would not have got all hot under the collar, because its already been done before...

 

[tehroc]

Yay for the gaming press and individual people standing up for faceless multi-million dollar corporations that primarily want to squeeze the juice out of you and can't defend themselves. You go team!

Maybe you'll get a letter of commendation from their PR department.

It's less about standing up for big business, and more about shooting down people who are getting disproportionately angry over a fairly minor issue.

That's right, it's never the corporation's fault, it's always the users fault. Keep barking for your corporate masters.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

*snip*

Ah, I see, you're only cynical and suspicious of a company's motives if it might cost you money. When a company gives something away for free, it can only be out of the goodness of its heart. Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.

That's right, it's never the corporation's fault, it's always the users fault. Keep barking for your corporate masters.

When did I say that corporations were always blameless? If you could highlight that passage for me, I'd be very grateful.