EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You

[Fearzone]

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

 

[minarri]

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.

Read the linked article. It's explained in the first sentence.

 

[Slycne]

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.

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".

 

[Doug]

You know, I don't think it's a bad idea - companies lose enough money with used games as is, and I hardly purchase used at all unless the company is gone, the game is old, and I can't get it any other way. You know, Dreamcast and Gamecube games and such.

I like having extra stuff to put into a game, whether it be maps, mods, skins, new areas, whatever, and considering all the content is optional, I don't see what's so bad about it.

Someone can still purchase used and just not use this content and it's not like they're forced to not buy used, but from a company's standpoint, what you said makes sense: People should pay more money for more content. Why should someone who paid 30 dollars get the same game someone paid 50 dollars for?

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?"

And definitely agree with Susan's article.

 

[BlindChance]

I'd love to agree with you Susan, I really would. But I can't approve of it for a simple reason: It's online activation. With all its usual warts.

Lately, my home internet has been buggled by the ISP. Annoying, but it happens. I loaded up Mass Effect 2 on my Xbox.

BZZ! "You have shifted account." Huh. That's odd. Try again. BZZ! "You have shifted account." Huh.

Log out of my Xbox account. Log back in.

"Your Cerberus downloaded content has been corrupted and cannot be used. Please redownload this content."

And like that, my game is basically unplayable, since Zaeed was going to be a part of my strategies.

I can't approve of this. It's yet more DRM, and like all DRM, it's punishing paying customers, not to reduce piracy (which it barely does) but rather to reward the charlatans providing their DRM services.

 

[Doug]

you know what? I like pRoject 10 dollar. I'ts SOOO much better tahn fucking Ubisoft's attempts.

To be fair, anything shy of imprisioning your customers in a vault and horse whipping them 18 hours a day for the rest of their lives is better than Ubisofts attempt.

 

[Calatar]

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.

1. By "forcing" people to buy new, the nay-sayers proclaim, EA is therefore pissing off customers, decreasing the overall number of
2. games that will be sold, and generally mucking about with a system that works just fine as it is, thank you very much. Others are
3. complaining that they're being punished simply for wanting to save some scratch because EA is making them pay for content that
4. others are getting for free.

5. In other words, some people are being a bunch of whining, unrealistic nancies.

Right, right, you waited a few lines before dismissing some people. The same "some" were earlier referred to generally as "the naysayers." Yes what you said is different than "everybody who disagrees with DLC is a whiner, so there." But that wouldn't have been a good argument, when you can instead just imply that those who disagree with your point of view are unrealistic, by use of the word "some."

You're playing with words here, but it does comes across as insulting to call people names. Attack the argument, not the person if you want your argument to be heard by "some people."

 

[shadow skill]

I'm all for incentives, but in all honesty, I struggle to justify having preordered Mass Effect 2 CE, when all I really have to show for it is some armor I can't use without destroying the immersion, a DVD I may or May not watch, and a comic "booklet". DLC is also one of those ideas I really with had never taken off. People cut things from games all to often to turn a larger profit on DLC, and this abuse and now leveraging only proves that greed is more important in gaming than delivering a good or even worthy product.

I defy anyone to tell me that $5 horse armor or five extra costume packs at $4 a pop for Street Fighter isn't exploitative.

I'm also finding uppitycracker's comments hard to disagree with.

Edit:

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.

Didn't they actually admit to doing that with Assassin's Creed 2? I could be getting my wires crossed here on the title, but I feel fairly certain that something came out pretty recently with DLC that was made out of intentionally removed content.

No, the DLC was removed from the game because it wouldn't be ready in time for release deadlines.

And I will tell you straight-up to your face that the Horse Armor and Costume Packs are not exploitative. Do you know why? Because they are the very image of something that is completely optional. It is 100% cosmetic. You do not need it in any way to experience maximum enjoyment of the game. You get it ONLY if you want it.

You'd have more of an argument for actual mission content, because at least then you could argue that people who don't have the resources/funds/ability to get DLC are missing out on content instead of some super shiny pixels.

Which means that if they had time they would have included it at no extra charge given that line of reasoning.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I'm all for incentives, but in all honesty, I struggle to justify having preordered Mass Effect 2 CE, when all I really have to show for it is some armor I can't use without destroying the immersion, a DVD I may or May not watch, and a comic "booklet". DLC is also one of those ideas I really with had never taken off. People cut things from games all to often to turn a larger profit on DLC, and this abuse and now leveraging only proves that greed is more important in gaming than delivering a good or even worthy product.

I defy anyone to tell me that $5 horse armor or five extra costume packs at $4 a pop for Street Fighter isn't exploitative.

I'm also finding uppitycracker's comments hard to disagree with.

Edit:

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.

Didn't they actually admit to doing that with Assassin's Creed 2? I could be getting my wires crossed here on the title, but I feel fairly certain that something came out pretty recently with DLC that was made out of intentionally removed content.

No, the DLC was removed from the game because it wouldn't be ready in time for release deadlines.

And I will tell you straight-up to your face that the Horse Armor and Costume Packs are not exploitative. Do you know why? Because they are the very image of something that is completely optional. It is 100% cosmetic. You do not need it in any way to experience maximum enjoyment of the game. You get it ONLY if you want it.

You'd have more of an argument for actual mission content, because at least then you could argue that people who don't have the resources/funds/ability to get DLC are missing out on content instead of some super shiny pixels.

Which means that if they had time they would have included it at no extra charge given that line of reasoning.

and given enough time Burning crusade would have been included in Vanilla WoW. That reasoning doesn't work.

-m

 

[scotth266]

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.

Response to Susan

Sucker Punch did this, actually. The pre-order edition of Infamous came with an extra power, the Gigawatt Blades: and quite recently, Sucker Punch made the Gigawatt Blades free to the general public.

Pre-purchase bonuses and Project Ten Dollar are the same thing in my eyes, except EA isn't forcing people to pre-order from specific outlets for the content, or making people spend additional money on content for a game that hasn't even been released to the general public.

I would dispute that retailers are going to drop used game prices to account for the missing DLC, because in my opinion the cost of the used game has not changed. To me, the DLC is a separate product being BUNDLED with new copies of the game. In other words, new games have become affordable collector's editions. 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.

 

[shadow skill]

I'm all for incentives, but in all honesty, I struggle to justify having preordered Mass Effect 2 CE, when all I really have to show for it is some armor I can't use without destroying the immersion, a DVD I may or May not watch, and a comic "booklet". DLC is also one of those ideas I really with had never taken off. People cut things from games all to often to turn a larger profit on DLC, and this abuse and now leveraging only proves that greed is more important in gaming than delivering a good or even worthy product.

I defy anyone to tell me that $5 horse armor or five extra costume packs at $4 a pop for Street Fighter isn't exploitative.

I'm also finding uppitycracker's comments hard to disagree with.

Edit:

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.

Didn't they actually admit to doing that with Assassin's Creed 2? I could be getting my wires crossed here on the title, but I feel fairly certain that something came out pretty recently with DLC that was made out of intentionally removed content.

No, the DLC was removed from the game because it wouldn't be ready in time for release deadlines.

And I will tell you straight-up to your face that the Horse Armor and Costume Packs are not exploitative. Do you know why? Because they are the very image of something that is completely optional. It is 100% cosmetic. You do not need it in any way to experience maximum enjoyment of the game. You get it ONLY if you want it.

You'd have more of an argument for actual mission content, because at least then you could argue that people who don't have the resources/funds/ability to get DLC are missing out on content instead of some super shiny pixels.

Which means that if they had time they would have included it at no extra charge given that line of reasoning.

and given enough time Burning crusade would have been included in Vanilla WoW. That reasoning doesn't work.

-m

Are we disagreeing? I'm simply saying that if they took it out because of time constraints it would mean that if they had enough time they wouldn't have removed the content from the game and charge you for those chapters. Just like the PC incidentally.

Meanwhile, someone can't afford a meal and sits in the street starving because no one will employ them.

Videogames are a luxury. We do not need them to live, and if you do you have a serious problem. We choose to play them, we choose to spend money on them. With this new model, what is so bad about it exactly? Say a new copy of $60 and a used copy $30. Instead of saving $30 you save $20 buying the DLC. Everyone gets hung up on the $10 like it's a personal attack, and yet you're still getting the game cheap enough. And if the new copy is more than the used, well then sorry, but you're an idiot for buying it then complaining it costs more when you could have purchased a new copy.

This doesn't take away anything. If you're buying used you're saving money, and all this is doing is sending a bit of that the developers way. Arguing against this is basically saying "I don't want to save slightly less money damn it!" And there's no bloody conspiracy. The twin towers were not blown up by the CIA, they didn't kill Kennedy because of Vietnam, and EA isn't removing parts of the games to secretly attack your wallet.

Here's a fun experiment: the next time you have something due wait until the night before, then try to add something to it. Probably turns out pretty shitty and rushed eh? Which means you have two options: leave it out, and be accused of cutting material. Or leave it in, and be accused of rushing to meet a deadline.

We're gamers. We are the most stupid, mindless, unpleasable people on the planet and we need to shut up from time to time and realize that playing games does not mean we suddenly have an understanding of the way the industry works. Do you know how an oil company works? No.

So shut the fuck up and play the game, you still saved $20 for Christ sake.

You chose to live as well you know. People really need to stop making that kind of argument. Especially when these games are being released with so many issues all around that kind of indicate that the publisher needed to push the game back and give the team more time.

 

[scotth266]

Snip.

Where is your avatar from? It looks snazzy.

Also, I forgot to post the customary link [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305] to Virgil's post, for those who believe that people are cutting DLC out of completed games/ripping the consumer off.

Because I already know that SOMEONE will say it, if they haven't already.

 

[John Funk]

I'm all for incentives, but in all honesty, I struggle to justify having preordered Mass Effect 2 CE, when all I really have to show for it is some armor I can't use without destroying the immersion, a DVD I may or May not watch, and a comic "booklet". DLC is also one of those ideas I really with had never taken off. People cut things from games all to often to turn a larger profit on DLC, and this abuse and now leveraging only proves that greed is more important in gaming than delivering a good or even worthy product.

I defy anyone to tell me that $5 horse armor or five extra costume packs at $4 a pop for Street Fighter isn't exploitative.

I'm also finding uppitycracker's comments hard to disagree with.

Edit:

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.

Didn't they actually admit to doing that with Assassin's Creed 2? I could be getting my wires crossed here on the title, but I feel fairly certain that something came out pretty recently with DLC that was made out of intentionally removed content.

No, the DLC was removed from the game because it wouldn't be ready in time for release deadlines.

And I will tell you straight-up to your face that the Horse Armor and Costume Packs are not exploitative. Do you know why? Because they are the very image of something that is completely optional. It is 100% cosmetic. You do not need it in any way to experience maximum enjoyment of the game. You get it ONLY if you want it.

You'd have more of an argument for actual mission content, because at least then you could argue that people who don't have the resources/funds/ability to get DLC are missing out on content instead of some super shiny pixels.

Which means that if they had time they would have included it at no extra charge given that line of reasoning.

Yes, but they didn't have the time according to the budget and/or deadlines that had been decided beforehand.

Completing it afterwards - additional resources, man-hours, etc. aren't cheap - cost them money. Why should we get something that cost money to produce for free?

 

[Susan Arendt]

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:

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.

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.

 

[jtesauro]

It always amuses me how people seem to accept the "Cutting Room Floor" concept in films, but can't acknowledge that the same process applies to video games. That there's alot of great ideas that just don't make it into the final product for any number of reasons. It's like getting angry at Martin Scorsese because the deleted scenes that he'll eventually stick on a DVD weren't in the theatrical release. The fact remains that while these scenes/content may be interesting on their own, they are either A) Not essential to the completed project, or B) Could possibly detract from it in terms of pacing, etc etc. Certainly if it's shoehorned in.

If the flipside is that we don't get to see the content AT ALL, then I much prefer this method.

And for anyone who complains about Horse Armor being exploitative, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for you. This is just basic high school economics; You, the consumer, are ultimately the one who determines the value of an item for you. Take the mother who pays 400 dollars for a discontinued iPod Mini on ebay, a device which from Apple, only cost 250 when new. Is she getting ripped off? No, because she is making the choice to pay it, no one's forcing it on her. Doesn't matter how much it costs, if she buys it, she's making a statement that that's how much it's worth for her.

 

[Matt_LRR]

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.

Response to Susan

Sucker Punch did this, actually. The pre-order edition of Infamous came with an extra power, the Gigawatt Blades: and quite recently, Sucker Punch made the Gigawatt Blades free to the general public.

Pre-purchase bonuses and Project Ten Dollar are the same thing in my eyes, except EA isn't forcing people to pre-order from specific outlets for the content, or making people spend additional money on content for a game that hasn't even been released to the general public.

I would dispute that retailers are going to drop used game prices to account for the missing DLC, because in my opinion the cost of the used game has not changed. To me, the DLC is a separate product being BUNDLED with new copies of the game. In other words, new games have become affordable collector's editions. 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 disagree, I think that at least to some extent, you will see a rebalancing of the cost of used games and their trade values to account for this move, and particularly if it proves successful.

Game stores make their money on used product - there's little margin in new. This is explicitly an attempt to cut used sales, which will impact the retailer. The retailer will respond by re-incentivizing used sales to compensate.

If used game sales do drop, in favor of new, expect to see the current business model tewaked. but it will depend largely on whether purchasing behavior shifts dramatically.

-m

 

[Matt_LRR]

I'm all for incentives, but in all honesty, I struggle to justify having preordered Mass Effect 2 CE, when all I really have to show for it is some armor I can't use without destroying the immersion, a DVD I may or May not watch, and a comic "booklet". DLC is also one of those ideas I really with had never taken off. People cut things from games all to often to turn a larger profit on DLC, and this abuse and now leveraging only proves that greed is more important in gaming than delivering a good or even worthy product.

I defy anyone to tell me that $5 horse armor or five extra costume packs at $4 a pop for Street Fighter isn't exploitative.

I'm also finding uppitycracker's comments hard to disagree with.

Edit:

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.

Didn't they actually admit to doing that with Assassin's Creed 2? I could be getting my wires crossed here on the title, but I feel fairly certain that something came out pretty recently with DLC that was made out of intentionally removed content.

No, the DLC was removed from the game because it wouldn't be ready in time for release deadlines.

And I will tell you straight-up to your face that the Horse Armor and Costume Packs are not exploitative. Do you know why? Because they are the very image of something that is completely optional. It is 100% cosmetic. You do not need it in any way to experience maximum enjoyment of the game. You get it ONLY if you want it.

You'd have more of an argument for actual mission content, because at least then you could argue that people who don't have the resources/funds/ability to get DLC are missing out on content instead of some super shiny pixels.

Which means that if they had time they would have included it at no extra charge given that line of reasoning.

and given enough time Burning crusade would have been included in Vanilla WoW. That reasoning doesn't work.

-m

Are we disagreeing? I'm simply saying that if they took it out because of time constraints it would mean that if they had enough time they wouldn't have removed the content from the game and charge you for those chapters. Just like the PC incidentally.

Yes, we are disagreeing, for the below noted reason:

Yes, but they didn't have the time according to the budget and/or deadlines that had been decided beforehand.

Completing it afterwards - additional resources, man-hours, etc. aren't cheap - cost them money. Why should we get something that cost money to produce for free?

-m

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

My only complaint is DLC content should become available a few weeks following the release of the game or in the case of Mass Effect 2, pre-order content. I have no qulam paying for such additions however being I was incapable of purchasing a Collector's Edition copy, it would ne nice to have it available down the road. Granted the ME2 bonuses were lackluster, nevertheless the point remains.