Be Excellent To Each Other

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eas-p ... -explained



A few points to consider:
-these codes seem to be time limited (my copy of Dragon Arse claims the codes expire April 30th, 2010). Does this mean that someone who buys a new copy of Dragon Arse after that date will find their 'free' DLC code doesn't work?
-some have said it's a bit like buying a used car but the radio only works for the original owner.
-trading in games does in a small way fund new games - you trade in a game to buy a new one! And then later trade that new game in to buy another new one!
-if you're that ("frugal" -Ed.) to buy games preowned, you're not likely to then decide to throw $10 at some DLC which will only represent a fraction of the total content of the game. The other end of that is you'd think you might as well buy new anyway, given it'll cost the same.

And this excellent comment from EG:



Anyway, it's a (if you'll pardon the pun) contentious issue and the future of games as we know them is on the precipice. People like DrG reckon we're not long off an entirely digital distribution-based industry anyway, so all this might not matter in a few years. But on the other hand, won't all digital distribution mean being gouged for prices like we see on XBL's GOD service? Or will it be more bargainous like Steam?

I hope this idea bites EA on the arse.

Greedy basts.

It really isn't. It's like buying a new car, and getting a voucher with it for a free meal at Brewer's Fayre. When you sell the car, you've already used the voucher, so the next person doesn't get one.

It's not 'something included that you can't pass on'. It's something extra as a bonus for being an early adopter.

I'm not sure what to think. From my own perspective do I spend as much on games as it takes to get anything I might want to play? Probably yes. Could they extract more money from me with this sort of thing? Probably that too, gaming seems like quite a cheap hobby at the moment. A lot more? Probably not. There comes a point where they will harm their own sales. I can't get angry at them for it though. They're just a business and I shouldn't expect anything else. I don't have to buy their games.

Here we have a classic example of "six of one, half a dozen of another"

Depends whether you view the content as part of the original package which is being disabled to create a revenue stream for EA via the second hand market or whether it's a free extra that is completely non-essential to the enjoyment and use of said product.

I'm inclined to fall on the cynical side of the stool with this one I'm afraid.

I would like to imagine that the Games Buying Public would never allow the move to a digital-only distribution system, but I'm not so sure.

Anyone got any sales figures of the PSPGo to hand?

I don't know about you guys, but if I haven't been arsed to buy the game from new, I rarely buy the DLC for it. Don't think this would affect me too much. Think it may cause people to consider not buying the DLC, but I am sure EA have more than balanced that out by the increased game sales.
It is a bit shit though, they do appear to be deliberatlely attempting to undermine the second hand games market (which is their prerogative after all), but is still a little shitty.

I think Sony have destroyed the files.

Personally I prefer this to digital distribution, though the time limited codes are a bit worrying. Effectively that means I could wait till something like Ass Crud hits a fiver (all I was willing to pay for it) & end up having to spend another tenner to get the full package.


Your "excellent comment" has made a common error. All they've bought is a disc, box, manual & a license to use the software contained on the disc. It is not their software it is the dev/publisher's.

If they're not happy with just a license they could try to buy the rights to the game. Then they could do whatever the hell they liked with it, doubt they could afford it though

Same here. I wouldn't mind a code that can be redeemed against future DLC, but this if it's content that was developed alongside the game itself, then I'd want it on the disc.

That said, I pre-ordered GH:Metallica to get the Death Magnetic content so I'm a hypocrite anyway. Mind you, I don't know if the content would have fit on the disc.

This feels like yet another attack on my gamerscore OCD.

All I'm fussed about is maxing out games and if achievements are withheld (even if they are after the initial 1000) then I'll be pissed off.

I don't mind them adding non-achv DLC (like they did with AssCreed2) but if I've got to fuck about to get the max then it can fuck off.

I'm already pissed off at EA's Skate 2 antics. They released three lots of achv-based DLC that added fuck all to the overall game, was easily beaten and took the final total to 1500 which meant I had to shell out for the game after trading it at 1250.

Yes, I know... I don't have to buy it etc etc. But it was maxed at 1000 and then at 1250 and then unmaxed at 1500. I don't want unmaxed games when I've beaten them fair and square so I feel compelled to shell out for shit content (obviously not knowing it's shit until I buy it).

See also: fucking Borderlands. The DLC is average at best and shit at worst and yet it's cost me over a tenner already and there is more on the way.

"Free stuff for early adopters" really isn't a new concept. I fail to see the issue.

Extra maps for multiplayer games I have no issue with (like GoW2); things like part of the story (like AC2) I'm not so keen on. Especially when it's most likely to be locked on the disc somewhere.

Yes, this is bullshit.

People would argue that it's content you would have gotten as part of the main game otherwise. After all, for all intents and purposes it IS part of the game when you buy it, it just gets downloaded when you put the disc in as opposed to it being on the disc.

You could apply that description to all DLC.

5) Agree strongly.

Deal with it, fagballz

QFT etc.

Doing this for DLC which is truly additional is fine, but I suspect that in practice this is basically going to be locking on-disc, story content. Forcing you to pay money to complete the last three levels of a game is cuntish in the extreme.

There is no way in hell that they would lock things that are a mandatory part of the story, ever. You're a nutbar if you think that's the case. These are the EA day 1 DLCs I've seen so far:

1) DA:O - An additional party member, a side quest, a box, and a suit of armour
2) Mass Effect 2 - An additional party member, two side quests, and a suit of armour
3) The Saboteur - The cabaret girls don't have pasties over their nipsies.

*Runs to Gamestation*

Most DLC isn't available for download on the day of release.

Is this specifically aimed at xbox? It sounds like a decent attempt to tackle PC gaming piracy if it were aimed at that.

And I'd be qualified to work in the sales department of EA, then.

Why *woudn't* they do this? They quite like money, remember.

Who said this would be? Just because the current sections are, doens't mean it will always be so. They could be looking to give people something as a thank you for buying the game... ah, I can't keep that up! Give me money!!

Because it wouldn't be a game? It'd be half a game.

Or two thirds of a game. And only for second hand buyers, remember, who they otherwise wouldn't get cash out of.

It would mean MOAR MUNNEE, so they'd do it. Watch this space.

I bought the Forza 3 Collector's Edition (God knows why).

That had codes in it for extra DLC!!!

OMG! It's started already! Different prices for different amounts of game!!!

This has been suggested already on EG. Where will they stop? Half the game? I haven't played Ass Crud 2 but am told the story makes a lot more sense when you fill in those two missing chapters with the appropriate DLC.

I think the reason they're doing that is because more money is being made from used sales than new.

It's no secret at all that game shops pay people absolutely fuck all for their second hand games. Then they sell them on for big markups. Probably bigger than the original sale of the new game. This then forces far more people to buy used than new.

One could say that all EA are doing is offering people more of an incentive to buying new games (thus more sales for them) than second hand ones (thus more sales for the second hand market).

I agree with the Coffey

A game you can't complete pretty much fits the definition of "Not fit for purpose" as regards purchasing rights. Unless it's deliberately sold as episodic, which some games are - in which case you just decide whether you want to spend your money on it, surely?

Absolutely, often the prices for used games is derisory, with only two or three pounds' difference between it and the new copy. In those circumstances I'd buy the new copy.

But the store gave like, 2p for it. Seriously the second hand market in the UK fucking *sucks*. In the USA used items fetch at least 2/3 of their ticket price. It took me a while to get used to that tbh.

Over here though? Terrible.

I like what EA are proposing tbh as firstly I buy 99% of my games new and secondly because I don't sell them on (there's no point, if I wanted to have that mugged off feeling I would send my ex wife some money).

Er, no. There's not a court in the land that would go along with that.

Not least as it would be the second hand copy that would be effected, and it would be made clear on the box that DLC was to be paid for unless the game was bought new.

If there was then the makers of The Matrix would be a bit screwed really. I'll never forget going to see the second Matrix movie and sitting there for over two hours only to find it was only half of a movie. Sickening part was I forgot to go see the second part haha. I've still not seen it

"Ergo."

There, now you've seen it.

Hurrah! I win automatically.

I disagree. The game is incomplete if it required something to complete that they explicitly state is a free giveaway extra.

Also, EA isn't selling an incomplete game, the person selling it on is doing that.

FREE FOR THE PERSON WHO BUYS IT BRAND NEW. For goodness' sake, man.

Because DLC couldn't possibly be something you could pass on to another person, or be tied to that copy of the game. Oh no.

Are we only getting 2/3 of Crasters' brain today, because we didn't pay for the DLC?

Yes, but if you, for example, choose not to download it, or play on an xbox without an internet connection, you can't complete the game. Or lose the little bit of paper with the number on.

"Stupid People Suffer The Consequences Of Their Own Stupidity" is a recognised legal concept.

Well it hasn't happened yet, and I look with mockery on your assurances that it will.

Yes, what of people who don't have internet access and thus cannot obtain this content that they technically own?

Silly? Perhaps. It does remind me of the outcry against Half-Life 2 and Steam, and people being unable to play their copy (or even 'authenticate it') because they didn't have an internet connection or only had dialup or something.

Everyone should probably stop saying "free", it is not free, it is included in the price.

They are essentially splitting the license into two.

In the past, when you bought a game, the license was attached to the disc.

Now, the license for most of the content that you have paid for is on the disc, but the license for some of the other content that you have paid for is attached to a one time use, none transferable serial number.

It's basically reducing the quality of what you get for your money when you buy a game, without charging less, so that they can charge for the same content twice.

Ahem, Craster -



See? SEE?

Yes, pretty much, and if people don't buy it, they'll stop. And if people do buy it, then it wasn't a bad thing to do, was it? Because people in general don't mind, by definition.

What are you complainers expecting to actually happen here? Government intervention? A game is just like anything else you buy. It has a cost, and a value. The value of a game with content moved in the DLC is less, granted. If it's still more than the cost, it doesn't matter. By your own admission, you say the companies will make more money from this move. So why the hell wouldn't they do it then?

Companies like Gamestop and Game are making over 1/3rd of their revenues from second hand sales. You can talk all you like about how you can resell a DVD or a book, but the second hand markets are tiny compared to games. Games cost more in the first place, increasing the resell incentives to the point where it makes sense. Few people can be bothered to pay £9 instead of £12 for a DVD, considering the second hand one might be scratched, or in poor cosmetic condition. Lots of people will tolerate the odd bad disc to pay £30 instead of £40 for a game though. The situation simply isn't the same and of course the manufacturers will try and circumvent the doctrine of first sale. That's just capitalism and unless you're moving to Cuba you might as well suck it up.

Me? I hardly ever find the game has more content than my patience for it, so this really doesn't affect me at all.

Me too. And guess what? Steam shipped, the world didn't end, and now it's a really great platform for buying games. The lesson is, when people tell you the sky is falling, they're usually wrong.

I see a game that broke sales records worldwide despite the DRM problems.