Epic uses DLC to "actively fight" pre-owned "culture"

By Robert Purchese Published 17 November, 2011

"It's keeping the disc in the tray."

DLC not only brings in more money, it also helps "actively fight" pre-owned sales, Epic Games' director of production Rod Fergusson has said.

How? By "keeping the disc in the tray", Fergusson told Game Informer magazine (read by CVG).

Because of this, DLC has become an integral part of game development, and something planned months before a game launches.

"What people need to understand is that extra content is something that you have to plan," Fergusson said.

"There are people who think that the first day of DLC development is the day after you launched. That's not the way it works.

"A lot of it is that you have to prepare and plan and manage your resources and your people and everything to allow for that.

"It's less about shipping what's left over," he said. "It's not about, 'Oh, we had this map left over'... it's keeping the disc in the tray.

"In a used game culture that you have to actively fight against, I think DLC is one of the ways that you do that."

To that end, Gears of War 3 introduced a Season Pass. This costs 2400 Microsoft Points and buys you the first four DLC add-ons before they're released (two are out now with a third, Raam's Shadow, due on 13th December).

Buying the Season Pass is 33 per cent cheaper than buying all four add-ons separately. It's also a compelling reason not to flog your copy of Gears of War 3 before all four DLC add-ons have been released and you've gotten your money's worth.

Gears of War 3 Horde Command DLC.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (58) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • rarebit #1 6 months ago

    A lot of DLC is a pile of shite unfortunately.

  • pogomeister #2 6 months ago

    What was the second dlc?? A thot there was just the one released

  • Rizo #3 6 months ago

    WHy do they not want me to sell the game on? I paid for it I can do what I want with it.

  • tachometer #4 6 months ago

    I could see his point if the season pass was included in the purchase of a new game, but as it stands now you basically charging almost double up front. I buy the game new for £40.00, the season pass for £20.00 then 8 months later they chuck out a "game of the year complete edition" which sells for £13.99 of Amazon.
    Edited by tachometer at 17/11/11 @ 14:41

  • Zizou97 #5 6 months ago

    The comment "'Oh, we had this map left over'..." sums it all up really. If it didn't make the first cut it probably wasn't good enough.

  • tomjoadsghost #6 6 months ago

    Yup, multiplayer DLC is the perfect solution to people selling on their games as soon as they finish the campaign.

  • Zizou97 #7 6 months ago

    @Rizo
    Of course you can. No one said anything else. But the more people who keep their copys and doesn't trade them in, the more money Epic will make from new customers, since there will be fewer second hand copies on the shelves. Customers must buy the game "new" instead.

  • Ranger101 #8 6 months ago

    Listen Epic, I'm a software developer, I understand and I know that developing and planning DLC before your software is shipped is good project management, efficient and a good use of your resources.

    However, I'm also a consumer and a video game fan, and that kind thinking doesn't fly with me when I've got the xbox controller in my hands. When I boot up the xbox, I'm not a software developer, I'm the guy who's getting tired of being ripped off by on-the-disc DLC.

    You either keep your Bosses happy - the people who pay you - and piss off your consumers, or you keep your consumers happy - the people who pay your Bosses. Remind them of that.

  • eviroboy #9 6 months ago

    'By keeping the disc in the tray'..is that cos most of the DLC was actually on the disc in the first place?

  • darkmorgado #10 6 months ago

    And yet he still doesn't explain why the DLC so far has all been present on the disc. It's not DLC if it's on the disc, you're paying to unlock content that is already there.

  • SuperFLI #11 6 months ago

    rather than dlc. make the game fun to play. fun meaning that even if you finish it the first time, you are more than happy to go back in again for another run at the game. many games have done it over the years, and its a formula that doesn't really fail. also, put things in the game, whether it be challenges, collectibles, or whatever to be found by playing the game over and over again. design it so that these additions are pretty much impossible to find or attempt on your first play through. this could be accomplished in many diifferent ways.
    contrary to what they seem to believe, dlc does not keep the game in the tray. more often than not it is the incentive that causes people to drop the game off at the used market first chance they get. very rarely have i seen dlc that adds anything meaningful to a game outside multiplayer games. and even in multiplayer games its only the most popular brands that tend to benefit. i am yet to see anything added to a game that focuses on singleplayer that has had anything noteworthy for its dlc, even among games i like. when i hear dlc, i think that they are screwing me over by bringing stuff to the game that would have been better done if it had been intergrated into the game from release, rather than tacked on as an afterthought.

  • driveboy82 #12 6 months ago

    All the DLC I bought recently was absolute crap so it's clear to me that it's not happening again, specially at those prices. Castlevania is a perfect example of craptastic DLC, I wish I could get a refund. Gears of War 3? Finished in under 8 hours, cd back in it's case and back to Game it went. You want people to keep their games? Perhaps making them better, longer and cheaper could help? Dunno, just an idea.

  • arcam #13 6 months ago

    @darkmorgado

    He does explain why DLC is made before the release of the game though. And if it's finished, why not include it on the disc and save everyone a few megabytes of bandwidth?

  • dsmx #14 6 months ago

    There was a time when devs would just release mod tools and let the community make more content thus freeing up the dev team to patch the game.

  • -cerberus- #15 6 months ago

    Sadly for you, Epic, your insulting locked on-disc tactics have kept me from supporting your pile of recycled garbage. I'll get a used copy when I can find one next year for less than a tenner.

  • Eraser #16 6 months ago

    Uh, I get it if they include a free download voucher for some DLC. And although I don't particularly agree with the practice, I think it's far more fair than to ask 1st buyers to pay 10 dollars for additional content they should've gotten for free in the first place.

  • jonfon #17 6 months ago

    @dsmx
    I'm trying to think of a single console game which ever allowed you to do that. LittleBigPlanet and inFamous2 are the only 2 I can come up with. There's obviously a lot of PC games but it still wasn't every game, and in some cases the mod tools were fan-made, not dev ones. For example ID were mod friendly but most Doom tools were fan created.

    I've no real problem with the "there's a voucher in the box to unlock some additional stuff" market, it adds value to 1st hand purchases and gives the developers a way of making some money off second hand sales too, if the purchaser cares enough to download it.

    I do have a problem with crappy, terrible DLC or weapon packs which you've to pay for regardless if you want it which really should be on the disc. If you want me to buy that sort of mission DLC it better be of a high quality (Old World Blues is a good example of doing it well, some of the Dragon Age DLC is a prime example of doing it badly and making me feel like I'm being treated like a walking wallet)
    Edited by jonfon at 17/11/11 @ 15:19

  • Ryze #18 6 months ago

    Unlike Capcom, who instead charge for costumes, then cut everyone off by forcing a new retail purchase to get the rest of the game.

    /facepalm

  • Ryze #19 6 months ago

    @tachometer

    THIS.

    @lollage

    It was only DELAYED for an artificial reason - to wait until Oct/November to get more Christmas sales, as the PS3 seems to have had an Exclusive/AAA per week released recently.

    Your technical reasons are valid, but it simply doesn't cut it that people who have paid the full day one retail price for a game can't get all of the content, or at least the on-disc, prepared content, bundled via a code. Even if it's time-delayed and only released several months down the line (to keep the disc in the tray).

    So, if I wait until next year (as I will), then I can get the game for £15 with all of the DLC included! What!?!?! Incentive much?!?

    That's a broken system that encourages people to either TRADE (to recoup some of the £40 in disgust at being asked to pay more to play the rest of the game), or NOT BUY (until the rest of the content appears, and the price drops).

    They're basically depending on hype instead of value to sell their game at full price.

    Broken - especially when we look at how games and developers get their 'funding' to develop content vs. the Movie industry.

    IMHO.
    Edited by Ryze at 17/11/11 @ 16:33

  • Hantheman #20 6 months ago

    "Fight" the culture of sharing and fiscal responsibility? Wow.

  • warburni #21 6 months ago

    @tomjoadsghost

    This! (Can you tell I'm not a fan of most multiplayer?)

  • SuperFLI #22 6 months ago

    @lollage its not that we think that those were the glory days of gaming because of some rose tinted nostalgia. simple fact is, most people buy and trade games in order to get newer games as they are released. which considering how expensive games are, makes sense.
    but in the past, even when games were expensive, most people were very reluctant to trade in their old game or give them away or borrow out. think about this, people who used to buy games like mgs2 or 3, super metroid, the original halo, final fantasy 7, and others would rarely think of trading them in for cash to buy new games. i think it was less likely to happen if you liked the game though it obviously did happen.
    now though if someone finishes a game, no matter if its from a studio they like or a series they love, they will likely still trade it, becos once you are done, there is hardly anything compelling enough to make you go back for a second run. and dlc does not fix that proble, it just delays the trade in while making a little extra money for the publisher.

  • jonc24 #23 6 months ago

    @lollage

    The market was also exponentially smaller then too. And people generally hung onto their games despite the facility to trade them existing. ( admittedly in a lesser form)

  • Puzza #24 6 months ago

    all well and good but if you dont make the game good enough in the first place people wont keep the game long enough to get the dlc anyway

  • Whizzo #25 6 months ago

    I remember when Epic used to give away map packs.

  • chadstar #26 6 months ago

    Epic uses pre-owned "culture" to "actively fight" decrease in brand new game sales.

    When will these developers realise? that people trading games is what generates the massive sales figures on top games.

    I would be willing to bet that half of games bought brand new are people who trade in their old games towards the cost rather than pay cold hard cash.

    If they really want to battle the pre owned sales then why not release the game 3 months later on games on demand for half the original price say £19.99 and not the ridiculous price of £49.99 and stop messing about with these dumb season pass things as everyone knows most "DLC" is crap. (here pay 2400 ms points for something that isn't available yet and may well be dreadful)

    There is talk of a digital download only future in gaming and I am also willing to bet that if GEARS OF WAR 3 had been a digital download only game it would have lost at least half of its brand new sales figures, especially with the ridiculous prices they ask for on games on demand (which I believe they are trying to set a marker for when digital downloads do become more popular) I mean seriously who buys stuff from games on demand? I dont know anyone who has.

  • henro_ben #27 6 months ago

    I've dabbled with DLC but so far very little has been worth the price for me, it usually just doesn't really interest me as it's either too little, too late or my attention has moved on to the latest shiny new release.

    Half the time I can't even be bothered to redeem the codes for free DLC that come in the box.

    I'm sure many like extending their favourite games, but personally DLC adds very little value to a title for me.

  • Jolly_Armadillo #28 6 months ago

    Or just release for free, you get the same effect that people hold onto the copy, if not, more people! You also get the added effect of being generous saints :)

  • Moz #29 6 months ago

    @tomjoadsghost They've said they're going to be campaign based single player DLC too

  • TelexStar #30 6 months ago

    @Zizou97 - "...But the more people who keep their copys and doesn't trade them in, the more money Epic will make from new customers, since there will be fewer second hand copies on the shelves. Customers must buy the game "new" instead."

    No it doesn't! Just because someone buys a 2nd hand copy of a game, doesn't necessarily mean that if that 2nd hand copy wasn't available, they would buy new. This is the annoying and frankly bullshit assumption that many publishers make when spouting off about how "evil" the 2nd hand market is.

    Ignoring the many arguments about how you should have the right to sell on anything that you purchased without being labelled as a "filthy pirate". There's the simple truth that many people trade in their old games for new ones. The 2nd hand market generates new sales. That's a fact.

    I don't have a problem with DLC, so long as it's good quality and value for money. Unfortunately, most DLC isn't.

  • paketep #31 6 months ago

    Epic used to make great games and give FREE bonus packs for them. That ended with GoW. Since then, all we've got from them is samey shit.

    And now, Season Passes and paid DLC?. Yeah, right.

  • Toothball #32 6 months ago

    @arcam

    That was always my take on the whole Disc-based-DLC thing. It's usually more work to revisit a project after you've finished and moved on to another than it is to get everything out of the way at once, so to me it seemed far more practical to have the DLC made while the dev team were still all in the same place. After that, if it's on the disc or online doesn't really make any difference if they'd planned to sell it separately.

  • ubergine #33 6 months ago

    I always thought DLC was actually to MAKE money from second hand sales, eg someone buys Oblivion second hand and Bethesda makes money off the inevitable add-on sales. That's a good system.

    If Epic want people not to sell on their games, they should study something call Replay Value.

    Replay Value.

    Replay Value.

    I've yet to finish one of Epic's games but presumably their fans lose interest pretty quickly by what Epic are saying here.

  • Frosty840 #34 6 months ago

    Dear Epic,
    If I'm going to spend £40 on one of your games, finish it, lose interest, move onto other things, and then be told that actually there's another £20 to spend, interest to rekindle, and a game to replay 90% of in order to see 10% of "new" ("previously hidden";) content, then I'm going to make a deliberate policy to not buy any of your games until I'm absolutely fucking certain there are no more surprises waiting for me after my purchase.

  • Madder-Max #35 6 months ago

    Where is the incentive to produce good quality DLC if people are paying up front? Passes are a con. Look at Elite. Still not working and there will probably be below par DLC maps

  • hiscore #36 6 months ago

    Devs and publishers should not meddle with the affairs of dragons.. euh.. I mean customers. If somebody owns a Porsche and he sells it to someone else, that's HIS right. If someone owns a game and he sells it to someone else, that's HIS right.

    Devs and publishers are here to make good and affordable games. Maybe if both criteria were more present these days, more people would buy more NEW games.

    Before pointing the finger to us customers, point the finger at your own shortsighted self.

  • Springchicken #37 6 months ago

    @chadstar I bought Tales of Vesperia from On Demand, because it's damn expensive elsewhere. But when I wanted to buy Reach last week, I looked at Amazon: £9.99 new. I looked at Games On Demand: £49.99.

    Hang on a minute, let me think about this. Nnnnnggh! So hard!

  • 32768Colours #38 6 months ago

    "There are people who think that the first day of DLC development is the day after you launched. That's not the way it works.

    "A lot of it is that you have to prepare and plan and manage your resources and your people and everything to allow for that.

    "It's less about shipping what's left over," he said. "It's not about, 'Oh, we had this map left over'... it's keeping the disc in the tray.

    So he's essentially admitting that dlc isn't just off-cuts, its created months in advance. My initial reaction was "cheeky buggers!".

    But if I'm reading this correctly what he's suggesting is that dlc has its own resources. The additional cost of dlc is therefore justified because it has its own development team associated with it, rather than just charging more for the left-overs from the main game's development.

    This sounds all well and good in principle, but how many developers just release stuff that should have been on (or worse, is locked away on) the disc to start with?

    The industry can spin the dlc culture anyway they want but in the end, if consumers feel like they're being ripped off, then they probably are.

  • Madder-Max #39 6 months ago

    @jameslester01

    Can you just like .....fuck off or something?

  • SheffAl #40 6 months ago

    We need to actively fight DLC culture. I'm going to start with Gears - I will never ever buy any

  • Feanor #41 6 months ago

    "And yet he still doesn't explain why the DLC so far has all been present on the disc. It's not DLC if it's on the disc, you're paying to unlock content that is already there."

    Sure it is - Disc Loadable Content.

  • rogermellie #42 6 months ago

    @gotyourmoney

    Likewise and I don't keep games like Gears. I've no interest in multiplayer, but I subsidise that aspect when buying new. Therefore it's reasonable to offset the cost by selling on.

  • SheffAl #43 6 months ago

    @rogermellie

    Agree also, I like Gears single player but less than 10 hours playthrough time its not good value at all. I usually wait several months for it to drop to under £20.

  • Zizou97 #44 6 months ago

    @TelexStar

    " Just because someone buys a 2nd hand copy of a game, doesn't necessarily mean that if that 2nd hand copy wasn't available, they would buy new."

    Sure, that's true. But just as well, just because a certain title isn't available 2nd hand copy, doesn't necessarily mean that the customer will walk away from that title, right?

    Otherwise, I agree with you that the 2nd hand market clears room for new games to go off the shelves faster. Shame that the developers and publishers doesn't realize that.

  • SheffAl #45 6 months ago

    Second hand games DRIVES new sales. A heck of a lot of people buy new planning to sell on once they are done with it. They wouldn't buy new if they couldn't sell on..

  • The-Jack-Burton #46 6 months ago

    And to combat being ripped off by greedy developers, I actively rented Gears 3 and actively refused to purchase any DLC. There was a time when I would have happily purchased your overpriced game.

  • clockworkzombie #47 6 months ago

    There is at least one thing that would make me keep the game. EA put some great soundtracks together when they make games. if I could put that game disc in my cd player and play it then I will not be willing to trade the game in.

    Some games that I would keep are the saboteur, some of the need for speed games. Need for Speed: Takedown introduced me to Jimmy Eat World for example. I used to start the disc in my PS2 and let it run for hours as the game select screen would play through the tracks in order.

    Perhaps I should contact Sony, they do have a large catalogue of music after all.

    Taking it further, movie tie ins could have the movie on the disc, blu-ray only though I guess for space reasons.

  • Inmediasress #48 6 months ago

    At first I read "Epic useless DLC to "actively fight" pre-owned "culture"".
    That said well, yes DLC is the bane of gaming.

  • dennett316 #49 6 months ago

    @lollage I'm sorry, but that's unbelievably stupid. If the content is already on the disc, it should already be available to everyone because it's on the fucking disc.
    That's like buying a movie that has some of the scenes locked until you paid extra to the see them. I don't give a shit if the game was delayed for whatever reason, you're excusing them for getting away with extorting money from users. If the content is on the disc that you paid for, all content on that disc should have been paid for. They claim we're paying for permission to have the game licensed to us...that means everything that's on the disc.

    It IS a rip-off however you slice it or try to dress it up, and people like you who swallow it with a smile on your face are ruining it for the rest of us.

  • Rens11 #50 6 months ago

    Free dlc would keep it in the tray longer

  • Ryze #51 6 months ago

    @clockworkzombie this this this this...

  • svenjl #52 6 months ago

    @driveboy82 Well, you seem to have missed the point of GoW3 campaign co-op, and the other co-op and multiplayer modes - no? I am playing the campaign solo and split-screen etc etc. And even if you're offline you can play multiplayer vs AI bots. Crank up the difficulty and it's a real challenge. Epic have done super job in terms of retail disc content and I am STOKED!

  • Pocketgrandpa #53 6 months ago

    Remember Burnout Paradise? Criterion pumped out loads of free DLC to the point where the game was completely different 18 months on to the one that was released. I trade most games but I hung on to that one. Still give it a spin now and then. That's how it should be done

  • Machiavellian #54 6 months ago

    Your technical reasons are valid, but it simply doesn't cut it that people who have paid the full day one retail price for a game can't get all of the content, or at least the on-disc, prepared content, bundled via a code. Even if it's time-delayed and only released several months down the line (to keep the disc in the tray).

    The question I would ask you is why do you feel you deserve the content on the disc for free. Lets think about this for a second. The game is finished and Epic has tons of time on their hands where they are not getting paid. They task their people to create the DLC which cost money, time and resources. They put the content on the disk because they have that extra time. The new content still cost Epic money to produce. While the game was not out their to be purchase, Epic is losing money paying salaries, medical, dental vacation you name it.

    I believe it's this concept that content does not cost the developer money that people think they deserve content for free. It appears you have this ideal that just because the content is on the disk, it should be free to people who paid full price for a game that already gives you full price content. As lollage stated, it was a gift to Epic that they actually had that extra time to polish GOW3 better than they other releases.

  • Machiavellian #55 6 months ago

    Remember Burnout Paradise? Criterion pumped out loads of free DLC to the point where the game was completely different 18 months on to the one that was released. I trade most games but I hung on to that one. Still give it a spin now and then. That's how it should be done

    It would be great if every developer could do this but the reality is no. Gamers forget that whoever is making the free content must get paid. The delivery of the content cost money. The QA of said extra content cost money. There is a lot of cost that go into making a game and the content and if a business is not getting in money, how do you expect them to pay the salary for those employees. Some developers are in the position to give away content but as development cost rise, such things become more rare.

  • CamberGreber #56 6 months ago

    What they need to do is get rid of Gamestop and a policy that prevents them from seeing second hand dollar.

  • BonzoBanana #57 6 months ago

    I've never bought any downloadable content and have only bought a few downloadable games. I buy most of my games pre-owned. I guess I'm the sort of gamer the industry has an issue with. I'm great for retail and the uk economy (at least the retail side) where they earn big money on pre-owned games but bad for game development.

    I don't see the need to buy a game day one, often only getting games a year after release or more at a tiny fraction of their full price.

    I have lots of ways of spending money to entertain myself but choose gaming. If games were download only and £60 a game I don't think I would be gaming at all or at least not on hardware that had those prices.

    If the gaming industry needs to increase prices due to lack of revenue then they need to do that but it might shrink the number of games sold and be counter-productive.

    I get sick and tired of this industry moaning about pre-owned sales. Its a reality of most industries and they just get on with it. If I buy an old hammer at a carboot do you get B&Q complaining about it or if I buy a washing machine from my next day neighbour do Hotpoint complain about it?

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with pre-owned we don't owe publishers and developers a living. Clearly piracy is wrong but selling on your old games is not in any way. Its a free market.

  • brod #58 6 months ago

    Load of wank.