The truth behind retailer-exclusive pre-order extras

By Fred Dutton Published 22 December, 2011

Why stores do it and what it means for gamers.

One of the less popular trends of 2011 was the ramping up of the retailer-exclusive in-game extra. You know the sort of the thing - pre-order a title from Game and get a couple of extra character skins, choose HMV and get some weapon unlocks, or give your money to Zavvi and get early access to a map.

Depending on where you stand, it's either a nice bit of added value or a nuisance that prevents fans experiencing absolutely everything a game has to offer. Until recently it's been fairly easy to ignore. But things took a left turn with the release of Batman: Arkham City earlier this year, when UK supermarket giant Tesco secured a significant slab of DLC content all for themselves - a separate set of missions called Joker's Carnival Challenge Map. A sign of things to come, perhaps?

With that in mind we approached a number of UK retailers, publishers and developers to find out more about the process, why it happens and whether gamers are doomed to suffer as a result.

First things first, it's worth noting that almost every retailer we approached declined to comment. Read into that what you will. However, Tesco's games buying manager, Jonathan Hayes, did offer the supermarket giant's perspective, insisting that it's just a way to offer customers a little more for their money and incentive to commit to a pre-order.

"Retailer-exclusive content is all about adding great value to the customer," he said. "If you can work with suppliers then you can give the customer something that is really important to them and rewards them for ordering before the release date."

Hayes added that he had some sympathy with gamers complaining that they can't access all of a game's available content, but pointed out that in most cases that content eventually becomes available to all.

"I can see why that may frustrate customers," he conceded. "Sometimes you will be able to get all of the available content by working through the game. By having different retailer exclusives you are offering the customer a choice of which added element to have first.

"However, there was on offer on Red Dead [Redemption] that gave a selected number of retailers extra content which was free to the customer. However, they then also offered all of the content in one pack which cost an extra £5. In the future this may be a model that is looked at again if it is clear that it is this that customers want."

A separate source close to UK retail, who wished to remain nameless, suggested retailers have a rather less altruistic motive in offering customers these added extras. Essentially, times are tough on the high street and retailers need all the help they can get making their particular offering stand out from the competition.

"They need to make sales and they need to offer a unique package to be able to do that," said the source. "It's a difficult market at the moment. Prices are high. People don't want to spend their money. So you have to offer them something they can't get anywhere else."

Our source added that that these additional scraps of content are now an integral part of the development process for most big games and are factored in at a very early stage.

"When DLC first came out it was bits of the game that didn't make it in. Now people plan DLC before they've even got past the pre-production stage. DLC can now be offered as exclusives.

"Although they're planning for DLC, you can plan for extras, such as Avatar props, or Themes. You can throw in tiny little extra bits that are hardly any money but offer that unique value for each retailer. You'll find the bigger titles will now start to do more and more of this extra content.

"It's going to make the product more attractive, depending on what you're after. It's a way of each retailer getting their own version of a game, but it's at no cost to the publisher or the developer because this is already stuff they've planned in."

Andy Payne, UK games industry veteran and boss of distributor Mastertronic, argues that, for the most part, this is all a good thing. It's an opportunity for retailers to maximise their potential profit, while gamers get a more diverse marketplace in which they can choose the type of content they want.

"If you look at the history of all this it goes back to packaged goods in a big way," he told Eurogamer. "Retailers have always tried to get an advantage on each other by having different sorts of offerings outside of price, whether it be a special edition or a limited edition or some kind of added value. So crudely, it might be that retailer A gives away a T-shirt, retailer B gives away a poster and retailer C gives away a set of false teeth. And I think that has lead to more specific digital offerings.

"I think it's a really good idea as it helps the retailer and it should help the consumer, and that's healthy. It keeps the consumer concerned in terms of the choice.

"One offering, one SKU sold at one price probably leads to quite a bland world," he continued. "I think from a consumer's perspective that's not great, and from a content creator's perspective that's not great. So having different ways of at least making the product different and having differentiation between retailers can only be a good thing.

"The proviso is always that the signposting in terms of how customers find this stuff has got to be done properly."

Payne highlighted another reason why gamers might want to give retailers a little slack. If it wasn't for these digital purchase incentives, the only way for retailers to compete would be on price. Great, you might think. Well, think of the developers making the games you love to play. They are the ones who suffer in that scenario and the less return they see, the fewer risks they'll take on innovative content.

"If it's a single, one size fits all offering - a black Ford or whatever - then it's a race to the bottom in term of pricing, and that can only be bad news for the content creators," he pointed out.

Similarly, he argued, it's in all of our interests to support traditional high street retailers and ensure the industry doesn't go digital-only. Any initiative that helps them out can only be a good thing.

"It's important to keep things fresh and interesting," said Payne.

"I think that without bricks and mortar retailers playing a part in the way that games are sold and marketed it would be a worse world for us all. If it's entirely digital then discovery definitely becomes more challenging.

"There is a place for the retailer and these kinds of innovative ways forward will help retailers retain their market share and maybe even grow it."

The bad news for dedicated games retailers - and consumers who value the broader range of stock they offer - is that deals such as Tesco's Arkham City offering, in which supermarkets get the nod ahead of Game and the like, could become the norm.

"Warner Bros. was trying to make a statement by going with Tesco as the first announcement," explained our retail source.

"I think they went with Tesco just to say, we don't have to go to the traditional retailer route. We'll go with who can do the best for our product. Supermarkets will only list and showcase the biggest games. They have a top 10, but it's the top 10 games they sold last week. They will have the biggest games out this week and any leftover stock they will have on the bottom two shelves.

"If you go with Tesco on this particular product, you know you're going to reach a particular audience at a particular time and you will reach somewhere in the region of two to three million people across the country, which obviously has a lot more input in terms of return of investment than it would if you go with Game. You would be lucky if you had half a million people walk into every Game store across the country."

God of War creator and current Twisted Metal director David Jaffe offered a developer's point of view on the debate. He echoed Payne's suggestion that retailers and publishers deserve some leeway in such a testing financial climate.

Jaffe insisted that encouraging customers to pre-order a game is more important than ever, and these little digital incentives are a big help in achieving that end.

"I'm torn on that. I get what you're saying, but pre-orders are important. That's what a lot of fans don't see," he said, when asked whether he sympathised with disgruntled gamers.

"Pre-orders really drive the success of games now. My understanding of it - and this is me speaking as a layperson - is that the pre-order numbers end up motivating other stores for their own pre-orders.

"You are seeing more gamers coming into the industry but they're not necessarily coming into the $60 dollar industry," he continued.

1

Some publishers still offer physical extras rather than game content. US gamers who pre-order Final Fantasy 13-2 at Best Buy get an exclusive hardback novella, for example.

"They're renting from RedBox for a buck a night or they're playing an iOS game for 99 cents. The $60 gamer is not necessarily expanding. Because of that, there's a lot of things that the people who make and finance these games have to do in order to hopefully guarantee a profit or at least get their money back from these huge investments.

"If one of those things they have to do is motivate other retailers to pre-order more based on where the pre-sales are, it just has to be done. Especially when those retailers are making a lot of money and fans are getting great deals on used games that the developer and publisher isn't seeing.

"I know, I know, you're probably going to get 1000 comments on that, with people going 'oh, developers are f****** greedy'. Dude, I'm not greedy. C'mon. My mortage isn't paid up, I've got to figure out how my kids are going to go to college.

"This idea that we're greedy developers - no, I'm sorry. It's a free society, I'm a fan of regulated capitalism. We all want to do well for our efforts but the idea is that we're having to, as an industry, adjust. There are used games, there are rental games - that's where you see the rise.

"The games industry gets pushed on all the time like we're just a bunch of greedy f**** because we're trying to adjust to the fact that if we don't make these changes a lot of us are going to go out of business."

It's hard to say where things go from here. Are character skins and weapon unlocks just the tip of the iceberg? Will, say, Street Fighter 5 split fighters over five different SKUs, or Battlefield 4 divvy up its maps between Amazon, Play, Game et al? Neither retailers nor publishers were willing to share how they see things developing.

However, Andy Payne did offer one note of reassurance for those gamers fearing the worst. If a publisher does something you don't like, you can always vote with your wallet.

"Again it comes down to the customer making the decision. If Capcom decides to go down that route and they feel that route is a fair route and the sum total is that the product sells for the same price as it's always been for a full edition, then that's great.

"However, if it's wildly different then customers will go 'I'm not going down that route as it doesn't appeal to me. Yes, I might want Street Fighter 5, but actually I might go and do something else.'

"That's the risk that any content creator takes - if they try and slice the salami too many times and take the consumer for a ride then the consumer won't play. They'll say we can't afford to do this and someone else out there is giving us an alternative product so that's what we'll go with."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (138) Latest comment 5 months ago

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

  • asphaltcowboy #1 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 14:10:16 22-12-2011

  • Tomahawk #2 5 months ago

    So where is the article?

  • Whizzo #3 5 months ago

    Retailer specific, pre-order content is complete shite.

  • cowell #4 5 months ago

    Its not overly popular with consumers but it helps us publishers to secure some nice marketing stuff with retailers for much less than it would normally cost. It also gets consumers preordering and buying day one.
    Edited by cowell at 22/12/11 @ 14:20

  • INSOMANiAC #5 5 months ago

    It's whats known in the business as a 'cunts trick' however you want to package it.

  • MavSkipper #6 5 months ago

    I loathe DLC's in general. Especially when Capcom does them.

  • sickpuppysoftware #7 5 months ago

    "Retailer-exclusive content is all about adding great value to the customer,"
    should be read as
    "Retailer-exclusive content is all about withholding stuff from non-customers"

  • butler` #8 5 months ago

    It'll die out along with bricks & mortar retail imo.

  • cowell #9 5 months ago

    "However, Andy Payne did offer one note of reassurance for those gamers fearing the worst. If a publisher does something you don't like, you can always vote with your wallet."

    That's it in a nutshell. As consumers, you have the power of choice. If it offends you. Fuck off outside and play tennis instead

  • AVisualEpiphany #10 5 months ago

    "They are the ones who suffer in that scenario and the less return they see, the fewer risks they'll take on innovative content."

    I've always believed this, but only just actually thought about it.
    Surely this is incorrect...If a developer doesn't sell many copies of a game then they are more likely to attempt something different next time.
    A game that makes loads of money will always be a "safe bet" therefore reducing the need for any kind of innovation (Activision/Call of Duty)

    ...I think that may have been slightly off topic.

  • DwarfyP #11 5 months ago

    Doesn't all retailer exclusive content end up as PDLC for everyone at a later date?

    @butler
    No it won't then it will become Digital store exclusives and platform exclusives.

  • kingmancheng #12 5 months ago

    This doesn't motivate me to pre order, it does the opposite for me. I'm waiting out for a lot of titles such as Assassins Creed: Revelations because inevitably they'll bung everything into one 'ultimate edition disc' and get it cheaper. If you're charging a customer full price for something, most customers will expect everything in the package.

    So marketing for some, perhaps so, but certainly anti-marketing to me.

  • berelain #13 5 months ago

    "One offering, one SKU sold at one price probably leads to quite a bland world," he continued. "I think from a consumer's perspective that's not great, and from a content creator's perspective that's not great."
    Yeah, because everyone having access to the same game and the same extras is just terrible isn't it?

    Honestly what tosh. This is a horrible trend in gaming and I really hope it does not continue, though I know full well that it will. The thing is when you got a free T-shirt or a shiny cover if you bought an item from a specific store, that was okay; it was an optional extra that didn't affect your enjoyment of the product itself. But when the exclusive offering is big chunks of content - like Forza 4 / Need for Speed locking out extra vehicles to specific retailers, or the Batman stuff above - it's little short of a travesty. As a consumer, why shouldn't I be able to buy the product I like from the store I want to and not be penalised for it?

    It all feels to me like a very calculated way at driving up prices of goods for specific, predominantly high street, retailers.

    Also, an extra thought: The developers and publishers are building in time to create these extra items to go along with the game's launch. OR, they could stop making the gimmicky crap and focus on the actual game. Crazy thought.

    And in response to David Jaffe's comments, no, I don't think developers are greedy, I think that publishers are greedy. Exceptionally so.
    Edited by berelain at 22/12/11 @ 14:35

  • darleysam #14 5 months ago

    "Payne highlighted another reason why gamers might want to give retailers a little slack. If it wasn't for these digital purchase incentives, the only way for retailers to compete would be on price. Great, you might think. Well, think of the developers making the games you love to play. They are the ones who suffer in that scenario and the less return they see, the fewer risks they'll take on innovative content. "

    Does not compute. Activision led the way in increasing the price, and they provide the least innovative, diverse content of all.
    Edited by darleysam at 22/12/11 @ 14:31

  • zeneeba #15 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:57 22-12-2011

  • cowell #16 5 months ago

    @kingmancheng

    I see your point but there are significantly more people waiting for the "inevitable price drop". Publishers need to fight that before the fight those waiting for a GOTY edition that may or may not come.

  • HL706 #17 5 months ago

    "It's a difficult market at the moment. Prices are high. People don't want to spend their money. So you have to offer them something they can't get anywhere else."
    If Arkham City was £30 in game I'd have bought it, no hesitation. But it was £42. With DLC.

    I went to Tesco and bought it for £35. With DLC.

    I may not have a business or marketing background but instead of increasing the price of your games and paying for exclusive DLC, why not just lower the price instead?

  • MrChuckles #18 5 months ago

    If this particular DLC wasn't retailer specific, then it would be offered to players at a price as someone has to pay for the work to be done. It's a win for the shop, as they get extra exclusive content. It's a win for the developer as they get more pre-orders, and with the situation with trade ins & 2nd hand, boy do they NEED pre-orders and it a win for the customers that buy the retailer version as they get retailer specific DLC for FREE!

    However, the problem occurs that people who don't buy from that retailer can't get the extra DLC as much as they want to, which is pretty stupid. I've worked on a product where we couldn't allow people to buy it on the Xbox Live Marketplace, as the retailers would get upset.

    So, if you see it as DLC that wouldn't exist without the retailer exclusivity, it's cool, if you see it as something that is removed for an extra buck, it's seriously uncool. However, as many times as us developers explain that it's only started knowing it will be DLC from the outset, half the customers simply don't believe us :(.

    (Prepares to get negged for explaining more in this post than the whole article does)

  • Stuz359 #19 5 months ago

    The only thing I agree with would be to withhold DLC to consumers who buy second-hand or rent. I think that's the only way to incentivise consumers to buy games new.

    But this whole retailer exclusive thing just bothers me, if I'm paying for a product that is full price, I expect to have access to all the content that product offers from day one. It's not too bad if all you have to do is unlock the content as you play, but if you actually have to pay extra for the content that didn't come with your version of the game, then it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth and would discourage from buying new in the future.

  • arcam #20 5 months ago

    I had to stop myself from raging reading that. Especially as it's called "The Truth" behind retailer preorder bonuses, when it was just parroting the one-sided view from publishers. No investigation or analysis of what they said, and not even a word from retailers or gamers.

    Nice idea for an article, but failed in execution IMO.

  • FuzzyDuck #21 5 months ago

    This kind of shite just creates ill-will within your market.

    I bought Arkham City at release, played it, enjoyed it, traded it for a little loss. But i also left the Catwoman DLC and extra nick-nacks unused on purpose.

    Compare that to Arkham Asylum - i still have it in my collection, dunno will i ever play it again, but it's pretty much all on the disc if i want to(no interest in challenge maps).

    Treat your customers with disrespect and we'll treat your products similarly.

  • arcam #22 5 months ago

    I love this point of view that they are only doing this stuff because they are struggling. If it makes money you're gonna do it no matter whether times are hard or easy.

    Apparently they expect us to believe that if publishers were making tonnes of money (they are, but let's put that aside) that they would say: "No need for these extra deals, we're making enough money as it is".

  • kingmancheng #23 5 months ago

    @cowell I do pre-order games don't get me wrong, I don't get everything after a price drop. I'm happy pre-ordering a game if I really wanted it, recent case being Skyward Sword. But if I found out Skyward Sword had 3-4 different versions each with their own content etc.

    I would honestly take a step back and think no thanks. If they were all unified I'd be more tempted to pre-order other games. It's marketing like this that makes me want the price drop.

  • Toothball #24 5 months ago

    One thing that has slowed my High Street shopping habits was that prices on new games sort of levelled out along the way. It had probably been happening a while, but was most obvious when Game bought Gamestation, and the prices of both shops lined up more closely. I used to like wandering around town and checking out a few shops to see if there were any deals on. Mostly I was looking for reasons to buy from one place over another.

    Maybe it would be a bit nicer if retailer specific bonuses weren't limited to pre-orders, and instead stuck around for a while. These bonuses could be an alternative decision-maker. I've not been that concerned with pre-order bonus hats and such, instead usually going with whatever option works at the time. Sometimes I'll pre-order online, others I'll just wander into whichever shop is open on launch day and buy on impulse.

  • captain_Carl #25 5 months ago

    @cowell Not really. Stops me buying at all most of the time.

  • nuanimal #26 5 months ago

    A good article. And to be honest I already vote with my wallet.

    It is the norm for DLC to be pushed - I don't think anyone here is surprised theat DLC is planned. I even suspect parts are cut out deliberately.

    The thing is, it is also the norm to push a GOTY edition out a year later. So with Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Bartman: Arkham City, et al. These are great games that I haven't bought. And I'm not bothered. I'm not missing out, and look forward to grabbing the GOTY eds next year. I only buy games new where I feel compeeled that I would really enjoy them.

    I do wonder if devs/pubs realise they are changing people's buying habits? As I see it. "Buy a game now at full price and buy extras along the way" or "Buy the same game later at the same price (or maybe a £10 less) with all the DLC thrown in (yes that was you Oblivion GOTY Ed)."

    There are a few exceptions: such as games with a heavy multiplayer part - where you will be left behind (think CoD, BF3, MAG levelling up). Although I joined the BFBC2 party late and became quite capable after a week.

    Anyhow good article. More of this please.

  • Neil__ #27 5 months ago

    "Hayes..... pointed out that in most cases that content eventually becomes available to all. "
    Or to some it becomes available via The Pirate Bay immediately after the game launch.

    "retailer-exclusive pre-order extras" another reason why pirating a game gives you a superior experience.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #28 5 months ago

    Great article but I was hoping for a few more statements of retailers. I don't necessarily object to pre-order incentives - as long as they are not totally exclusive.

    Let's say a game comes with 3 DLC packs and 3 retailers get 1 DLC pack each - that's fine. I can get one DLC pack for free and if I decide I want the others as well I can still get them (even if only two or three weeks later). If retailers get more pre-orders that way then go ahead, no problem with that.

    I just don't like it when there's risk involved. What if all the packs are exclusive and I might end up with one that I don't like? As usual I'll happily support retailers - but as in any other case (like DRM) they have to offer something that I am interested in and not take something away from me. Then we're good.

  • ronuds #29 5 months ago

    I have no problems with things like exclusive "skins" for characters and whatnot. I don't really give a crap about that sort of thing. However, maps or weapons for an FPS or new areas for an RPG, is taking it a bit too far, imo.

  • ozthegweat #30 5 months ago

    As long as I can buy retailer-exclusive DLC on PSN/XBLA a few weeks after release, I don't care.

  • coomber #31 5 months ago

    In short, it benefits the shops and the developers, while punishing the customer in the short-term. But if it helps developers, then I suppose it helps us in the long-term.

    As long as this doesn't lead to developers going the Bioware/Dragon Age 2 route of forcing customers to pre-order a minimum of three months in advance then I'm not too bothered.

  • butler` #32 5 months ago

    @DwarfyP online stores don't need it, because they're more willing and more able to be price competitive.

    there's no scarcity factor online as there is on the highstreet; the only thing that drives significant volume is price.

    these kinds of extras are noting more than gimmicky USPs for the struggling bricks and mortar retail model.

  • kingpin3000 #33 5 months ago

    I was looking for a little more fact. Who approaches who? Is it the developer, the publisher or the retailer who is pushing for this? How mush extra does a publisher get from a retailer for an exclusive version? Do they get a flat bit of extra money or on a per sale basis?

  • foxski #34 5 months ago

    "Tesco secured a significant slab of DLC content all for themselves"

    Bullsh*t! They got a single map with endless goons to beat up, absolutely in no way the 4hr campaign they promised! I'd have gone for a different retailer bonus and there is the problem, if stores want to offer exclusive DLC then PLEASE make sure you accurately advertise what the customer is getting by choosing you.
    Edited by foxski at 22/12/11 @ 15:28

  • kosigan #35 5 months ago

    @AVisualEpiphany - If a developer doesn't sell many copies of a game then they are more likely to go bust and be closed; just look at the number of studios closed in the last year or so.

  • Metal-Militia #36 5 months ago

    In the good old days you'd get this stuff for just completing the game or doing a certain challenge.

  • cowell #37 5 months ago

    @kingpin3000

    Retailers are generally requesting it from publishers more and more. Publishers are directing the studios to cater for the request and they know it will help the overall negotiation of the deal for higher volumes of stock bought by the retailer, better marketing rates and improved position in stores.



    On reflection, I thought the core Batman campaign offered great value. The Catwoman stuff is nice to have but is rather tacked on and I've not even bothered about the Robin content. In my opinion the retailer stuff is a bonus and isn't particularly depriving consumers who didnt buy at GAME
    Edited by cowell at 22/12/11 @ 15:30

  • schnide #38 5 months ago

    NEWSFLASH! MAJORITY OF COMMENTORS SHOW MASSIVE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT

    If you don't like it, buy the standard game at the cheapest price. As long as you're not missing out on something which should have been in the original game in the first place, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and is no different to many other industries.

    This is from the personal point of view of someone who bought Arkham City, fancied one or two of the extra skins, but didn't fancy paying any extra for them. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

  • FenderMaster #39 5 months ago

    Theres two ways at looking at this DLC fad:

    1. Retailers are adding additional content on top of a full game if you pre-order at their shops. You can buyt additional post-release content from other retailers yourself, but this is bonus stuff.

    2. Developers are cutting bits out of their games, and handing them out to retailers as exclusive pre-order DLC. In order to get the FULL game you must pay extra for the DLC (content that should have been in the game for everyone) offered at other retailers. This content is often already on the disc and locked out with a code, or it's available on release day rather than several months after release.

    Honestly, we all know that the latter is the rule, not the exception. Now I couldn't care less about unlockable Street Fighter costumes, it's an aesthetic extra, it doesn't affect the gameplay. But I do care about levels, characters and missions being cut out of my games.

    This Payne fella seems to think locking out content to gamers everywhere because of where they bought their game is a good thing, and saving us from a bland world where *Gasp* all of the content is on the disc to be unlocked through playing the game! So offer costumes, a tee-shirt, a poster or whatever, but don't cut levels out of my game and make me choose one free then buy the rest, that's just being a cunt.

  • cellardoor #40 5 months ago

    Arkham City ultimately suffered as a result of all this.
    The on-disc content was good enough but felt a little unfinished, mostly because about a quarter of the game's actual content wasn't on the disc.
    Skyrim is a real dinosaur when you realise Bethesda have managed to contain all of the games diversions and content on the disc you buy. Yeah, there's future DLC, but it's not going to be vital to my getting the most out of the game now (patches asidwe).
    In the future I would want game's makers to discount release prices and then charge £40+ a month later when all the pre-order content can be put into one package.
    Whilst you're at it offer an off-line package for people like me that don't ever approach online multiplayer and discount the release. Fuck knows i'm never going to touch Assassin's Creed online content so why should I be paying for that to be included?
    .

  • Inmediasress #41 5 months ago

    @arcam

    That's what I'm talkign about.

    I mean they always piss and moan about piracy and secondhand sales.
    They always play this card whenever there is some controversial and simply dickhead move on their part.
    Like online passes, shity DLC preorders and just DLC in general.
    The real probelm is that people actually believe that for example it is some sort of great expense on their part to make a different batman skin or a different weapon skin. They forget that making DLC especially day one DLC is already calcualted in teh cost of making the game some games are basically DLC fests.

    The kind of apologetic people that gobble up this garbage and help feed the mosnter drives me mad.
    Of course they can vote with their wallets yes tell that to a junkie.
    The publsihers know they can get away with almsot anything because the sheep will buy it.

    Frankly they could at least shut their trap and not moan about how they need more money.
    Next they'll be asking me to donate to them because they are so poor.
    The self entitlement in the game industry is just sick, they are starting to get worse than the music industry.

    @cellardoor

    Arlham city was basically created for milking people with DLC.
    It was shorter than Arkham Asylum by far, and the whole structure of the game suggested a lot of cut out content that we will see as DLC down the road.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 22/12/11 @ 15:37

  • Okamiwolf #42 5 months ago

    @butler` Lots of games have had Steam, Origin or Ubi online store exclusive extras.

  • arcam #43 5 months ago

    "C'mon. My mortage isn't paid up, I've got to figure out how my kids are going to go to college."

    Says the man with a net worth of 5 million dollars. These people are just not speaking from the same perspective as the rest of us.

    I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that it's hard to take seriously him disputing the average gamers' definition of greediness.

  • cowell #44 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:36:01 22-12-2011

  • Phinor #45 5 months ago

    I know it's a tough business for retailers and publishers but know this: I have already skipped buying few games due to their pre-order DLC policy and if they keep shoving more of this pre-order stuff at us, it becomes easier to skip games I'm not completely sure about. On the other hand if I want a game, I will buy it regardless of pre-order stuff. My priorities are price and availability ie. how quick can they deliver.

    So while pre-order stuff will bring in some new orders, they are losing some other sales. Whether they are gaining more than they are losing, I don't know. Probably not yet but as pre-order stuff becomes more ridiculous, it might eventually turn into losing more than gaining.

  • TazerFan #46 5 months ago

    I don't know, I barely notice this stuff. This feels like one of those things that is only disliked by people on internet forums. I buy all my games on amazon.com. If there's a perk, cool. If not, cool. I've yet to encounter any optional pre-order DLC that actually changes the game in a way significantly enough for me to care.
    A separate source close to UK retail, who wished to remain nameless, suggested retailers have a rather less altruistic motive in offering customers these added extras.
    Stop the presses! Of course a business does not have an altruistic motive. It's a goddamn business.

  • nickthegun #47 5 months ago

    "One offering, one SKU sold at one price probably leads to quite a bland world,"
    Its true. For almost 30 years I have been saying "You know what? I wish there were more versions of Manic Miner/Super Mario Land/Doom".

    Having to sit down with an excel spreadsheet to plan where I am going to buy my games sure is a more fun and innovative way of purchasing products.

    Thanks modern games industry!

  • basiclee #48 5 months ago

    Doesn't make any difference to me, I use retailers that have always offered me good service and competitive pricing regardless of extras. If a big chunk of the main game was missing I'd be pretty upset but when it comes to extra costumes and the such I couldn't care less.

  • riceNpea #49 5 months ago

    i wish reviews were as lengthy as this article.

  • A_Nonny #50 5 months ago

    '"If it's a single, one size fits all offering - a black Ford or whatever - then it's a race to the bottom in term of pricing, and that can only be bad news for the content creators," he pointed out.'

    I guess that's why games never made any profit before DLC existed.

  • Naster #51 5 months ago

    The retail exclusive extras really shouldn't extend to in-game content. You don't see movies having exclusive alternate endings or additional scenes you only get if buying them from certain retailers. Stuff like extra starting money or gear in games can hurt the balance of a game. And then there are stuff like Dead Space-inspired armor in Dragon Age, which don't fit the game's story.

    I'm okay with outside-the-game exclusives though, like soundtracks, maps, wallpapers, t-shirts, special packaging, avatars, wallpapers.

  • Stompy #52 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 23:13:35 17-04-2012

  • GreyBeard #53 5 months ago

    LOL at the idiots moaning about Arkham City. Its a bigger, better version of Arkham Asylum with far more content even excluding all add-ons.

    This is the reason you are criticised for your ridiculous sense of self-entitlement. The developers give you more, but its never enough because like greedy spoilt children YOU MUST HAVE IT ALL.

    And piracy/used sales aren't a "card", they are an economic reality that needs to be addressed, even if you are too immature and ignorant to recognize the fact.

  • riz23 #54 5 months ago

    What's with the comment about users threatening to boycott Battlefield 3 because the Physical Warfare Pack unbalanced the game? I must have missed that. From my experience those weapons were no better or worse than any others, and they are available to all now.
    What should be pointed out and discussed is why a huge amount of the codes didn't fucking work in the first place? How's that for an incentive pre-order dlc that is broken? I had to phone up the retailer (at a considerable cost) to get a working code. It's not unique either.

  • Whitster #55 5 months ago

    I've got no problem with retailer exclusive content as thats not new to gaming, it's existed in the film and music sphere as well.

    What we're getting now though isn't retaler exclusive content, but retailer exclusive Limited Editions, buy Arkham City: Robin Edition at game and get Robin missions, but you still have to pay £5 extra!

    The Mass Effect 3 Limited Edition takes the biscuit though. The limited editions of the last few games were around 45-50 depending on where you went. Because the ME:3 one is exclusive to Game Group they want £70 for it because they know you can't go elsewhere.

  • SleepyGlenn #56 5 months ago

    Fair enough. I'll put up with a degree of Pre-order DLC if it really helps the industry. I think I'll judge it as it comes.

  • A_Nonny #57 5 months ago

    "You don't see movies having exclusive alternate endings or additional scenes you only get if buying them from certain retailers."

    You don't see Sony Pictures releasing movies that can only be played on Sony Blu Ray players either. The gaming industry has it's own set of bizarre rules.

  • s3y3 #58 5 months ago

    If I'm paying the full price for the game I should be getting the full game. Not some half arsed version because I got it from the wrong retailer. Simple as.

  • spongebob #59 5 months ago

    As long as the pre-order extras are just that, extras, then it's fine by me. When it makes people play on different maps or with different advantages then it becomes an issue that needs to be dealt with.

  • SlackMaster #60 5 months ago

    Additional content like costumes and the odd bonus mission doesn't bother me too much. Sometimes I don't even use the additional content codes or online passes that come with games.

    The thing I do have a problem with though, most recently demonstrated by capcom is when a game gets released with very little content or extra modes and then the same game with the extras is released later that year at close to full price, i.e. £29.99.

    This happened with Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, and while it might be a good game it breaks up the user base between the different versions and really should have been in the original version. I think the original MVC3 only had a versus mode and poor net code which capcom only addressed in the Ultimate version.

  • misinformed #61 5 months ago

    "Similarly, he argued, it's in all of our interests to support traditional high street retailers and ensure the industry doesn't go digital-only."

    I dont feel that the high street should survive just because it exists. Thats a more general point he's mingling in there to create bit of consumer sympathy for stores specialising in software.

    Theres no reason to have a shop to go to and browse, when all the products are software, you know exactly what your going to get. You dont need to inspect the item, touch it, feel it, smell it. One pacman here is one pacman there and retailers realised this almost immedialty.

    They cant compete on price so it's the old "added value" route (a tiny amount of extra content and a lot of percieved value).

    But dont let him tell you that it's for the good of the high street.

    I dont think the consumer will be any worse off without physical stores, apart from a few more people cursing their postman when they get a little "Sorry you were out" slip through the letterbox.

  • woodyrulesok #62 5 months ago

    "When DLC first came out it was bits of the game that didn't make it in. Now people plan DLC before they've even got past the pre-production stage."

    This, this pisses me off.

  • Shikasama #63 5 months ago

    So everyone linked with the industry thinks it is a brilliant idea because it costs them nothing and they make more money, either through pre orders or selling the DLC later on.

    Who knew?

    Sarcasm aside, it's nice to see someone at Eg actually pretending to be ajournalist rather than a PR vehicle. Weird it's Fred Dutton though.

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #64 5 months ago

    @arcam

    Says the man with a net worth of 5 million dollars. These people are just not speaking from the same perspective as the rest of us.

    Net Worth != paycheck

    David Jaffe is not making millions for himself. Neither is Kojima, Levine or even Miyamoto (Miyamoto actually gets a salary just over what a typical Japanese salaryman makes, he's set for life on his Nintendo stock options though). Game Development has a very middle class salary for those in senior positions and low entry level salaries.

    If you are looking to get rich, don't get into game development.

  • arcam #65 5 months ago

    @Ironic_War_Criminal

    Nintendo coughed up its numbers, revealing that Iwata has a base salary of ¥100 million ($770,000 USD) but can reach to ¥187 million ($2.11 million USD) thanks to performance-based bonuses.

    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Iwata-Miyamoto-Salary-Japan-Games,news-7270.html

    In other words, what on earth are you talking about?

  • jah #66 5 months ago

    As unpopular as it is this form of DLC is almost always very small and unsignificant. Whenever I do preorder from a big company and get it I find I can get better stuff quite early on so I barley ever use it. People complained about the BF3 stuff but to be honest those people probably suck because I never get killed by the DAE or whatever it was. I should think its responsible for less than ten of my total deaths.

  • myk #67 5 months ago

    Compare the price of Mass Effect 3 PC standard edition and the Game-exclusive collectors edition and try to tell me retailer exclusives aren't price gouging.

  • digitalash #68 5 months ago

    The worst one I've encountered was Deus Ex: HR. I don't think it was retailer specific, more a project ten dollar style thing but if you bought the game new you got some bonus kit and a bonus mission. Most of it was nice, but not a dealbreaker. The bonus mission was fun but peripheral, the bonus weapon was a powerful grenade launcher but there were similar guns available. What really bothered me was the addition of auto-lockpicking tools, which worked like grenades. This fundamentally changed the way the game is played (arguably for the worse) because it devalued the lockpicking skill; you could just buy a stack of the auto-picks instead, and get past important locks that way.
    Edited by digitalash at 22/12/11 @ 18:23

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #69 5 months ago

    @arcam

    Ah, the ol' "Try move the goalposts trick"

    You missed the "Development" part. Being at the top end of a publisher is where the money is (See Kotick, B.). Developing the games themselves wont make you rich and the salaries reflect that. Hell, Iwata's salary is rather low for the CEO of a top level electronics company.

    I live on the real earth, you live in spergland where every developer is a millionare actively screwing the gamer over.

  • Freek #70 5 months ago

    Making the customer hate you with anoying extra shit is never going to be the way to get more sales. It's just one more reason to go digital. Wait till one of the many crazy Steam sales and get the game on the cheap.
    Fuck retail.

  • arcam #71 5 months ago

    @Ironic_War_Criminal

    LOL, I am moving the goalposts? I didn't say anything about developers' salaries, that was you.

    If you think David Jaffe is struggling to pay his mortgage, Miyamoto earns the same as your average Japanese worker and Kojima and Levine haven't got rich through gaming, at least provide some evidence. I've backed up everything I've said.

  • KanePaws #72 5 months ago

    "Andy Payne, UK games industry veteran and boss of distributor Mastertronic, argues that, for the most part, this is all a good thing. It's an opportunity for retailers to maximise their potential profit,"

    You can stop right there, because that's all it's really about.

    "...while gamers get a more diverse marketplace in which they can choose the type of content they want [as well as the greater amount of content they must forego because of exclusivity]."

    Fixed that last bit.

  • ronorra #73 5 months ago

    @schnide "NEWSFLASH! MAJORITY OF COMMENTORS SHOW MASSIVE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT"

    Yea imagine that, consumers that dont want to be nickle dimed but want to have a complete package when buying a game, how dare they...

  • Bander #74 5 months ago

    I hate the idea that by buying from one place, I might lose out on some content that another place has.

    I hate the idea that extra content can be lost forever if I choose to resell the game.

    But most of all, I'm getting really quite sick of having to research all this nonsense for each game and each retailer (supermarkets are getting in on this as well? I didn't even know), commit to a pre-order, and still find that there's an online pass or season pass or some content related to registering to a website that I didn't know about. And then the shop that I eventually order from messes up their pre-order quantity anyway or the publisher gets its codes wrong and I'm knocked back down to a regular edition and it's too late to do anything about it...

    Is this hobby really worth the stress?

  • Discalceaterabbit #75 5 months ago

    Games are overpriced on release.
    I base this on the fact that 90% of games released at a price tag of £40 will be half of that within 6 weeks.
    I bought three new releases this year.
    Dragon Age II, for which I paid full price on the understanding that it was a brilliant genre defining RPG.
    What I got was an expansion pack with less content and a worse story than Awakening.
    To add insult to injury, within a month it was available for less than £20.
    After that, I swore I would never pay full price for a game again.
    The last game I bought was Skyrim.
    Which is brilliant and would have been well worth £40.
    However I waited a whole 3 weeks for it to be available for £20 and I can only wonder if I would have been pissed at that had I bought it at full price.
    So long as the industry treats its customers like morons they should not be surprised when customers view the industry as a gluttonous monstrosity.

  • bodhi85uk #76 5 months ago

    I hate that they dress this up as choice for the consumer, and especially dislike the part where he says they may "look at it again in future if this is what consumers want", referring to more preorder incentives. What people want is the whole game irrespective of where they buy it.

    Do these Asshats not see that for every person they attract with a character skin, they loose another (that may usually have bought from them) but instead choses another retailer as they had an item they preferred seeing as every store does this nowadays?

  • sjmlondon #77 5 months ago

    On release I saw every retailer with their own version of Batman Arkham City so whatever version you bought you were going to be missing out of something. Did they expect us to buy the game 4 times, like magazines used to does with 5 different covers?

    I though sod that. I'll what for the GOTY edition to come out next year and wait for a couple of weeks after it is released for it to be half price like all other games are these days.

    We're not all daft.

    As for the deluge of DLC, it is like the industry is having one last binge and milking the current generation of consoles / games releases for all they're worth before we all make the leap to the next generation and people start buying games again in sufficient numbers for publishers to ease off on this c*ap.


    I'd rather have a level playing field so everyone got the same game, you could safely buy from any retailers in the knowledge that the product was the same everywhere like cereals or washing powder.

    If you going to release DLC, make it a proper expansion pack, not crappy character skins, an odd new car, or boring rehashed maps from last years edition.

  • Neil__ #78 5 months ago

    @schnide
    "NEWSFLASH! MAJORITY OF COMMENTORS SHOW MASSIVE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT"

    How is it we never hear the media (or retards like schnide for that matter) complain about CEO's thinking they're 'entitled' to earn millions a year in salary?
    Entitlement hate is nothing but a new means for corporations and politicians to justify exploiting the poor.

    Entitlement, my right to pay myself millions in bonuses for finding ways of taking money from people who earn 500 times less than I do
    Edited by Neil__ at 22/12/11 @ 20:21

  • mastablasta #79 5 months ago

    MONEY, that's the reason

  • Gastrian #80 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • silversun #81 5 months ago

    Work in retail so can't comment on this story too much , but i would like to see dlc that is exclusive get sold on the online networks say 6-12 months later if they go this route.

  • Letsalljusthavefun #82 5 months ago

    The only thing the Arkham City pre-order skins made me think was they would've been so much more awesome as in-game unlocks with the riddler challenges...

  • obidanshinobi #83 5 months ago

    Luckily there were alot of good trade in deals this year in Game and HMV if you didn't mind not keeping them after SP completion.
    Driver SF -> Gear of War 3 for £5 -> Rage £5 -> Batman AC 99p !!! from HMV :) -> Uncharted 3 £10 or £5 (can't remember) -> skyrim for £5 :). Bought Forza 4 on release aswell but paid full price (£40).
    Got Driver SF from CEX (had £90 credit) for £38 as an impulse buy (best impulse buy ever !) when the Dead Island 360 drought was on :( . Used more of that credit for Dead Island on 360 when it finally became available in my local CEX.
    Been a fairly cheap awesome Autumn of gaming.
    Nice.
    Edited by obidanshinobi at 22/12/11 @ 19:39

  • Derblington #84 5 months ago

    @butler`

    Don't be naive. Origin will offer exclusive content to secure sales over Steam, and there are plenty of other digital stores, not to mention the ones that will start up once traditional retail dies out, that will all get in on the practice.

  • Alex_976 #85 5 months ago

    How long until the retailers start offering free gamerscore for preordering.
    100g preordered at Game.

  • GreyBeard #86 5 months ago

    How the fuck can you "exploit the poor" when you're selling a non-essential luxury item? You don't have a divine right to get everything your little heart desires. That's not consumer freedom that's acting like a spoilt child.

    Its amazing to me. Noone is putting a gun to anyone's head here. If you don't like the deals offered, you're free to spend your money on something else. That's supreme control, yet strangely, that doesn't seem to be enough.

    If the business of making boxed-product games was as lucrative as some of you seem to think, there'd be a whole lot more product out there than there is.

  • Elfworks #87 5 months ago

    I pre order pretty much everything I'm interested in at my local Gamestation just so it will keep a physical store in business, even if I don't get round to buying it from there or have money it means there is an extra copy for someone else. It's a small store so it needs the help when a Game is on the other side of town and big retailers like tesco or asda.

    It is still your choice as a customer when it comes to buying games, pre order bonuses don't mean anything if you don't want to take part. It shouldn't be about stores offering different bonuses, they have that in all aspects of shopping (for £20 there or bogof there or cheaper online) It should be about this new idea that DLC is planned to be extra rather than content that should be on disc on release day, that's what needs a bit more investigating I think.
    Edited by Elfworks at 22/12/11 @ 20:19

  • oerhoert #88 5 months ago

    "If it's a single, one size fits all offering - a black Ford or whatever - then it's a race to the bottom in term of pricing, and that can only be bad news for the content creators," he pointed out.
    The customer shouldn't care about this. This is what capitalism is good at; removing stupid barriers and making commodities affordable. There is not going to be a 'race to the bottom', the race will be towards whatever is the most affordable price point possible that still is financially viable.

    Similarly, he argued, it's in all of our interests to support traditional high street retailers and ensure the industry doesn't go digital-only. Any initiative that helps them out can only be a good thing.
    Again, the consumer has no reason to care about 'helping out' retailers. The consumer wants the best deal, and games are not going to go away even if retailers do.
    Edited by oerhoert at 22/12/11 @ 20:24

  • Neil__ #89 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 21:04:44 22-12-2011

  • immateriaux #90 5 months ago

    When this type of thing first emerged, when it was simply a "pre-order the game and get a bonus" thing, I was pretty much hooked on pre-ordering, I wanted the extra sword/car/wang whatever and it was the incentive to commit to the purchase publishers, and retailers, obviously wanted - it worked.

    The current model of retailer specific content is bjorked though. Instead of "get this" for a pre-order, it amounts to, "not get this" by ordering in this place. We're now being made conscious of what we don't get rather than being rewarded.

    I've found myself lately completely losing interest in the pre-order scenario, rather than try juggle and decide from what I'll lose out on, it's easier to simply look for the cheapest deal and get on with it.* Ultimately, people know when they are being taken for a ride and this is very obvious exploitation.

    PS: *nevermind the fact, also, I'm really irked at anyone trying to motivate me into buying from a GAME store, the worst retail experience provider on the planet; a pre-order bonus of a massage from Lindsay Lohan's tits wouldn't be enough to inspire me to shop there ever again.

  • Po1ymorph #91 5 months ago

    I no longer pre-order games any more, Arkham City was the final strew in that decision.

    There appeared to be 4 or 5 different content deals depending on who I pre ordered from, it was confusing and very frustrating.

  • xYOSSARIANx #92 5 months ago

    I'm old enough to know when Jonathan Hayes said pre-order and retailer exclusive content, "....is all about adding great value to the customer.", is just not true.. In reality it's going to be completely different. That was marketing speak bullshit 101.

    It'd be hard to say no to a game I really want even knowing I was locked out of content for not pre-ordering or buying from a specific retailer. But it certainly does make a difference when impulse buying, do I want game A which is complete or do I want game B which I'm going to not have access to some skins, a weapon or two, a map or couple of missions/quests. No brainer, the one that is missing the content does not get bought.

  • SG #93 5 months ago

    I'm a fan of regulated capitalism

    Don't complain about having a mortgage then, trying to justify. I'm not a fan of our current form of capitalism so I will moan.

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #94 5 months ago

    its pretty clear that its done as a means of competition between the stores and take you away from just buying stuff online by giving better deals in a store. Thats been pretty obvious since all these preorder crap started.
    Edited by HeNiCiDe1988 at 22/12/11 @ 22:15

  • silverjon #95 5 months ago

    Whether physical or digital extras, the consumer still has the power to exercise choice. The frustrating thing is the way certain retailers use their "high street" presence (ie: Tesco's 2-3 million to Game's 1/2m nationally) to forge exclusive deals with the developers which are a win/win for them but a loss for any gamer who chooses not to join in. It's a bit like Sky getting rights to major sporting occasions which serves certain sports very well financially and secures income from fans. Morally fair ? Perhaps not. Good business ? Undoubtedly.

  • callum9999 #96 5 months ago

    So to summarise the article - it's because having an exclusive increases sales at that retailer?

    Is there a single person on here who didn't already know that?

  • jonbwfc #97 5 months ago

    "I know, I know, you're probably going to get 1000 comments on that, with people going 'oh, developers are f****** greedy'. Dude, I'm not greedy. C'mon. My mortage isn't paid up, I've got to figure out how my kids are going to go to college.
    So do I. 'Dude'. And I don't think you providing me with less of a product for the same money is going to do anything but make me want to keep my money in my pocket. And if we all buy less games, how are you going to pay your mortgage then? Or you just expect us to give you money regardless of what you do? Here's a tip for you - you make gamers want to give you more money by making more games and better games. Not by some braindead variant on a three cup trick that makes them resent your very existence.
    Edited by jonbwfc at 22/12/11 @ 23:35

  • mossmanfly #98 5 months ago

    Have to agree with the majority of other comments, I personally hate pre order exclusives.

    To be honest I hardly pre order games now, last one was Saints Row 3, well and RDR GOTY and before then it was Just Cause 2. I don't pre order them because A) Within a few weeks/months its half price if not more than that B) All the DLC which they release over the months then gets packaged into a GOTY edition later C) Why should I choose whether to get the game with an extra weapon or character for example

    I understand for retailers its a way to get people buying their version with their DLC. Also offering exclusive pre order DLC developers/publishers are trying to get sales in the bag so to speak before the game is released. But what if Films were released in this way, pre order from retailer A and you get this extra action scene, but retailer B has a different action scene which do you choose?

    I think for the consumer we get a raw deal, as we have to choose what we want before we play the game, which pre order bonus we think we would like.

    I personally think DLC has got out of hand, its turned into a money making scheme rather than offering us added value. Don't get me wrong some DLC I think is worth it especially when its full blown missions expansions like Fallout, Oblivion (Shivering Isles DLC) etc but to have on disc DLC at release or a few weeks down the line is just ripping us consumers off. Even worst is a selection of cheats available for purchase (Saints Row 3 for one) or purchasing unlocks for cars that you unlock in the game (Pretty much every EA racing game).

    Would love to go back to the days of buy the game and get everything the developers wanted to put into that game and not have to worry about missing out on any content. And then if they wanted to expand the game then make a decent DLC add on thats worth the money. Or offer us T-shirts or someother stuff, cause I couldn't care less about that sort of stuff, gone are the days where I would buy a more expensive version of a game for a art book or something that has no use.
    Edited by mossmanfly at 22/12/11 @ 23:46

  • deez #99 5 months ago

    I'd imagine in time publishers would love to push usdown the freemium route, i.e. cheap at entry level, expensive if you want to complete or master a game.

  • ilmaestro #100 5 months ago

    This has been standard practice in Japan for a long time, mainly with anime and PC games, to keep people buying at B&M stores rather than moving completely online.

    Where they get it right (and, by extension, where the industry over here gets it wrong) is that the extras offered are in no way connected to the actual anime (ie. they are not extra episodes or something) or game (ie. they are not bonus levels or costumes) but are cool collectables or pieces of artwork that fans of the thing might want, and the people who are not clamoring to get something on release day probably don't care about (ie. no moaning about not being to able to purchase the thing later on).

    --

    "A separate source close to UK retail, who wished to remain nameless, suggested retailers have a rather less altruistic motive in offering customers these added extras."

    No shit, Sherlock.

  • captain-future #101 5 months ago

    I REALLY REALLY don't care about "exclusive" DLC... when I buy a "special" Edition of a Game (or pre-order) it must have some physical value, e.g. soundtrack CD or figurine or booklet/artwork or making of-DVD etc.

    But c'mon stinking "exclusive" DLC, I laugh about this, you'll eventually get it later (often for free) or can release the goodies in-game after after a while.

    Everything else I count as "stupid marketing", e.g. if I can't buy or access certain "exclusive" DLC of a game - AND I'm ware of this horseshit, I simply won't buy the game.

    I will not award devs and publishers for bullshitting me.

  • Bander #102 5 months ago

    @lslaa3737 If I pre-order a handbag, does it come with any extra bonus content?

  • StooMonster #103 5 months ago

    @HL706 Game may have been charging 42 and Tesco 35 but they were probably paying the same for their stock, and thus the publisher makes the same no matter which retailer actually sold it.

    It's just that Tesco choose to make a smaller margin on the sale.

    They have a different cost base to a dedicated games retailer and a different purpose for selling it so they can do this ... as they've done with books, CDs, DVDs, etc in the past.

  • mke67 #104 5 months ago

    @Tomahawk exatly....

  • ATNR1 #105 5 months ago

    I would just like to say seriously, fuck DlC's! I pay for the game, I also wanna play as fat Batman! Stick your DlC's right up your ass! I'd rather spend my hard earned cash on buying my 4 year old son an actual semi automatic, than paying for a fake one!

    BTW I bought myself a real Batman costume, now I look just like the fat Batman! So there in your face you greedy Bastards!

  • rabbler #106 5 months ago

    I know, I know, you're probably going to get 1000 comments on that, with people going 'oh, developers are f****** greedy'. Dude, I'm not greedy. C'mon. My mortage isn't paid up, I've got to figure out how my kids are going to go to college.
    God Jaffe's a fuckwit. Jordan Mechner paid his way through college and set himself up for life on the royalties of just two games. Jaffe should spend less time hawking shithouse TwistedMetal games and complaining when we don't buy them for the the shit pieces of overpriced simple games they are. And more time making something reasonable. Maybe then he wouldn't still be paying off a mortgage at age 40.
    Edited by rabbler at 23/12/11 @ 07:14

  • busboy33 #107 5 months ago

    I don't mind retailer pre-order bonuses with some caveats.

    A unique skin? An extra background song? Some other non-gameplay-impacting doodle? Fine. There' I can completely see the "additional value" for the pre-order without harming other consumers.

    A new map? Extra game modes? Unique powerful weapons? That's a serious problem (especially in a multiplayer game). Now, if you want to offer it as a pre-order bonus simultaneous with making the content available for purchase, then fine -- its like free DLC. But if you're gimping something important out of my game (or giving my opponents an unfair advantage), then we have a problem.

    I've become quite taken with the Season Pass model in games like Gears of War 3. The pre-order bonuses for Gears were unique weapon skins . . . fine. Anything game-changing (new missions, new maps) is sold as regular DLC, with a wholesale discount if you "pre-order" all the DLC by purchasing the pass. Don't want to do that? Then buy the DLC normally -- your choice.

  • davisorle #108 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Pwnsweet #109 5 months ago

    The sooner brick and mortar stores are cut out of the equation the better. When the retailers are making more money per game sold than the developers (as it is in Australia) you know that there's a problem. I'd much rather buy my games directly from the developers than from a greedy brick and mortar store.
    Edited by Pwnsweet at 23/12/11 @ 09:09

  • mikeck #110 5 months ago

    @FenderMaster You missed one important piece of the DLC puzzle: content that developers create additionally to extend the core game experience.

    You don't believe that all the awesome DLC for Borderlands was cut from the game do you?

    This is the exception, not the rule, but I spent a lot of time when dealing with publishers (from a PSN Store perspective) trying to educate on the benefits of additive DLC, and not simply lopping off core game content.

    There are great examples of how to do DLC, and of course examples of how not to.

  • schnide #111 5 months ago

    @Neil__

    "Retards"? Well you're clearly the master of debate as an artform aren't you.

    Yes, it's entirely your right to pay yourself those bonuses if you want to. You may not like it, but I suspect that's because you're not the one doing it, and someone else is. It's called jealousy, unless you're coming at this from the point of some kind of egalitarian socialist?

    For the time being, get this through your head - that is OUR money because WE give it to them. If you don't like something, stop buying it. It is that simple in almost every case.
    Edited by schnide at 23/12/11 @ 12:34

  • schnide #112 5 months ago

    @ronorra

    Allow me to reiterate:

    "As long as you're not missing out on something which should have been in the original game in the first place.."

  • Skyclad #113 5 months ago

    Quite a long article. Please let me sum it up in two words: Bland Rip-off.

    Here's a hint:
    What about developing high quality games?
    Look at Skyrim: No preorder crap, no Day 1 DLC, no online or season pass ... does that mean Bethesda will be broke soon? Or does it mean another thing? I think it means you don't need all this "incentives" if you know you produced a great game people will buy.

    And why does Eurogamer publish such an one-sided article which sounds like cheap propaganda to prepare us to think it is a good thing to
    a) be happy with 50% of a game at launch.
    b) be even happier to pay more than 100 pounds for a game that would have been a complete game 10 years ago.

  • Tasco #114 5 months ago

    At the end of the day, i am paying say £39.99 for a game or whatever, then I expect the full game.

    I do not wish to be charged via Xbox Live for add ons that someone else has got for free or the same price I paid for the game in the first place!

  • super_monty #115 5 months ago

    I have still not bought Batman I am on the vote with your wallet side here, I will wait until it costs about £5 pre-owned so the devs and publishers don't get a penny.

  • benfresh76 #116 5 months ago

    Publishers ruin this industry.

  • bf #117 5 months ago

    @cowell That would work if it wasn't for publishers blaming piracy at every turn when a game doesn't sell.

  • Shinetop #118 5 months ago

    View all ▸

    A separate source close to UK retail, who wished to remain nameless, suggested retailers have a rather less altruistic motive in offering customers these added extras. Essentially, times are tough on the high street and retailers need all the help they can get making their particular offering stand out from the competition.

    "They need to make sales and they need to offer a unique package to be able to do that," said the source. "It's a difficult market at the moment. Prices are high. People don't want to spend their money. So you have to offer them something they can't get anywhere else."
    No way, that's incredible!

    Seriously, isn't this utterly obvious? Of course they do it as an incentive to buy from them instead of from the competition. This isn't even a secret. Methinks a certain "source close to UK retail" wants to be Deep Throat a bit too much with all this "wishing to remain nameless" nonsense.

  • Neppy #119 5 months ago

    What irks me is the fact this mostly affects those who do pre-order or buy the game in the first few weeks of release for full price. Aren't those the best customers since they spend the most money? I think people would feel better if they felt rewarded for doing that; for example if one registers their online pass thing most games have these days in the first month of release they can download all the other retailer exclusive content another month or two down the line for free, while those that do wait for a price drop would have to pay after that time.

  • TheN7Spectre #120 5 months ago

    @woodyrulesok I share your sentiment. I read a tweet from one of the BioWare guys not too long ago saying they were playing "DLC playthroughs" for Mass Effect 3. The post-launch content is essentially complete but they're going to deliberately withhold it until after the main title's release.
    Edited by TheN7Spectre at 23/12/11 @ 12:00

  • Purist #121 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 12:40:53 23-12-2011

  • Gastrian #122 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • Spryte #123 5 months ago

    @Neppy I think your 'early adopter bonus' concept is a very good idea for fairly distributing the retailer specific DLC. It creates a very balanced three tier system. Firstly retailers get a specific 'hook' to ensure they have a 'unique' version of the game at launch, the time when this is valuable to them. Secondly gamers who pay the premium for the latest title get a little reward down the line. This is fine because the stores no long care about the title in question, as they are hawking the next must have triple A release. Finally those who wait for the price of the game to drop before purchasing have the option to splash a little of the cash they saved and buy the DLC for the 'complete' experience, or they can carry on without ugly skin 17 for the protagonist in generic third person shooter 8 like brave little soldiers.

  • savant #124 5 months ago

    I hate buying a game knowing that I'm missing out on content, so I wait for the GOTY editions or rent. I would gladly have bought Arkham City on release, but the combination of the Catwoman code (my 360 is offline) and the multitude of different retailer-specific skin and map packs meant that I skipped it.

    Likewise, I'll wait for the Forza 4 Ultimate edition, thanks. In the meantime I'll be playing indie games like VVVVVV, which are fun, supported with free DLC, and don't cost the earth.

  • gandhimaster #125 5 months ago

    I have no problem with a pre order bonus. I do however have a problem with retailer specific ones that DONT end up as DLC sometime in the future. I'll even pay for it, if it arrives sometime after launch.

    If a retailer offers a pre order bonus that will never be available after launch as DLC (free or paid), then we gotta problem fuckers. :D

    Giving an incentive is different than restricting content. I really hope developers and publishers realise this quickly.

  • gandhimaster #126 5 months ago

    @Spryte totally agree with one exception mate. GAME don't immediately start hawking the next AAA game, they immediately start selling as many pre owned copies as they can so they can make some real money. Sadly.

  • Oxyster #127 5 months ago

    Pre-ordering - I NEVER pre-order, what's the point? there are always copies available, it's just another way of squeezing the lemon(i.e. the customer). Besides, digital distribution through Steam and the like basically makes it impossible for them to run out of stock and having retailer specific DLC just makes me angry.

    Retailer specific DLC - I pay for the game, I want ALL the content. I can understand them wanting to have something that gives them the edge over the competition, but they have this back-asswards. If I want to play batman wearing a frog-suit, I shouldn't have to buy through a specific retailer, It should be available for a modest fee(I've come to accept DLC charges, as long as they add something to the game and are not required to fully enjoy the original experience.

    A stern example of this was when Mass effect 2 came out. The edition I bought contained the blood dragon armour. I loved it, But i found out later that if I had bought the collector edition I would recieve collector armour. If I had spent the extra £10 on the collector's edition, I would not have recieved the blood dragon armour. no matter which way I go, I can't have the content I want.

    Why can't I have both? Because companies are greedy bastards. That's why.

  • JadedSoul #128 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 08:10:55 26-04-2012

  • DisneyJon #129 5 months ago

    Hmm not an overly brilliant article - Tesco is wrong in saying that for Red Dead certain retailers had free bonuses - there was just the Limited Edition which was a premium price with the added DLC items. That made the game easier.

    It seems that the developers in particular just simply do not get it. Most people, myself included, see piecemeal DLC as simply charging people for content that, several years ago, was part of what you bought. Use Batman as an example - when the Iceberg Lounge or Joker Carnival map is available as DLC on day one then that is content that should be on the disc. It's content that prolongs the life of the game.

    As the article points out, the cost of making this DLC is negligible.....yet the price it is sold for, often with no way to try before purchasing, is not.

    As a way of generating preorders? People largely pursue the cheapest price or the best deal to them, whether it be to buy outright, or trade against. In terms of that price.....developers should focus on creating a great value for money experience and that will allow people to decide the value of the game and whether they trade it back in at a later date.

    Ultimately, the two biggest multiplatform titles of the year, COD MW3 and Skyrim, had no day one DLC preorder incentives and no online pass. In terms of value, COD MW3 is one of few titles to retain any kind of value.

    The DLC for Batman was shit, boring arena's with massive repetition and the skins had stupid restrictions on them. Not enough that gamers could have actually spent money on this content, but are then restricted on how they use it.....

    I feel there is an ever increasing disconnect between the people who make games, and the people who buys games. Developers have become too self entitled and forget what really drives the industry. Alienate and annoy your customers and slowly you destroy the industry one person at a time. 1980's style epic crash here we come.....

  • Clive_Dunn #130 5 months ago

    I think the article misses the key point behind the retailer specific DLC - publishers use it as a sell in tool as it makes getting that all important order from that retailer a bit easier to land ( especially as once it's agreed to do the promotion you've got a bit more leverage than normal ).

    However for me, the whole thing is profoundly illogical. By definition you increase your dev costs and multiply your SKU count. Neither of these is preferable and therefore only justifiable by increasing total sell through. Does retailer specific DLC do this ? Does it fuck.

    Also, by agreeing the DLC content you are pushing a more attractive SKU into certain retailers. Because of the numbers involved and the costs incurred, you agree this with the bigger retailers ( lets say Game and Amazon for example ). Both of these will have lower prices than everyone else because of their size, and now you've given them a preferential SKU as well.

    So in effect you've not increased the total sales, but have promoted the sales through the customers with the lowest margin, thereby decreasing your gross revenue figures over time.

    Basically it's lazy short term publishing at it's worst. Decisions are made not for the long term benefit of the publisher or franchise, but to hit a profit figure for the quarter or year.

    It's all bollocks really.

  • GreyBeard #131 5 months ago

    @DisneyJon

    "Boring arena's (sic) with massive repetition". If its crap, why are you complaining? Hmmm?

    Sorry, just seems like the "gimme gimme" mentality in full effect.

    As I said earlier, the laughable part is that using Arkham City as the whipping boy is a really bad choice if you want to argue rip-off. As anyone who's played the game will know, lack of content is not a problem, and given its one of the best and most highly rated games of the year its quality isn't in doubt either.

    Its also pretty funny to hear Bethesda being praised, personally I think games being released with tons of bugs is a far bigger issue than bits of minor side-content being absent. And who was it that introduced "Horse Armour" again?

    As to the "this justifies piracy/I'm gonna buy it used to stick it to the bastards who made the game"-crowd. Do what you want, just remember that all you're going to do in the long-term is force a situation where nothing is sold at retail because its no longer worth the hassle.

    And honestly, when you cop that sort of attitude you've given up any moral high-ground anyway, you're just being petty and spiteful and that's not praiseworthy in any circumstance.

    Merry Xmas.

  • busboy33 #132 5 months ago

    It sounds like alot of the anger in this thread is directed at the idea of DLC being pre-made, rather than started after the original game is finished.

    I don't necessarily have a problem with pre-made DLC. Timely DLC keep me coming back to a game I might have otherwise put back on the shelf by then. That's good for me, good for the developer. Compare it to episodic game releases . . . The main criticism against them is when episodes take too long to come out. A new chapter every month is appealing' a new chapter every 14 months just doesn't have any appeal. To get the DLC out quickly and regularly, in most cases the developers can't wait to start until the game is shipped.

    Is that denying me "the full game"? Look at Forza 4. Buy the game, and you get 500+ cars. There are more cars that they release on a monthly basis . . . that's a good thing, as it encourages me to fire it back up. Was my initial purchases gimped by not having all the DLC cars upfront? Didn't feel particularly gimped to me. Turn 10 have said that a new track takes about a year of development time. If they didn't start working on it before the game shipped, then new tracks would arrive too late to be impactful. If they have to wait to ship until all the DLC is finished and included . . . then there's no DLC.

    Is Arkham City gimped because you don't have the cartoon Batman skin? If the skin wasn't offered at all, would you throw the controller down and declare "This game is incomplete!"? I wouldn't. When Skyrim inevitably gets DLC, does that mean the game I've been playing for hundreds of hours was gimped all this time? You could have fooled me.

    It almost seems like a dislike of DLC itself. If that's the case, fine. I respectfully disagree.

  • Hxy3000 #133 5 months ago

    Retailers pay for exclusive stuff right? So why not forget that shit and sell it for cheaper?

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #134 5 months ago

    @arcam

    I hadn't replied because I was looking for the 2010 version, but then someone posted the 2011 version so I decided to post it here for posterity

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=456723

    Turns out you are full of shit after all. Fancy that?

  • Nova1977 #135 5 months ago

    Next year please, less strategic planning of DLC and more videogame

  • winstoninabox #136 5 months ago

    @cowell I agree.

    Stop buying into it and they'll stop doing it, it's that simple.

    I've no animosity toward retailers trying to maximize their profits. That's their livelihood there. People who complain about it really need to just man up to the fact that that game that you love playing is a something sold to you by someone trying to make a profit. Sure they might listen to fans, and sure they need you to buy it, but ultimately they're trying to make money from you. If you don't like what they're doing then stop complaining like you're hobby is somehow being taken away from you (it's not), don't buy their product, and find a product that you do like.

    In 18 months time you'll probably be able to pick up the lot in some $10 bargain sale on the PSN anyway.

  • Scrawld #137 5 months ago

    What do people feel like they're missing out on, really? an extra character skin? An extra hour or so of gameplay? Like any of it's worth the fuss. I disagree with extras that give players the unfair advantage, but apart from that I don't care so much.

  • Skeeve #138 5 months ago

    If a pre-order bonus isn't something minor or superficial that doesn't really change the game then my response is that these extras are going to get sold in a DLC pack at a later date so I might as well wait till the game drops in price while still getting a more complete version. In other words, if they try pushing things too far with bonuses it will cost them a fullprice sale to me.

    One thing I don't understand is why the B&M stores are so eager for digital bonuses as this is something that can be done just as easily by digital distribution instead, they should be taking advantage of their physical presence to offer bonuses that can't readily be done by their digital competitors.

    Beyond the exclusive DLC, another thing that puts me off pre-ordering are limited editions being exclusive to one retailer because usually if I am interested enough in a game to preorder I will also be interested enough to consider the ltd edition too and Game tends to have horribly slow deliveries for me and their customer service is atrocious.

    The idea suggested by Neppy where people who preorder eventually get all the preorder dlc bonuses for free sounds like a brilliant idea because it encourages people to support the game developer and publisher from the start while still allowing retailers to have their own distinct offerings.

    One final point on dlc, here's hoping that those games where they do dlc right such as Borderlands get all the sales they so richly deserve for not taking the piss out of the consumer and just carving chunks out of the normal game.