EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You

uppitycracker

New member
Oct 9, 2008
864
0
0
The Random One said:
Project Ten Dollar is EA's approach to day one DLC. They have content that can be downloaded for free via some sort of code that comes with the gaming package. Without the code, that content is avaliable for up to ten dollars. People don't like it because they think anything that's ready when the game is released should be on the disc.
Two things. First of all, it usually IS on the disc. As it was with Dragon Age, and as it is with Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Second, they've just proven that name to not necessarily be that accurate, as the BC2 content cost a whopping 15 bucks. For 2 maps.
 

uppitycracker

New member
Oct 9, 2008
864
0
0
Slycne said:
uppitycracker said:
And when it comes to used game sales, the majority of the used games sales are usually long after the game has left the spotlight. Having spent a number of years in the used game business, I can tell you that the people who tend to spend the cash on used games would never have originally spent the 60 dollars on the game in the first place.
I worked in the used games industry for a few years as well, but I wouldn't make that conclusion. From what I observed it was less that people didn't want to pay more, but that they were willing to accept buying a used copy if it meant a lower price point. Their intent was to buy the game regardless.
Where I worked, there were a few that were looking for the game, sure. In fact, a lot of them would be. But most of my customers that sought out the used games would ONLY buy the games used. I suppose it depends on where exactly you are, different economic influences will produce different results.

On that same point, we also had people who would only buy the game new, despite how incredibly immaculate some of the used copies were, and even if we didn't have the title available new.

The bottom line is, you'll find some of every type everywhere, and it really still does sell both the developer and the customer short to hold back content.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
uppitycracker said:
Now see, this is something I could totally get behind, although a year is really a bit longer than I would think. 6 months should be perfect, really, because by then whatever game it is has been severely overshadowed by the next big release, and the retail price has dropped enough.

The only reason why I view the BC2 issue as a much bigger one is because of the flow of the online experience. I remember when playing Call of Duty 4, before they implemented the different lobbies after the map pack was released, getting dropped because of not having the maps. I wasn't about to dish out the cash for them, because I played on PC, and was just awaiting NVidia to sponsor the maps (see, they got their money either way). If I had to encounter this very same issue within the first month of the game coming out, I know I'd be severely pissed, and second guess my purchases in the future.

It really is a hard issue to tackle, especially when you factor in the smaller developers and publishers. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out, and quite unfortunate for some people as there will be those that suffer.
The map pack is really tricky. I see why it's something that EA is using in this experiment -- it's easy to include or remove, multiplayer is very popular, and it's easy to quantify. But this is one example of something that I think really would diminish the overall experience, and you list very valid complaints.

But seriously, $15 for two maps? That's insane.
 

uppitycracker

New member
Oct 9, 2008
864
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
The map pack is really tricky. I see why it's something that EA is using in this experiment -- it's easy to include or remove, multiplayer is very popular, and it's easy to quantify. But this is one example of something that I think really would diminish the overall experience, and you list very valid complaints.

But seriously, $15 for two maps? That's insane.
Haha, I know... Never in my life would I pay 15 dollars for 2 maps. I find that to be absolutely insane as well. But, this is EA, after all :p
 

Johnnyallstar

New member
Feb 22, 2009
2,928
0
0
John Funk said:
DarkSaber said:
You might have more of a point if EA weren't going to hack out substantial parts of the game to "give away" as day one DLC, or sell later. Like they already do.
If you'll pardon my Francais:

Bull. Shit.

This is just the same sort of conspiracy-theorist, tinfoil-hat, the-sky-is-falling ludicrousness that we see everywhere from people who have literally no idea how games are made, have no concept of deadlines or content limits or the fact that there are established procedures to take something from the "Hey, wouldn't this be cool" concept idea to "Now it's finished and on the disc!"

Or who don't understand that sometimes, developers can't do everything they want in order to make deadlines and need to take things out / scrap ideas, things that DLC lets them put back in later.
Absolutely correct. There was an interview with Gearbox about Borderlands having several DLCs getting ready for showtime before the game was even released, and it was explained that after a certain point in the timeframe, they have to cut what isn't finished and go to the next step with the rest of the game. The unfinished product is then sent back to be finished by the people who now have a ton of free time on their hands because their phase with the original full version is done. So their ideas that never made it to the disc can be brought to life as DLC.

I'll agree that some things can seem exploitative, like paying $5 to unlock Vader or Yoda in SoulCalibur4 when the data is on the disc, just not unlocked, but sometimes it's not so bad. DLC is a good thing overall, because it allows developers to fill out and finish parts that even 5 years ago would have been lost forever and never finished.
 

Triggerhappy938

New member
Dec 10, 2007
92
0
0
John Funk said:
DarkSaber said:
You might have more of a point if EA weren't going to hack out substantial parts of the game to "give away" as day one DLC, or sell later. Like they already do.
If you'll pardon my Francais:

Bull. Shit.

This is just the same sort of conspiracy-theorist, tinfoil-hat, the-sky-is-falling ludicrousness that we see everywhere from people who have literally no idea how games are made, have no concept of deadlines or content limits or the fact that there are established procedures to take something from the "Hey, wouldn't this be cool" concept idea to "Now it's finished and on the disc!"

Or who don't understand that sometimes, developers can't do everything they want in order to make deadlines and need to take things out / scrap ideas, things that DLC lets them put back in later.
What strong language! But, not undeserved, I would say.

I personally have been a fan of this idea for some time. Every time someone opts to buy a used copy of a game over a new one, the people responsible for the game you are about to enjoy do not see a penny from it. I totally understand why they would want to give added incentive to buy new games as opposed to used ones. This is not to say that buying used is a sin, though I tend to limit my used game shopping to non-current gen consoles.

There is a line of reasonability, but for the time being, that line is still being defined. Hopefully as time goes on we will have that line more clearly defined, but in the meantime the best you can do is vote with your dollar. If you don't like a company's practices, don't give them your money. If you think the horse armor is dumb, don't buy it.

Also, I agree, 15$ for two multiplayer maps is pretty shady.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
John Funk said:
DarkSaber said:
You might have more of a point if EA weren't going to hack out substantial parts of the game to "give away" as day one DLC, or sell later. Like they already do.
If you'll pardon my Francais:

Bull. Shit.

This is just the same sort of conspiracy-theorist, tinfoil-hat, the-sky-is-falling ludicrousness that we see everywhere from people who have literally no idea how games are made, have no concept of deadlines or content limits or the fact that there are established procedures to take something from the "Hey, wouldn't this be cool" concept idea to "Now it's finished and on the disc!"

Or who don't understand that sometimes, developers can't do everything they want in order to make deadlines and need to take things out / scrap ideas, things that DLC lets them put back in later.
Told like it is, thank you. I also get edgy when people talk about a game when they don't completely understand it.

The whole DLC thing they are doing is a great idea. If you want the extra content, buy it new, if you don't care, get it used. It's not a manditory thing, they're not scrapping shit from games. If you look at God of War 1, there is this WHOLE level where you are actually climbing the Titan instead of seeing a simple cutscene that got cut out, had that been a modern game they might have released it as DLC, but due to time they had to cut it. Much like the pegasus wings, nearly the flying level in 2, and tons of other things if you hunt around.

DLC may come out when the game comes out but that's because the game has to actually go into production, you know being put on that shiny disc in your system, and packaged which ALL takes time. So while that happens, they wrap up what they couldn't finish.

As a webmaster (I hate that title) I get accused of things being easier than they are, one mental patient/customer of mine stated "The website should take only a week, seeing how scanning is the hardest part and there's little of that to do". Needless to say I was dumbstruck at the stupidity of the statement, and even after explaining he didn't grasp it but my point is...

Don't talk about something like you know how it works unless you ACTUALLY know how it works.
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
DarkSaber said:
You might have more of a point if EA weren't going to hack out substantial parts of the game to "give away" as day one DLC, or sell later. Like they already do.
This is my concern. We have seen the paranoid excesses the games industry in general and EA in particular are willing to go to in order to squeeze every dime out of the gamers. Games could well wind having huge chunks stripped out before shipping, not just the odd level or two. Or even essential or highly important gameplay additions which make the game more awkward (didn't Dragon Age have some kind of inventory item you needed from paid DLC?).

uppitycracker said:
First off, to target the people complaining about this and calling them whiny gamers is pretty immature and taking a very one sided view on this whole issue.
I also agree with this. I have issue with the DLC road that games are going down for various reasons. Among other things, I don't have a permanent internet connection to my xbox and thus it makes things difficult. Especially when DLC DRM kicks in and the box demands that I connect constantly to the net to use said DLC which I have already paid for.

To dismiss everyone who disagrees with DLC as "whiners" right off the bat is pretty insulting.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
As for used games, I see what you're saying -- what if the DLC that was bundled free with new copies became free to everyone after the game had been out for an extended period of time? (A year, perhaps.) After a certain point, even finding a new copy of a game can prove difficult, as stores are drowning in used copies.
From the industry side of things, there's little point in doing this. IF this project turns out to work, and actually drives people to buy new over used, the net effect is that games retailers are just going to drop the price point on used titles by the 10$ right out of the gate (and probably cut the trade value accordingly). But with the apparent 15$ disparity between a new and a used title on the shelf, that will likely drive EVEN MORE people to buy used. The people not buying the DLC will see a 15$ savings, and the people who do want it will still save 5$ overall.

In the long run (a year on), the price point of the game is going to have dropped. A $59.99 game is now going to be $39.99 or so. The Used game will also have dropped in price accordingly. At this point, even if you buy used, you're probably paying $34.99 all totaled, DLC included. That's still $25 less than launch day. And from the point of view of a publisher, where's the incentive to free up the day one DLC? a year on the majority of sales of the game are going to be used copies - the only revenue from those is being earned on DLC purchases. Are you, as a business, really going to say, "well they're buying the game for half the price they would have day 1, and we aren't seeing any of that reveune, let's cut off our only remaining revenue stream on that product too!"

It doesn't make sense.

In the end, project 10$ is going to be a zero sum game anyhow. Used prices and trade values will decrease to compensate for the value of the missing DLC, and publisers will find an evergreen source of revenue. The consumers will get hit here, but insofar as striking a balance between publishers bitching about "lost sales" (false) and the interests of the retailer, this system is a pretty reasonable middle ground.

It's certainly better than the present alternatives.

-m
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I quite like the idea of this, and find myself in total agreement as long as the content remains more or less inconsequential to the game experience.

My own personal experience with this is that I purchased DA new and simply rented ME2. Having Shale and (to a lesser extent) Shale's quest areas was a huge thing for me, even if I didn't know it beforehand, as I loved Shale as a character and she was integrated into much of the game. Would I have missed her if she wasn't there, so to speak? Probably not, though the game is richer for her being there.

In ME2, however, I didn't get to experience any of the Cerberus Net stuff in ME2 including Zaeed. I really don't feel like I missed anything at all as even if I did like Zaeed there were more than enough characters in play that I did like. At best, Zaeed would have simply been a nice bonus.

With the situation as it currently stands where game companies make no money at all off of used sales, I think this is a great way for them to add value to those buying a new copy. As it stands on big titles, the difference between a used copy and a new one is only $5 anyway. Give the game store all your money and save $5 or give the game company some of the money and spend $5 more, but get a few free perks too. Seems like a no brainer to me.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
cuddly_tomato said:
To dismiss everyone who disagrees with DLC as "whiners" right off the bat is pretty insulting.
And if I'd done that, you'd be right. But I didn't, not even close.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Thibaut said:
Can somebody explain to me what this infamous 'ten dollar project' is in simply words? I can't seem to understand what it is or why people don't like it.
Its basically trying to crub the used games market. As developers make no money from it. By doing this, they are trying to still make money, even on stuff thats pre-owned
 

hydrahh

New member
Apr 16, 2009
69
0
0
People who buy used games can save more than 30 bucks sometimes. Spend the 10 and get the DLC, Scrooge McDuck
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
I'm curious as to how the PC market will be affected by this since there really is no used market? Will those of us who wait a few months for the game to drop in price be penalized? We are still buying it "new" and the cash goes straight to the company.
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
you know what? I like pRoject 10 dollar. I'ts SOOO much better tahn fucking Ubisoft's attempts.
 

Silva

New member
Apr 13, 2009
1,122
0
0
I feel a massive disturbance in the Force, as though Susan Arendt's paycheck suddenly started getting paid by EA. (Caution: this is a joke.)

It's all very well to point out that there is a certain level of control given to gamers as to whether or not they purchase the game - and indeed, some will take advantage of that control by not purchasing.

However, I would wager that statistically, the great steaming majority of consumers do not read gaming media, and thus have no awareness about DLC or the strong possibility that, say, a Bioware game will have an extra feature that you need to install on top of the game if you buy it new. They may then buy a second-hand copy and realise later, much to their dismay, that buying the new copy would have given them much better equipment.

In short, then, this article's failing is that it takes the standpoint of someone who does read a lot of gaming media, and forgets that the great population of gamers fails to keep up with said news. Which brings me to Slycne's point rather tidily:

Slycne said:
Sure I'll bite. It's not exploitative. Is the price point too high, definitely, but a smart consumer shouldn't pay out for it. Not informing someone beforehand that they have to pay extra money to unlock multiplayer would be exploitative.
Actually, they're usually not informed until they open the container. So... yes, it is exploitative.

The exploitation here is not that people have to pay more in a transaction they don't have to have, but that this part about paying more for the total possible content of a game is either written in the fine print or isn't even there, meaning: buyer beware. There is no doubt who benefits more greatly from said exchange - clue: it's not the gamer.

Gaming is a business, and it's not a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory" to believe that business has never been fair, especially regarding multinational bullies like EA, who do things like design the Download Manager that crashes other developer's games. Understanding and criticising the less ethical actions of such companies is called consumer conscience, and it's time that people stopped mocking it, however innocent the reason.

If people want to protest by not buying the game and criticise the company behind this decision, good for them. It's not up to this magazine or any other writer to label them "whiners" or anything else. Such activism keeps industry figures honest and challenges their authority, meaning that it benefits everyone inside and outside of it. If you are criticising people for actions of noble intent, then I'm sorry Susan, but it is you who is the whiner.
 

Nuke_em_05

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
828
0
21
I agree with this article.

I think people forget that videogames are a luxury. They aren't necessary for survival. Weigh what you want vs what you can afford. If you can't afford what you want; welcome to a little place I like to call reality. If the bonus content is worth it to you, buy new. If not, don't. It is your call.

As for the conspiracy theories; your dollar makes the decision. If no one buys it due to "price-hiking" or whatever; they'll probably bring the price down or make extra content free. If they still make money off of it; obviously enough people are still willing to buy it, so why lower prices?
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Silva said:
I feel a massive disturbance in the Force, as though Susan Arendt's paycheck suddenly started getting paid by EA. (Caution: this is a joke.)

It's all very well to point out that there is a certain level of control given to gamers as to whether or not they purchase the game - and indeed, some will take advantage of that control by not purchasing.

However, I would wager that statistically, the great steaming majority of consumers do not read gaming media, and thus have no awareness about DLC or the strong possibility that, say, a Bioware game will have an extra feature that you need to install on top of the game if you buy it new. They may then buy a second-hand copy and realise later, much to their dismay, that buying the new copy would have given them much better equipment.

In short, then, this article's failing is that it takes the standpoint of someone who does read a lot of gaming media, and forgets that the great population of gamers fails to keep up with said news. Which brings me to Slycne's point rather tidily:

Slycne said:
Sure I'll bite. It's not exploitative. Is the price point too high, definitely, but a smart consumer shouldn't pay out for it. Not informing someone beforehand that they have to pay extra money to unlock multiplayer would be exploitative.
Actually, they're usually not informed until they open the container. So... yes, it is exploitative.

The exploitation here is not that people have to pay more in a transaction they don't have to have, but that this part about paying more for the total possible content of a game is either written in the fine print or isn't even there, meaning: buyer beware. There is no doubt who benefits more greatly from said exchange - clue: it's not the gamer.

Gaming is a business, and it's not a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory" to believe that business has never been fair, especially regarding multinational bullies like EA, who do things like design the Download Manager that crashes other games. Understanding and criticising the less ethical actions of such companies is called consumer conscience, and it's time that people stopped mocking it, however innocent the reason.

If people want to protest by not buying the game and criticise the company behind this decision, good for them. It's not up to this magazine or any other writer to label them "whiners" or anything else. Such activism keeps industry figures honest and challenges their authority, meaning that it benefits everyone inside and outside of it. If you are criticising people for actions of noble intent, then it is you who is the whiner.
I would argue about the "much better equipment" line completely. You're absolutely right, that the vast majority of gaming consumers are (relatively) uninformed and quite probably couldn't care less about DLC. In which case their purchase decision will be made on criteria other than extra content. So project ten dollar doesn't impact them one way or the other, really.
 

Silva

New member
Apr 13, 2009
1,122
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
I would argue about the "much better equipment" line completely. You're absolutely right, that the vast majority of gaming consumers are (relatively) uninformed and quite probably couldn't care less about DLC. In which case their purchase decision will be made on criteria other than extra content. So project ten dollar doesn't impact them one way or the other, really.
You appear to have missed this part, Susan:

Silva said:
They may then buy a second-hand copy and realise later, much to their dismay, that buying the new copy would have given them much better equipment.
It does impact them. It's all very well to say that it's not an impact on their wallet, but does it impact their enjoyment of the product they spent good money on? You can bet your free copy of Dragon Age that it does.
 

Hurr Durr Derp

New member
Apr 8, 2009
2,558
0
0
While I agree with this article in general terms, it's not simply a matter of money vs content. If only it was. The problem is that the third option, piracy, might suddenly become a lot more attractive to people who otherwise (legally) buy their games 2nd hand. If you're already buying used games to save money, I imagine the option of paying 10 dollars for a tiny bit of extra content isn't a very attractive one. However, as the article pointed out, the idea of not getting the 'full' game is not something everyone will be satisfied with. If people won't pay 10 bucks extra and still want to get the full experience there's only one option available to them, and that one just happens to be illegal (but oh so easy).

I'm not saying project 10 dollars is a bad idea because it'll cause more people to pirate their games (and if you're illegally downloading some DLC, why not quickly grab that other game you kinda wanted but couldn't afford? in for a penny in for a pound...), but it could be a very real consequence.

I don't like the whole concept of DLC (I prefer a proper old-fashioned full-length expansion pack to those overpriced little tidbits of add-on content), but that has nothing to do with P10$ specifically. Other than that I'm not too worried myself since there hardly is a used-game market to begin with where I live, so all my games are bought new or downloaded through Stardock or Steam, but I doubt everyone will see this as a "take it or leave it"-deal.