Retailers Warn "Project Ten Dollar" Will Hurt Consumers

[Ingix]

From the explanation why Day 1 DLC is not part of the retail game:

----
But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.
----

This is true if everybody has to pay for this DLC, which is the case for "The Warden's Keep" for Dragon Age. But why is it that "The Stone Prisoner" is free for every buyer of a new version of Dragon Age? If the secondary market for this game could be (in theory) eliminated 100%, so that no second hand copies are sold, then according to that argument nobody is paying for that DLC. How can one try to combat something (buying second hand copies) by doing an action (producing day 1 DLC) that costs an amount of $X, when the result of "defeating the enemy" would mean that nobody pays for those $X expenses?

The answer to this is that the day 1 "free" DLC is in reality paid in part by the buyers of new retail copies and in part by those buying it directly after they obtained a used copy. The publisher hopes to/(will?) sell more new copies, because the used ones are inferior (no DLC included). This will give him additional money, that may cover part, all or be in excess of the $X used to produce the day 1 DLC.

The problem is that nobody can say exactly how much more money is generated this way, because nobody can say how many people would not have bought the game if it didn't basically already include the day 1 DLC. OTOH, that is true for many features of a game: How many sales are generated by including certain technical and artistic graphical elements, character classes, combat weapons, race tracks, a.s.o?

From this perspective, day 1 DLC that is free for buyers of the retail version behaves more like other parts of the retail game: It's presence is a slight nudge to buy the retail game, but the actual extent to which it does so is hard to quantify. So I can understand it when people look at day 1 free DLC and think of it as part of the game instead of something extra. The fact that part of the DLC was produced after the "proper game" went gold is more like an optimization of the production pipeline than a totally new way to produce additional content for a game.

 

[D.L.390]

Stop charging like £60 for brand new games and then. Even around £40 I'd be able to afford to buy most games I want brand new.

Exactly. They're simply too expensive new. Developers are basically saying "F**k you, you will pay what we tell you to pay.".

And gamestores offer you an alternative, buying the game second hand. It's cheaper, and therefore lots of people play a game they otherwise wouldn't.

Car companies don't complain about used car sales! The games industry is just full of cash grabbing jerks who are drunk on anti-piracy.

because they still make money selling you parts for that used car, so they will make money.

*ahem*theystillsellyouDLCforpreownedgames*ahem*

 

[Abedeus]

"I would buy Diablo 3, but it costs $60, I would buy it if it was $50..."
"Oh man, Dragon Age is awesome, but $50 is too much.. I would buy it for $40 for sure."
"Ah geez, Mass Effect is great, but come on, $35 for a game? Make it $20 and we've got a deal."
"Torchlight? Yeah, it's okay, but not worth $20. How about $10?"
"World of Goo? Pay whatever I want? How about $0.01, that's my final offer."

I don't see what is so unreasonable about any of those statements, save maybe for the people that paid that price for World of Goo. I would buy ME2 if it wasn't $50, I would certainly pay $40 for it. I have a budget that I have to stick within when thinking about buying games, and can rarely (if ever) afford new games, so I wait until they are a suitable price and snatch them up.

You are saying that now.

And I know from experience that it's not true. Diablo 2, at the release, costed 150 PLN (about $50 now, a bit less in $ back then). A lot of people said "I would buy it, but come on, 150 PLN is 1/5 of my parents' salary!!".

Now games rarely cost more than 120, even then they are quite amazing and AAA titles (Assassin's Creed 2 is only 100 PLN in pre-order, same was with Mass Effect 2 or Crysis or other games), and people still are not buying them despite earning more money and games costing less.

Hell, look at the World of Goo "Pay what you want" campaign. Thousands of hundreds of people bought the game for $0.01... so you would have to make every game cost under a $1 to make sure people will buy them. And even then some may complain.

 

[Rawker]

I like it, because, I dont have to pay a second time for DLc that should have already been there in the first place.

 

[Endocrom]

All this will do is make companies like gamestop adjust their prices on these specific games, so instead of $35.00 profit for say, Dragon Age Origins, they only make $30.00 profit.

That'll learn 'em EA!

 

[tadaaaaa]

If Trevor has FIFA '09 and wants FIFA '10, and Gamestop have to offer him $10 less since they have to sell it $10 cheaper, Trevor may well not bother trading in and buying FIFA '10. EA loses the profit they would have made on the new game, on top of the $10 that they were trying to scavenge from whoever buys it second hand.

I find it hard to treat EA in the same way I treat an independent developer. I just don't feel they're that near the red.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Stop charging like £60 for brand new games and then. Even around £40 I'd be able to afford to buy most games I want brand new.

while i completely agree with this...the used retailers would just drop their games that little bit more (they are still making a profit ridiculously), and the people will buy those games instead.

i would buy the new games if they were for that price, but i can almost garuntee 90% of the average consumers would go for the cheaper used game still, even though they can technically afford the new ones (in this alternate dimension)

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I just pictured in my mind EA and GameStop teaming up to collectively violate all consumer rights to advocate more corporate rights and cheap profits.

 

[chenry]

I think maybe what GameStop means is: it hurts our ability to make money hand over fist by selling you a scratched up copy of a game at $5 off the sticker price of a new game but is like 110% profit for us hahaha.

Oh you bought this game new, here's $10 store credit.

 

[mrdude2010]

Ok, I'm not so hot on this either, but I am going to take on the role of Devil's Advocate.

The main counter arguement is that these "Project Ten Dollar" DLC items are not in any way necessary to play either of these great games. The Stone Prisoner is a fun sidequest and Shale is a useful tank, but you can make it through Dragon Age without either. They just add a little to the experience. The same is true of Mass Effect 2. The game can easily be played without any of the Cerberus Network DLCs and it in no way detracts from the game, although Zaeed's loyalty quest does provide a rather enjoyable encounter.

When these are viewed in the same way as post launch DLC, they are not really all that daunting for Used Retailers. While it does give an incentive to buy new, there is no requirement for the buyer of the used title to invest in it. The game is just as good either way.

DLC available on day one that is not on the disk is crap. it's complete money grubbing. if they had the content ready for launch, it should be on the disk and included in the game's original content, and therefore not really DLC at all. no one should have to pay for content they already had available at launch

as far as the online vouchers go, i'm already paying $50 a year to have my nice shiny gold subscription, i'm sure as hell not going to pay an extra $10 to play madden online, they're just losing out on having a better online network system, since very few gamers who buy used games would want to or could afford the extra $10

 

[Asuka Soryu]

My friend runs a small used games store. This is going to screw him over. There is no margin in new games sale for him as he can't buy in the bulk required to make a profit.

Well, so what?

What makes him more important than the developers of games who deserve to earn a profit for their work?

What makes them better then him? Does he not deserve a leg to stand upon?

Either way someone gets hurt, one side loses some money, another probably goes out of buisness.

 

[Jhereg42]

DLC available on day one that is not on the disk is crap. it's complete money grubbing. if they had the content ready for launch, it should be on the disk and included in the game's original content, and therefore not really DLC at all. no one should have to pay for content they already had available at launch

as far as the online vouchers go, i'm already paying $50 a year to have my nice shiny gold subscription, i'm sure as hell not going to pay an extra $10 to play madden online, they're just losing out on having a better online network system, since very few gamers who buy used games would want to or could afford the extra $10

Wow, way to dig up a year old debate. Ok, I'm game.

Publisher/Developer: "Wow, look at all the millions we spent developing these games and maintaining these on-line servers just so that people can go out and buy a used copy of the game, give us absolutely nothing, and use our resources. You know what? Let's charge them a nominal fee, like $10, for some extra stuff that does not cripple their game to see if we can make some of our investment back to fund the next version of this game."

Sorry, but I just don't see the problem with that. Game is perfectly awesome without the DLC, and it makes sure the publishers can go on making games. They need to be able to pay all the programmers and artists and such that make the games, they need to pay the people in the factories that press and package the games, and they need to pay themselves. I want a Mass Effect 3. I want a Dragon Age 3. I want a copy of the next Bioware title when they make it. To wine about $10 compared to that just seems silly, especially since it often means that they will NOT have to resort to draconian DRM.

 

[mrdude2010]

DLC available on day one that is not on the disk is crap. it's complete money grubbing. if they had the content ready for launch, it should be on the disk and included in the game's original content, and therefore not really DLC at all. no one should have to pay for content they already had available at launch

as far as the online vouchers go, i'm already paying $50 a year to have my nice shiny gold subscription, i'm sure as hell not going to pay an extra $10 to play madden online, they're just losing out on having a better online network system, since very few gamers who buy used games would want to or could afford the extra $10

Wow, way to dig up a year old debate. Ok, I'm game.

Publisher/Developer: "Wow, look at all the millions we spent developing these games and maintaining these on-line servers just so that people can go out and buy a used copy of the game, give us absolutely nothing, and use our resources. You know what? Let's charge them a nominal fee, like $10, for some extra stuff that does not cripple their game to see if we can make some of our investment back to fund the next version of this game."

Sorry, but I just don't see the problem with that. Game is perfectly awesome without the DLC, and it makes sure the publishers can go on making games. They need to be able to pay all the programmers and artists and such that make the games, they need to pay the people in the factories that press and package the games, and they need to pay themselves. I want a Mass Effect 3. I want a Dragon Age 3. I want a copy of the next Bioware title when they make it. To wine about $10 compared to that just seems silly, especially since it often means that they will NOT have to resort to draconian DRM.

it showed up in the "hot threads" category my bad

consumers: "wow look at all the millions we've already spent buying this game." good games make a lot of money. giving people the ability to buy used games without pissing them off will make them more likely to buy similar products or other products from the same company, helping the industry as a whole. thinking "sweet time to play some online" or "sweet, time to play this extra mission they told me was included" only to have a message pop up saying "whooops, sorry you have to pay another $10." they made the content it should be available. i don't have a problem paying for after market content, i have a problem paying for things that are already on the fucking disk.

 

[Jhereg42]

See, and there lies the rub.

By buying used, the publisher is not getting millions. They are getting nothing. Zero. Nadda. The used market serves an important purpose, providing a back catalogue of games for interested gamers, don't get me wrong in thinking I dislike it. My point is simply this.

At no point was Stone Prisoner advertised as anything but a one time code at purchase. It was advertised that way. The only way you confused it is if you did not read the very plainly stated "With new purchase only" on the box. IF you can be that severely disappointed by the fact that an unnecessary sidequest was released as 10 dollar OPTIONAL DLC in an attempt to get more people to buy a game new, then you must discount the value of the 60-80 hours of game play that was on the disk in the first place rather severely.

Again, it's better than draconian DRM and other things that have been tried in the past. Is it ideal for everyone, no. Is it a decent compromise between the industry and the reality of the retail scene? I personally think so.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

I don't think this can be said with enough earnest enthusiasm: Screw the developers, and screw the publishers. I've stopped caring at all about devs and pubs, to be frank. They make it hard as heck to get the game, they cut out content then try to sell it to you (with Dragon Age 2, they did this 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE GAME'S RELEASE), and they shove so much DRM down people's throats that the only people actually playing and having any fun are the pirates.

I've stopped buying games new. I wait until a sale happens on Steam. Steam is my personal DRM. I get my games brand new, fully downloadable whenever for around $20 or $30 dollars. If there's no demo for the game, I usually skip it. Why do I wait till after launch? I want to see what the developer actually does in terms of updates/promises/whatever. I've also skipped several games out of sheer principle, like Modern Warfare 2. I'll also be skipping Diablo 3, and most of Ubisoft's releases.

They want me to impulse buy their game? Make a quality product that I can't wait for. DO. NOT. CUT. CORNERS. Release a demo before the game comes out, ON ALL PLATFORMS, so I know that the game will run well on my computer. Do not try to shove Day 1 DLC Project "We're rich as hell but we want MORE MONEY!" down my throat. It's due to this school of thought I've been skipping a lot of brand new games, and buying up really old games. I have since been having a blast.

Then again, that's because when I buy the game, GASP, I'M GETTING THE ENTIRE FREAKING GAME. What a novel idea, eh?