The Day One DLC Trap

[rycar]

@shadow skill: Film companies have been complaining about this since the advent of the VHS tape, and record labels since cassettes. Car companies actually control a good portion of the used market through their dealerships, so that analogy doesn't particularly work. If bigger publishers were apt to open their own stores where they could provide a better market for buying back and selling their used games, I imagine they'd have far less of a problem with it, but keep in mind that you're only likely to buy one car per 5-10 years, not so with games, so publisher segregated stores aren't really as viable there (unless EA wants to pimp their fitness game -- then it's kind of quirky and comical).

Provided a game doesn't feel unfinished, I think either route of incentivizing new purchases is a far cry more consumer friendly than draconian drm measures. Also in general RE to Warden's Keep comments, I was playing on the 360, and the load times for heading back to the keep actually made running through a cleared dungeon a second time to poach missed loot a much more viable option. That chest was really a "store my blood dragon armor until Alistar can wear it" bin.

Edit: @The Admiral: this is also known as Madden.

 

[Rayjay06]

If the game is 100% playable, worth the price tag in terms of content and length, and enjoyable without the DLC (day one or not) then I don't see the problem. Shale was cool, sure, but I could care less if she wasn't available to me; the same thing applies to Zaeed. These games are great with or without the inclusion of such trivial aspects. Should we demand that all cut content from a game become available to us because it "should have been included"? To assume that the absence of a character without DLC will one day lead to missing the entire second half of the game without DLC is invoking the common logical fallacy of slippery slope. The state of the game is uncompromised by D1DLC so stop complaining and buy it new if you want Shale or buy it used if you don't mind playing the game to its fullest minus a character/side quest that has no effect on the overall experience, much less the main story of the game.

 

[Teiwaz83]

I would like to know why game companies have not figured out how to make money off of used game sales? You will never see a film company or a car company whine that used products are bad for business.

Used cars are inferior to new cars, because they are physical machines which wear out, break down, and kids leave chocolate bars in the glove compartment. Planned obsolescense - the company build the car to last 5 or 6 years, and they know that every 5 or 6 years, they're going to sell a new car no matter how many times it changes hands in the meantime. This is not the case for new games. For the video game industry to do this, they'd have to build a disk that slef-destructs after a playthrough. Would you prefer that?

Movies have a format where they release in theaters first, and then people who buy the DVD later are in it because they want to keep it - again, not like games where you buy the disk to play for a week and then are done. For games to use this model, you'd have to pay $11 to go to a theater to watch someone else play the game for two hours, and then get gouged for overpriced popcorn and drinks. Four months later, you'd then be able to buy the game if you want to play it at home for yourself. Again, is this preferable?

Trying to punish, rather than create a real incentive isn't the right way to go about the issue.

You're right. They should do something like... oh, add extra content to the game promptly after release to encourage people to keep the game, and provide extra incentive to buy the game new in the form of extra content. Brilliant idea, I don't know why they didn't think of that.

 

[shadow skill]

@shadow skill: Film companies have been complaining about this since the advent of the VHS tape, and record labels since cassettes. Car companies actually control a good portion of the used market through their dealerships, so that analogy doesn't particularly work. If bigger publishers were apt to open their own stores where they could provide a better market for buying back and selling their used games, I imagine they'd have far less of a problem with it, but keep in mind that you're only likely to buy one car per 5-10 years, not so with games, so publisher segregated stores aren't really as viable there (unless EA wants to pimp their fitness game -- then it's kind of quirky and comical).

Provided a game doesn't feel unfinished, I think either route of incentivizing new purchases is a far cry more consumer friendly than draconian drm measures. Also in general RE to Warden's Keep comments, I was playing on the 360, and the load times for heading back to the keep actually made running through a cleared dungeon a second time to poach missed loot a much more viable option. That chest was really a "store my blood dragon armor until Alistar can wear it" bin.

Edit: @The Admiral: this is also known as Madden.

That's why most of the film industry's money comes from rentals or home video sales rather than the box office. Their problem isn't with DVD's being sold at all, it's with the home user's ability to easily duplicate a movie. They already figured out how to make money off their equivalent of the used game market.

I would like to know why game companies have not figured out how to make money off of used game sales? You will never see a film company or a car company whine that used products are bad for business.

Used cars are inferior to new cars, because they are physical machines which wear out, break down, and kids leave chocolate bars in the glove compartment. Planned obsolescense - the company build the car to last 5 or 6 years, and they know that every 5 or 6 years, they're going to sell a new car no matter how many times it changes hands in the meantime. This is not the case for new games. For the video game industry to do this, they'd have to build a disk that slef-destructs after a playthrough. Would you prefer that?

Movies have a format where they release in theaters first, and then people who buy the DVD later are in it because they want to keep it - again, not like games where you buy the disk to play for a week and then are done. For games to use this model, you'd have to pay $11 to go to a theater to watch someone else play the game for two hours, and then get gouged for overpriced popcorn and drinks. Four months later, you'd then be able to buy the game if you want to play it at home for yourself. Again, is this preferable?

Trying to punish, rather than create a real incentive isn't the right way to go about the issue.

You're right. They should do something like... oh, add extra content to the game promptly after release to encourage people to keep the game, and provide extra incentive to buy the game new in the form of extra content. Brilliant idea, I don't know why they didn't think of that.

Regardless of whether the used car is inferior to the new car the fact of the matter is that car companies have figured out how to make money off of the used car market, without deploying schemes to destroy it. You don't get half a working car when you buy it used from a reputable dealer. In some cases with games you may as well get half a game because of all the bullshit stunts they pull like "Oh look we will put your item stash into DLC, even though we know damn well we spam loot." Or the classic "We had originally intended to put this in the game anyway but ran out of time." BS that Ubisoft has just pulled with Assassin's Creed 2. (Note that the PC version will include the DLC.) That doesn't make me want to buy the game new, it just annoys the hell out of me the same way a car without AC would.

If you want an example of good DLC just look at what CD Projekt did with The Witcher. Not only did they fix the game, they included an adventure editor, and some extra episodes free for anyone who already owned The Witcher, and the director's cut edition that contained all the DLC isn't more than 70USD depending on where you shop. That is how you get people to buy a game new rather than used, by fixing problems and maybe adding a few things on top. Not by trying to run a scam. Even Mass Effect 2's Digital Deluxe edition is a decent example of a proper incentive.

 

[Dhatz]

might aswell be issue of release date. if they wanna release on time, they could cut stuff and then re-attach it after it's done.

 

[LordZ]

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. I would have assumed it was clear when I ranted at length on this very point. The reason I'm NOT upset is because none of these pieces are important to the game. Were they necessary I would throw a fit just the same as the rest.

There are those who would justifiably argue that the stash is an essential gameplay device and very much a vital part of the game. However, what is vital and what is not vital is more of an opinion so arguing about what is or isn't vital is pointless. Technically, even the hats in TF2 could be argued as being a vital part of the game, just as an example. I have no interest in arguing this point so you can either agree or disagree. You've already agreed that anything vital to a game being used as day one DLC is wrong. Therefore, you've proved my point.

EA has been operating in the red for awhile. Industry rumor mills speculate the company won't survive the year without being acquired. In five years the stock value has dropped from a high in the $70/share to less than $20/share.

What's more, I don't consider, even for a moment, day one DLC to be unethical. In fact, from the standpoint of the very purpose of a public traded corporation, not trying to find a way to profit from used game sales would be unethical given such entities exist to make money for the stockholders.

You have a queer idea of ethics. To attempt to argue that anything about money is even ethical makes me feel ethics is a completely foreign concept to you. You clearly don't seem to understand that greed is not ethical and I'm at a loss for trying to convince you otherwise.

I do love when a person takes the moral high ground in an argument because I know with utter certainty no useful discourse will occur. Your moral high ground involved a sense of entitlement where things ought to be given for free for reasons you've been unable to explictly state. Your argument has become circular one post in and amounts to - they shouldn't do it because it's wrong, it's wrong because it annoys me, I deserve things for free and not giving it to me is wrong.

I said it's unethical to treat customers like morons. Selling a game and then charging people money to download a different colored shirt(reference to EA sports games) is a prime example of greed. Day one DLC is no different than that. If a company wants money, they can get it without resorting to nickel and diming people for useless crap and without tearing out chunks of the original game just to charge extra. If you can't understand that greed is ethically wrong then, you're right, no useful discourse will occur on this particular topic.

You're perfectly free to be annoyed by such a trend and I will grant you having that guy standing around in my camp asking for money does violate immersion. If THIS is the source of your complaint then all is well - an intrusion on your game to ask for money is a perfectly justified reason to be annoyed. I can support such a complaint because there are MANY ways to distribute this DLC that doesn't involve kicking immersion in the head every time I head into my camp.

This is the sole reason I refuse to play Dragon Age. It's not the sole reason I loathe EA. Greed tactics will always be the main reason I loathe EA but ruining immersion in a rpg that could otherwise have been a standout title certainly adds to the list. Greed is the number two thing ruining games these days. The number one thing is the morons who allow greed tactics to work.

 

[nonroker]

I don't mind the "free dlc" as found in Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2. I understand why they're dong it. Its a way to combat piracy without hurting the legal purchaser. Its a WAY better solution than the DRM of Mass Effect 1 (for instance). This is a way so that the purchased copy will be better than the the pirated one, like you always talked about Shamus.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

-snip-

The most interesting thing about the assertion that this all boils down to greed is that, for this to be true, EA would have to be raking in the cash as the definition points out it must be an excessive desire for wealth. I hardly think a company who's stock has dropped to 25% of it's five year high is generating serious capital for anybody involved - in fact that's a textbook example of a company that's doing quite poorly in the revenue department.

To the rest I have no response. You have already firmly entrenched yourself on the moral high ground and such there is little reason to argue against your various points. Suffice it to say you still have failed to make a case for why an attempt to make money by a corporation, an entity who's sole purpose for existance is to make money, is wrong.

 

[LordZ]

-

I don't remember there being a requirement that you have to be successful to be greedy. The fool's that lose money gambling in Vegas couldn't possibly be greedy could they? After all, they lost money gambling. When you take an unreasonable risk in the pursuit of financial gain, you have ventured firmly into the realm of greed. Treating your customers poorly and overpricing your products sure seems like an unreasonable risk to me.

Maybe, I was wrong. Maybe, using greed tactics and treating customers like morons and criminals really does lead you to the poor house. EA has been doing it wrong since day one and they deserve to fold. Sure, there will always be casualties when a business folds but that is how business is supposed to work.

I don't mind the "free dlc" as found in Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2. I understand why they're dong it. Its a way to combat piracy without hurting the legal purchaser. Its a WAY better solution than the DRM of Mass Effect 1 (for instance). This is a way so that the purchased copy will be better than the the pirated one, like you always talked about Shamus.

Don't be fooled. Day one DLC has nothing to do with piracy. The pirates have the day one DLC too. They even have it on day one or even before.

Day one DLC is a punishment to those who buy the game second hand. You get the game but you don't get the DLC.

Oh right, they still use DRM in addition to DLC. You're getting it both ways.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I don't remember there being a requirement that you have to be successful to be greedy. The fool's that lose money gambling in Vegas couldn't possibly be greedy could they? After all, they lost money gambling. When you take an unreasonable risk in the pursuit of financial gain, you have ventured firmly into the realm of greed. Treating your customers poorly and overpricing your products sure seems like an unreasonable risk to me.

Greedy - adj:
excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious

I pulled this straight from dictionary.com and my contribution is placing in bold the two key words you seem to miss. One can desire wealth and profit and not be greedy. Indeed, this is the purpose of any publicly traded corporation being run for profit. When said company is losing money, an attempt to make money cannot, by definition be considered greedy.

Maybe, I was wrong. Maybe, using greed tactics and treating customers like morons and criminals really does lead you to the poor house. EA has been doing it wrong since day one and they deserve to fold. Sure, there will always be casualties when a business folds but that is how business is supposed to work.

Explain to me, very precisely, why any of this treats you as a moron.

Also, I would point out that a company that "does it wrong from day one" does not become a multi-billion dollar entity who's operations span several decades. They have certainly done poorly in recent memory, but recent memory hardly captures the entirety of their existance. As such, if you're going to make an argument about operating practices as justification for your point, avoid hyperbole.

Don't be fooled. Day one DLC has nothing to do with piracy. The pirates have the day one DLC too. They even have it on day one or even before.

Day one DLC is a punishment to those who buy the game second hand. You get the game but you don't get the DLC.

Oh right, they still use DRM in addition to DLC. You're getting it both ways.

And you have yet to make a case for why precisely it is somehow wrong for a company to attempt to make money off a market that legally allows people to play their games when they currently only make revenue on the first sale. Would you rather there be yet another round of debates about your right to resell your product knowing the debate might not end in favor of the consumer this time around?

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

You have a queer idea of ethics. To attempt to argue that anything about money is even ethical makes me feel ethics is a completely foreign concept to you. You clearly don't seem to understand that greed is not ethical and I'm at a loss for trying to convince you otherwise.

I think this is the fundamental flaw of your argument. Greed is not unethical by itself even though it can certainly drive people to do unethical things in its pursuit.

So even if greed is the motivator, that's not enough to declare their actions unethical. They aren't the only publisher so there is no concern of stifling competition, consumers have no particular entitlement to their products, and they aren't deceiving anyone.

You and EA have conflicting interests, and both of you are going to act in your own self-interests. If EA can make more off a game, it will. If you can get a game for less, you will. Neither of you should cross ethical lines. EA should not deceive you about the product to make you pay more than you would otherwise think it's worth, and you should not pirate it so you can get it for free, but short of doing that, all's fair.

I've bought games from Gamefly before at dramatically reduced costs. I get the game and the developer and publisher get nothing. I served my own interests and I have no regrets. There's nothing wrong with them responding by serving their own interests by offering incentives to buy new. It's not as though they took steps to hide what they were doing. You either consider the incentive compelling enough to buy new or you don't. And maybe without the incentive, you don't even consider the product worth buying used. That's fine. Don't buy it at all.

You also complained about the day one paid DLC, Warden's Keep. In fact, I think that was your larger issue with the game. If they were excising core game elements, like critical main path story or characters, I'd be inclined to agree that that is shady. You have a reasonable expectation that, unless told otherwise on the box, you will receive a complete experience when you purchase a game. If they do not meet that expectation, they are deceiving you, which is unethical. But Dragon Age without Warden's Keep is not incomplete, so I don't see the problem.

 

[raskyred]

Wait... "Shale and her quest"? her quest? Have I missed on of the subtleties of the English language or does Shale turn out to be ...?

Shale is a chick. She tells you as much in a conversation very early on. And she's voiced by a female

 

[DeadAccountMoveAlong]

The one thing keeping me from being a Bioware fanatic is how often I get screwed over with their DLC. Tying everything into my account is a hassle, and even though I bought DA:O straight out of the box, it took forever for the game to recognize this, and every login it takes a lengthy battle of will with my account to want to connect me to the Dragon Age servers.

While I agree with most of what you said, I have to applaud Saboteur for their handling of DLC. It provides something pointless and yet oh-so-important, tackling the issue of second-hand purchasing and nudity in one fell swoop. Features like that should be implemented more often.
For instance, customization of armor in ME2 should be restricted to first-time buyers, as well as the ability to standardize your armor and remove those hideous helmets. As you pointed out in Stolen Pixels, the armor looks ridiculous, and many console gamers wanted a way to remove it (unable to mod it like PC gamers). Purely aesthetic things like this are not essential, but can give an incentive to get brand-spanking new. Sure, it isn't as glorious, but it is more honest than removing a large section of the bloody game.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I agree. While I am happy with buying entirely new storylines like The Shivering Isles DLC for Oblivion, I dislike the idea of the devs (or, more likely, the publishers) taking away a game I paid for and offering it back at a cost. It turns me off, and I would rather play an ever-changing game like Team Fortress 2 than one with deleted bits like DA: Origins.

On the other hand, I'm sad that KotOR 2 wasn't made a few years later. If it had, we might actually see the dream realised rather than wait for Team Gizka to not finish it off.

 

[LordZ]

Greedy - adj:
excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious

I pulled this straight from dictionary.com and my contribution is placing in bold the two key words you seem to miss. One can desire wealth and profit and not be greedy. Indeed, this is the purpose of any publicly traded corporation being run for profit. When said company is losing money, an attempt to make money cannot, by definition be considered greedy.

So, you wouldn't consider it greedy if they charged $1000 per game and only included a start up screen where you had to buy the game piece by piece at equally ridiculous prices? After all, they're doing it in pursuit of profit. Where you draw the line at greedy is a personal thing. Chopping up a game and selling it piece by piece is pretty damned greedy in my book but if you can't see it as such then feel free to continue to overpay for mediocre games that look pretty.

Even from a business perspective, what they're doing isn't very smart. Most of their games are either mediocre or worse with the occasional slightly above mediocre exception. There's nothing excellent about their games. Taking a game that excels at nothing and then giving it a pricing scheme that is worse than similar or better games that have been available for years is just plain bad business. Only a fool pays more to get less.

Explain to me, very precisely, why any of this treats you as a moron.

Also, I would point out that a company that "does it wrong from day one" does not become a multi-billion dollar entity who's operations span several decades. They have certainly done poorly in recent memory, but recent memory hardly captures the entirety of their existance. As such, if you're going to make an argument about operating practices as justification for your point, avoid hyperbole.

Only a moron would pay more to get less. Overpricing a game that is laced with DRM is just rubbing salt in the wound.

Yet, a business that does it wrong from day one did manage to become a giant corporation. Just because you do something the wrong way doesn't mean you can't profit from it for a while. Also, don't you think saying "several" decades is a bit of an exaggeration? 1982 may seem like a long time ago but it's not even 30 years old yet. It's definitely not on the level of the few corporations that have three digits in their age. While I wasn't aware about their early work in computer games, I haven't seen them make a single noteworthy contribution to the gaming world. However, I've seen them buy up a lot of noteworthy contributions and turn them into crap.

And you have yet to make a case for why precisely it is somehow wrong for a company to attempt to make money off a market that legally allows people to play their games when they currently only make revenue on the first sale. Would you rather there be yet another round of debates about your right to resell your product knowing the debate might not end in favor of the consumer this time around?

You have yet to make a case for why it's right other than "because a business seeks profit" and that's on level with "because I said so" as far as excuses go. First off, anything that takes value away from a product is generally a bad idea. You don't go into a business making an inferior product at a higher price and expect it to sell. Only a moron would buy into that. Yet, there seems to be plenty of morons who do. If EA is failing to survive in spite of having made billions selling over priced crap to morons then they really do deserve to fail. Simply put, there's nothing entitling a business to force customers to never resell something they rightfully bought. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

By all means, let's debate the right to resale. I don't see what sense of entitlement a company should have over a product they've already sold. It's like selling a book and then saying, "No, you can't resell it after you've read it." While I believe in supporting a company that produces a worthwhile product and respects their customers, EA does neither of these things.

I think this is the fundamental flaw of your argument. Greed is not unethical by itself even though it can certainly drive people to do unethical things in its pursuit.

So even if greed is the motivator, that's not enough to declare their actions unethical. They aren't the only publisher so there is no concern of stifling competition, consumers have no particular entitlement to their products, and they aren't deceiving anyone.

You and EA have conflicting interests, and both of you are going to act in your own self-interests. If EA can make more off a game, it will. If you can get a game for less, you will. Neither of you should cross ethical lines. EA should not deceive you about the product to make you pay more than you would otherwise think it's worth, and you should not pirate it so you can get it for free, but short of doing that, all's fair.

I've bought games from Gamefly before at dramatically reduced costs. I get the game and the developer and publisher get nothing. I served my own interests and I have no regrets. There's nothing wrong with them responding by serving their own interests by offering incentives to buy new. It's not as though they took steps to hide what they were doing. You either consider the incentive compelling enough to buy new or you don't. And maybe without the incentive, you don't even consider the product worth buying used. That's fine. Don't buy it at all.

You also complained about the day one paid DLC, Warden's Keep. In fact, I think that was your larger issue with the game. If they were excising core game elements, like critical main path story or characters, I'd be inclined to agree that that is shady. You have a reasonable expectation that, unless told otherwise on the box, you will receive a complete experience when you purchase a game. If they do not meet that expectation, they are deceiving you, which is unethical. But Dragon Age without Warden's Keep is not incomplete, so I don't see the problem.

Since when is it a conflicting interest for a company to produce a product and a customer to want to buy a product? Oh right, the moment the company throws respect out of the door and treats their customers like criminals(by lacing their products with DRM) and morons(by producing overpriced, butchered, mediocre titles). You conveniently leave the issue of respect out of your equation there and that's why it's a complete failure of logic.

A customer should respect a company enough to want to buy a product new and have some of that money go to the developer, since they should want to have further business with them. A company should want to produce a worthwhile product and respect their customer, so that the customer would want to have further business with them. You see how that works? Without respect, you get the mess we now have.

Yes, they did take steps to hide what they've done. They got man-handled by customers with their outcry of rage. So, they're more open about their underhanded ways by putting positive spins on them. They claim the day one DLC is supposed to be a reward for buying the game new but it's really a punishment for those who buy it used. If the day one DLC was beyond the cost of producing the game, it wouldn't have been included free. A business, especially one like EA, does not give stuff out for free out of kindness. If you believe otherwise, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

So, you wouldn't consider it greedy if they charged $1000 per game and only included a start up screen where you had to buy the game piece by piece at equally ridiculous prices? After all, they're doing it in pursuit of profit. Where you draw the line at greedy is a personal thing. Chopping up a game and selling it piece by piece is pretty damned greedy in my book but if you can't see it as such then feel free to continue to overpay for mediocre games that look pretty.

You have constructed a straw man argument - a classic rhetorical fallacy. I have given my position on possible future infractions of my consumer rights (I am against them) but I noted time and again that such infractions had not take place. You are simply attempting to divert your unsubstantiated argument point to a world where the evils you fear are true.

To put it simply - I draw the line at the moment the intrinsic value of the purchase is less than the price requested. You are free to make your own value judgment here. Thus far, I have seen no example where this has been true.

Only a moron would pay more to get less. Overpricing a game that is laced with DRM is just rubbing salt in the wound.

Yet, a business that does it wrong from day one did manage to become a giant corporation. Just because you do something the wrong way doesn't mean you can't profit from it for a while. Also, don't you think saying "several" decades is a bit of an exaggeration? 1982 may seem like a long time ago but it's not even 30 years old yet. It's definitely not on the level of the few corporations that have three digits in their age. While I wasn't aware about their early work in computer games, I haven't seen them make a single noteworthy contribution to the gaming world. However, I've seen them buy up a lot of noteworthy contributions and turn them into crap.

I paid 60 bucks for Dragon Age: Origins. This is precisely the same price as every other new 360 game on the market. For my dollar, I got a game that, even if I exclude the DLC lasted more than 30 hours on a single play through. In comparision, Games like Halo 3, Modern Warfare 2 and Bayonetta netted only a fraction of the time. Your argument as such lacks any merit - I did not pay more with respect to any competition in recent memory and the product I was given presented content that lasted well beyond the average.

Without clarification of context, this argument point is dead on arrival.

You have yet to make a case for why it's right other than "because a business seeks profit" and that's on level with "because I said so" as far as excuses go. First off, anything that takes value away from a product is generally a bad idea. You don't go into a business making an inferior product at a higher price and expect it to sell. Only a moron would buy into that. Yet, there seems to be plenty of morons who do. If EA is failing to survive in spite of having made billions selling over priced crap to morons then they really do deserve to fail. Simply put, there's nothing entitling a business to force customers to never resell something they rightfully bought. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

The purpose of a business is to make money. Both Bioware and Electronic Arts are businesses - therefore it can be said with absolute rigor that their purpose is to generate capital. To that end, they produce an entertainment product for consumer enjoyment. Current retail distribution models only reward first time sales - used sales, rentals and piracy all represent a wash. In short, these factors allow some portion of the population to consume the product produced with the intention of making money off its sale without compensation being delivered to either the developer (Bioware) or the publisher (Electronic Arts) which, in this precise example, is the same entity.

Recognizing that a portion of this population has determined a game is both worthy of playing and paying for (those who rent or purchase used), it seems perfectly reasonable that some attempt ought to be made to draw their business towards channels that offer a portion of the proceeds to those who made and distributed the game (versus simply those who sell the game). Thus, in all instances cited thus far, the determination was made that non-essential "additional" content would be packaged for free with each new copy of the game and made available for purchase by those who choose to purchase the game used down the line.

Under this model, a consumer retains their right to resell the product under their command and those looking to purchase the game recieve an incentive to do so. Thanks to GameStop's current used game sales model, it is more cost effective to purchase the game new than used if one desires all the content.

Without a tangible benefit to a new purchase, many people will ONLY purchase a game used. Given the cost of production and distribution of many modern titles, it can take millions of units moved before the project turns a profit. Since any game will only move a finite number of units of any sort (rental, used, new or pirated) it stands to reason that by channeling as much of this total user base towards the only part of the distribution model that results in income for the developer and publisher, there will be a net gain in profits.

Profits are then used to pay the various investors, expand operations, conduct research and development and a whole host of other things. A company operating at a zero sum profit/loss ratio is ultimately doomed as they have no capacity to advance and no safety net in the case of game failures. You will often see smaller developers fold after a single failure for this very reason - without the cushion of previous profits, a single substantail loss causes the company to close.

If one wants to continue emplying the 500 employees currently working for the various Bioware offices, and wants to see additional games published and developed by EA proper, the company MUST turn a profit - something they have struggled with for several years. They have demonstrated a substantial improvement in the products they offer but in the process have taken heavy losses thanks in large part to losses in legitimate distribution channels. Dead Space netted more than 3 million unique players in it's first year in spite of the fact that only 1.5 million units were actually "sold".

By all means, let's debate the right to resale. I don't see what sense of entitlement a company should have over a product they've already sold. It's like selling a book and then saying, "No, you can't resell it after you've read it." While I believe in supporting a company that produces a worthwhile product and respects their customers, EA does neither of these things.

I believe the consumer has every right to resell and I have never once argued against this right. That said, I also recognize that the developer and publisher only have a vested interest in NEW sales because only NEW sales offer any compensation. As the entity that has invested the most capital and has the most at stake, I support their right to encourage new purchases so long as their actions do not prohibit resell directly or indirectly. Having a game that only works properly (in that it contains an intact, coherent narrative and represents very generally the same game in either a used or new state) in a new state is unacceptable because you have indirectly denied my right of resell.

As I've stated time and again, I have yet to see an instance where the difference between a new and used product express substantial differences. An unnecessary accessory (or accessories) and a character that is less useful and utterly unimportant in every respect does not result in a game with substantial differences, and represent a total expansion of gameplay of perhaps an hour or so. The moment that somebody does attempt to market a game that is broken as I have already described is the moment that I will join your side of the debate. Until then, you are aruging vehmently against a future that has not come to pass rather than the current reality of the situation.

Since when is it a conflicting interest for a company to produce a product and a customer to want to buy a product? Oh right, the moment the company throws respect out of the door and treats their customers like criminals(by lacing their products with DRM) and morons(by producing overpriced, butchered, mediocre titles). You conveniently leave the issue of respect out of your equation there and that's why it's a complete failure of logic.

There is a clear conflict in interest in certain circumstances. In this case, the company making the sale only recieves a tangible reward if the sale is made in a certain channel. The consumer has a vested interest in attaining the lowest cost for the most value. In this very specific circumstance, the company making the sale hopes for a distribution channel that offers the highest cost to the consumer meaning the consumer is naturally going to favor a different channel that offers the same product at a lower cost.

The conflict is clear - the consumer favors a channel that does nothing to further the agenda of the company, and the company favors a channel that costs the consumer more.

Respect only enters into the equation when someone is being mistreated. You advocate a consumer to company abuse model because you favor the consumer being able to get a product that the company spent a great deal of resources to produce for free as far as the company is concerned. The company has conducted no breach of social contract if they attempt to offer an incentive to the consumer to purchase under their favored distribution channel. Indeed, the only way the company will have conducted a breach of social contract (and thus demonstrated a lack of respect) is by outright denying the consumer the right to choose which legal distribution channel they make their purchase in. This has not come to pass.

A customer should respect a company enough to want to buy a product new and have some of that money go to the developer, since they should want to have further business with them. A company should want to produce a worthwhile product and respect their customer, so that the customer would want to have further business with them. You see how that works? Without respect, you get the mess we now have.

Respect rarely enters into the equation with any purchase. In the most general sense, if a consumer is offered a product at a given price point and an identical product at a lower price point, they will purchase the product at the lower price point. It is only when the percieved value of the higher priced item is higher that such a purchase will generally become standard. Some people refuse to purchase a used game on moral principle, but for most the decision is made because the new copy has greater value by virtue of not having be used. When purchasing a used copy, there is a non-zero chance the game will not function properly resulting in, at the very least, the expenditure of additional time required to secure an exchange or a refund.

In the most general sense, a purchase is made on the basis of a value propisition and nothing more. For most people, the value is intrinsic to the product in question and does not rely on intangible factors like corporate culture and activity.

Yes, they did take steps to hide what they've done. They got man-handled by customers with their outcry of rage. So, they're more open about their underhanded ways by putting positive spins on them. They claim the day one DLC is supposed to be a reward for buying the game new but it's really a punishment for those who buy it used. If the day one DLC was beyond the cost of producing the game, it wouldn't have been included free. A business, especially one like EA, does not give stuff out for free out of kindness. If you believe otherwise, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

The interesting thing about your logic in general is that any incentive can be described as a punishment. A car manufacturer may offer an incentive of a free upgrade to a car part, a lump sum cash back bonus or reduced interest rates if you purchase new. They do this because a substantial portion of their profits are found in the first sale of a vehicle. With your logic, these incentives are simply a pumishment should I choose to purchase a car used since the manufacturer rarely (if ever) offers any incentive for a used sale.

If this is the way you choose to view the world, then I wish you luck as you rage against the realities of business. A business that hopes to survive must give you a reason to purchase their product in the most profitable channels. If you want to stand about and rally against their right to stay in business by encouraging (not forcing) a purchase in the only channel in which they see a single cent, feel free. Employees do not accept consumer goodwill in lieu of a paycheck, banks don't accept warm fuzzies to pay off debts.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

Since when is it a conflicting interest for a company to produce a product and a customer to want to buy a product? Oh right, the moment the company throws respect out of the door and treats their customers like criminals(by lacing their products with DRM) and morons(by producing overpriced, butchered, mediocre titles). You conveniently leave the issue of respect out of your equation there and that's why it's a complete failure of logic.

Not at all. A company is under no ethical obligation to respect you or show respect for you. Neither are you under any ethical obligation to respect the company or show it respect. Fair is fair. They should be honest, of course, but if they want to put "consumers are mindless jackasses" on the covers of their titles, they're not doing anything ethically wrong. Consider that I can legally insult or disrespect you as much as I like, but if I tell a lie about you that causes you harm, that's slander. Not that the law is always a meaningful barometer of ethics, but I think it is here.

A customer should respect a company enough to want to buy a product new and have some of that money go to the developer, since they should want to have further business with them.

Irrelevant. If a company goes out of business because customers do not purchase games new, that is a consequence that the customers will pay for their decision. Arguably, they were not acting in their best interests (though really they were; compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting ). Giving money to the developers is not ethically required of them.

A company should want to produce a worthwhile product and respect their customer, so that the customer would want to have further business with them. You see how that works? Without respect, you get the mess we now have.

I emphasize your words "so that the customer would want to have further business with them." You are giving a pragmatic motivation. And you are likely right that showing respect for one's customers is a sound business practice. But it is immaterial to this discussion. You were talking about ethical obligations, not wise business practices, and this has no bearing on that discussion.

Yes, they did take steps to hide what they've done.

Such as?

They got man-handled by customers with their outcry of rage. So, they're more open about their underhanded ways by putting positive spins on them. They claim the day one DLC is supposed to be a reward for buying the game new but it's really a punishment for those who buy it used.

Matter of perspective. Both are correct. And my point is that it is ultimately irrelevant to your fundamental accusation of unethical practice.

If the day one DLC was beyond the cost of producing the game, it wouldn't have been included free. A business, especially one like EA, does not give stuff out for free out of kindness. If you believe otherwise, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

The strange thing about this is that I can't even really label your arguments specious. An argument has to appear compelling on its face in order to get that dubious classification. But your arguments are clearly irrelevant. You don't like their business practices. Fine. Don't buy their games. They have no obligation to you and you have no obligation to them. It is reasonable for you to be disappointed. It is reasonable for them not to care. Part ways. That's all there is to this.

 

[LordZ]

I paid 60 bucks for Dragon Age: Origins. This is precisely the same price as every other new 360 game on the market. For my dollar, I got a game that, even if I exclude the DLC lasted more than 30 hours on a single play through. In comparision, Games like Halo 3, Modern Warfare 2 and Bayonetta netted only a fraction of the time. Your argument as such lacks any merit - I did not pay more with respect to any competition in recent memory and the product I was given presented content that lasted well beyond the average.

Without clarification of context, this argument point is dead on arrival.

Here's the problem. I don't limit my choices to just 360 games since I don't even own a 360. I play mainly PC games and can easily find better games at better prices. Not all of the games will look like an interactive movie but the fun exceeds these titles you've mentioned. Also, I don't limit myself to only recent games for comparison. I don't see why anyone would when there's 10+ year old games that still exceed current games in certain respects. PC games, old or not, are not irrelevant, even if this game hadn't come out on PC. I have plenty of games that were made in the '90s that I still use as a measuring bar for judging games. Which is just sad, that I don't have a more current game that exceeds them in every respect.

The purpose of a business is to make money.

I never said it wasn't.

Recognizing that a portion of this population has determined a game is both worthy of playing and paying for (those who rent or purchase used), it seems perfectly reasonable that some attempt ought to be made to draw their business towards channels that offer a portion of the proceeds to those who made and distributed the game (versus simply those who sell the game). Thus, in all instances cited thus far, the determination was made that non-essential "additional" content would be packaged for free with each new copy of the game and made available for purchase by those who choose to purchase the game used down the line.

Yes, they can do this. Customers can also see this as the greedy money grab that it is and want nothing to do with it. Yet, so many buy it anyways which signals to corporations that they can get away with this. This is what I'm strongly against. Both are to blame for this. If EA didn't create this scheme for raising prices and customers didn't buy it, there wouldn't be an issue but both have happened.

Under this model, a consumer retains their right to resell the product under their command and those looking to purchase the game recieve an incentive to do so. Thanks to GameStop's current used game sales model, it is more cost effective to purchase the game new than used if one desires all the content.

It doesn't just punish Gamestop, it punishes anyone who doesn't buy it new. Whether you consider the loss of a storage chest and Shale a punishment or not, it still is. If no one cared about either of those things then no one would feel it is an incentive to buy the game new.

Without a tangible benefit to a new purchase, many people will ONLY purchase a game used.

This is a complete failure of logic. You can't buy used, if no one ever bought it new in the first place. If games weren't so disposable that people wanted to get rid of them the next day, maybe there wouldn't even be a used market but this notion never occurs to them? There's nothing beneficial to the customer if parts of the product only work when it is bought new. This only benefits the corporation making it and is a disservice to any potential customer.

How about, instead of raising prices on games and making them less valuable to resell, why not lower the price to sell more? There's more than one way to eliminate the used market and raising prices is definitely not the right way or even the logical way. Why do you think people buy used? Why are there even used games available to buy? If people enjoyed the game enough to spend more than an afternoon with it they'd be less inclined to resell them. If the price of a new copy wasn't so high, more people could afford it. Punishing people who can't afford $60 for a new game is neither ethical nor practical. It also serves as an insult to those who have enjoyed better games for less.

...I support their right to encourage new purchases so long as their actions do not prohibit resell directly or indirectly.

Yet, that is the entire purpose of day one DLC. Just because it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of resale, it does diminish it.

As I've stated time and again, I have yet to see an instance where the difference between a new and used product express substantial differences.

You may not but others might and probably do. There are collectors who consider removing plastic wrap a significant loss of value. Your opinion on value is not the end all, be all.

...A company is under no ethical obligation to respect you or show respect for you.

The whole purpose of business ethics is to conduct business in way that is ethical. Ethics is strictly about morality. How is it morally responsible to disrespect the people who should be buying your product or service?

Irrelevant.

Since when it ethics irrelevant to running a business? Is it because you find it inconvenient for your argument?

I emphasize your words "so that the customer would want to have further business with them." You are giving a pragmatic motivation. And you are likely right that showing respect for one's customers is a sound business practice. But it is immaterial to this discussion. You were talking about ethical obligations, not wise business practices, and this has no bearing on that discussion.

You believe it's impossible for an ethical decision to also be practical? Come back when you have a basic understanding of ethics.

Yes, they did take steps to hide what they've done.

Such as?

Lacing their software with DRM and never informing customers in any way. There are many titles that fall into this category and I can't be bothered to type "hidden DRM" into google for you.

They claim the day one DLC is supposed to be a reward for buying the game new but it's really a punishment for those who buy it used.

Matter of perspective. Both are correct. And my point is that it is ultimately irrelevant to your fundamental accusation of unethical practice.

How is it irrelevant?

The strange thing about this is that I can't even really label your arguments specious. An argument has to appear compelling on its face in order to get that dubious classification. But your arguments are clearly irrelevant. You don't like their business practices. Fine. Don't buy their games. They have no obligation to you and you have no obligation to them. It is reasonable for you to be disappointed. It is reasonable for them not to care. Part ways. That's all there is to this.

There's so much fail in this paragraph. You didn't have to strain yourself so much just to use the term "specious." Let me guess, it was your word of the day? Taking out of a product to raise its price is against the entire idea of being competitive and is insulting to any potential customer. Saying it is irrelevant to a moral argument when you don't even display a basic understanding of ethics makes your argument entirely irrelevant.

Further, your assertion that going my separate way will solve the problem couldn't be farther from the truth. If my not buying their games was enough to convince them to stop producing over priced, mediocre games and focus on putting more substance into their games and selling at reasonable prices, then it would have already happened.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Here's the problem. I don't limit my choices to just 360 games since I don't even own a 360. I play mainly PC games and can easily find better games at better prices. Not all of the games will look like an interactive movie but the fun exceeds these titles you've mentioned. Also, I don't limit myself to only recent games for comparison. I don't see why anyone would when there's 10+ year old games that still exceed current games in certain respects. PC games, old or not, are not irrelevant, even if this game hadn't come out on PC. I have plenty of games that were made in the '90s that I still use as a measuring bar for judging games. Which is just sad, that I don't have a more current game that exceeds them in every respect.

Splitting a hair such as this only has merit if it changes something. The PC version of Dragon Age Origins is 50 bucks - the same as the bulk of the games sold for the platform. There is a greater degree of variation however thanks to alternate distibution channels and the lack of a need to pay a console manufacturer royalties on the sale of a game.
[Quote "Eclectic Dreck"]
The purpose of a business is to make money.[/quote]

I never said it wasn't.

This is why I used this point when demonstrating my own thesis. It can be generally recognized as true by a neutral observer.

Yes, they can do this. Customers can also see this as the greedy money grab that it is and want nothing to do with it. Yet, so many buy it anyways which signals to corporations that they can get away with this. This is what I'm strongly against. Both are to blame for this. If EA didn't create this scheme for raising prices and customers didn't buy it, there wouldn't be an issue but both have happened.

Again and again you keep coming back to greed without demonstrating precisely WHY this activity is greedy. Asserting something is "greedy" does not make your assertion true, and if this is to be the core of you argument then you NEED to support it.

It doesn't just punish Gamestop, it punishes anyone who doesn't buy it new. Whether you consider the loss of a storage chest and Shale a punishment or not, it still is. If no one cared about either of those things then no one would feel it is an incentive to buy the game new.

Again, you fail to demonstrate why this is a punishment. Based on the loose logic you've used thus far any purchase incentive can be viewed as a punishment. If you want this to be a cornerstone of the greed argument once again I'm going to have to ask for support. Since I have already presented an argument for why this is not true, I believe the ball is in your court.

This is a complete failure of logic. You can't buy used, if no one ever bought it new in the first place. If games weren't so disposable that people wanted to get rid of them the next day, maybe there wouldn't even be a used market but this notion never occurs to them? There's nothing beneficial to the customer if parts of the product only work when it is bought new. This only benefits the corporation making it and is a disservice to any potential customer.

It would be a logical failure IF I asserted that "all people" would purchase used. In order to avoid such a glaring error, you'll note I said "many". Interesting note, while the precise value of many is debatable (as in, what percengage of a whole it represents), it can be rigorously asserted that many < all in much the same way that part < whole. People throughout this very post demonstrate the intrinsic truth of my assertion as numerous people have pointed out that they, for whatever reason, habitually purchase games used precisely because of the price difference.

Moreover, you fail to demonstrate precisely why the entity who produces a product is breaking a social pact by attempting to motivate consumers to use the retail channel that benefits them. This product was never made for the sake of charity - it was ALWAYS about making money for the production company. Entities that sell games have the same objective. In both cases, the production and distribution entities exist to make money. If you're going to defend the right of the retailer to cut the manufacturer out of the mix because it's "consumer friendly" and then decry the manufacturer for giving the consumer an incentive to use a distribution channel that benefits the manufacturer (they get paid), the retailor (they also get paid, but less than off a used sale) and the consumer (they get the product everyone is getting paid for).

In spite of your recognition that these entities exist to make money, you seem to constantly ignore this very important fact when making your assertions of moral correctness. Nobody owes the consumer ANYTHING, nor does the consumer owe anyone anything - at least in an intrinsic sense. Instead, the relationship is such that a manufactuer produces a product they believe will sell, and the consumer makes a determination as to the merit of the proposd transaction. In a case as simple as a value judgement of a purchase that represents (in the united states at any rate) one work day for a worker making the lowest legal wage, the consumer may not give the proposed transaction much consideration and may end up unhappy in the end. In this case, where you would assert the consumer has been screwed, I'd simply state that the consumer sabotaged his own purchase decision. The information required to make a proper value judgment exists and can be found easily enough. If someone does not look, if someone ignores the data, if someone ignores the advice of peers with similar status and interest, then the only person to blame here is the consumer.

The consumer in this case has the capacity to know exactly what they will get based on the distribution channel. If this information was made secret and the user later found that the game they purchased used was a drastically different game from the version they may have purchased new, then (and perhaps only then) could I consider you assertion that the consumer has been punished to be true.

How about, instead of raising prices on games and making them less valuable to resell, why not lower the price to sell more? There's more than one way to eliminate the used market and raising prices is definitely not the right way or even the logical way. Why do you think people buy used? Why are there even used games available to buy? If people enjoyed the game enough to spend more than an afternoon with it they'd be less inclined to resell them. If the price of a new copy wasn't so high, more people could afford it. Punishing people who can't afford $60 for a new game is neither ethical nor practical. It also serves as an insult to those who have enjoyed better games for less.

There is certainly merit to your argument here - the generic price points that most games come out at is simply silly. Sure, some games required tens of millions of dollars to produce and as such may merit a particular price tag. Why then does shovelware with a paultry million dollar or so budget cost the same amount?

Oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be a consistant answer with why this is true. With PC games it seems that games are released at a price point based on the discretion of the publisher, who's decision is often heavily influenced by the retailor. Shelf space in a retail chain is limited, thus retailors (those that are successful) attempt to keep the shelves stocked with items most likely to sell at the highest profit margin.

On the console side, the console manufacturer seems to have some system in place that ensures the generic $60 price point. If this is explictly mandated or just the result of the various fees required to produce and sell a game for the system I do not know.

You may not but others might and probably do. There are collectors who consider removing plastic wrap a significant loss of value. Your opinion on value is not the end all, be all.

At last, a point that I can agree upon without reservation. As I said, it all comes down to a value judgement, which you freely recognize. The entire premise of my argument is that the actions of those involved that YOU find distasteful others can find perfectly acceptable. Your argument has often attempted to take the moral high ground, which I pointed out was poison to rational discourse. A value judgement is a matter of opinion and perspective, yet by asserting time and again that the actions of EA and Bioware are intrinsically morally WRONG, you have, in effect, asserted that your opinion is correct and anyone who dissents is incorrect.

I feel perfectly fine granting you leave to judge this trend as distasteful and I even wish you well on your campaign to end such things. That said, if you could at least embark upon your crusade without resorting to hyperbole and fallacy, even if I don't agree with what you try to do I could at least applaud the effort.

*edited to resolve quoting errors*