Downloading the Future

By Rob Fahey Published 13 February, 2010

DLC is the burning issue of 2010.

GamesIndustry.biz, the trade arm of the Eurogamer Network, recently completed the next step in its evolution toward greater support for the videogames business with the implementation of a full registration system.

Downloadable content is, beyond a doubt, the burning issue of the year so far. On every major gaming news site, a story about DLC is bound to attract hundreds of comments, many of them brimming with outrage from consumers with strongly held views. Within the industry, conversations are (usually) more civil, but the question of what it's appropriate to release as DLC and how to integrate it into a business model is hotly debated.

This week, another log has been thrown on the fire, with EA boss John Riccitiello telling BusinessWeek that the company's inclusion of premium DLC codes in new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins were no coincidences. This is the vanguard of something EA calls "Project Ten Dollar", it seems - an attempt both to limit the appeal of the second hand market, and to claw back some revenue from those consumers who continue to buy used games.

Publisher and developer attitudes to DLC have come on a long way since the infamous "horse armour" for Oblivion back in 2006. Minor fripperies, cosmetic items for characters and the likes persist, of course - especially in the form of Xbox Live Avatar items and PlayStation Home items - but they have been joined by some genuinely impressive DLC, perhaps most notably the two extensive episodes which were released for Grand Theft Auto IV.

Two major approaches to the development of DLC appear to have been established. There are those who view DLC essentially as the spiritual successor to the retail expansion pack - a budget-priced single-player episode or selection of multiplayer maps which extend the lifespan of the original game and give players more of what they enjoy without having to wait years for a sequel. Here, the business model is to embark on full development of DLC once the original game proves its success (although much of the pre-production work on the content will be done in the months before the game is released).

There are also those who view DLC as a way to "complete" a game whose original design was a bit too ambitious for the schedule or budget which was allocated. As anyone who has worked in development knows, it's fairly rare for a game to ship with every level or feature described in the design document present and correct. Commercial reality pokes its head up at some point - levels, characters, game systems and even chunks of narrative are dropped from the game to ensure that it actually reaches shelves at some point before the end of time.

For the most part, consumers never notice this. Developers are adept at papering over the cracks this procedure creates, building a seamless experience which hides the "missing" content - and of course this is no different from every other media industry. Movies, TV shows, albums and even books regularly have content dropped from them before launch - sometimes for creative reasons, but as often as not because of time and budget constraints. On occasion, of course, the process goes too far - Knights of the Old Republic II being a "celebrated" example of a game whose content was pruned far, far too harshly before launch.

DLC, at last, provides some kind of remedy to this situation. In the past, this content would never have been finished - it would simply have been dumped, with the team moving on to a new project after the game went gold. There was no financial incentive or reason to return to developing it after the launch of the game, since there was no channel to monetise it - and there was never a sense, as some consumers seem to believe, that buyers of the game were "entitled" to this as-yet-uncreated content. Consumers buy a finished game, not the promise of a design document they've never seen, after all.

Today, however, developers can sit down at the end of a project and decide whether that content deserves an airing - and if so, they can spend the time required to bring it up to scratch and release it as DLC, justifying the additional development effort with the added DLC revenue. Contrary to what some consumers seem to believe, this isn't content which is held back deliberately to milk them of their cash; rather, it is content which simply wouldn't have been created without DLC, extra labour and time which isn't justified in the budget for the retail game.

This remains controversial, however - witness the outpouring of rather childish anger from a vocal minority over Ubisoft's recent Assassin's Creed II DLC, for example. Business attitudes to DLC, it seems, are developing a bit faster than the consumers they serve, which is a trend companies will need to watch carefully or risk losing valuable goodwill from their customers.

EA's "Project Ten Dollar" also seems like a risky gamble on that front - yet on closer examination the reality is that most consumers will probably actually embrace the idea, as long as EA is careful not to poison its own well with questionable behaviour.

What Project Ten Dollar effectively does is to treat DLC not as an additional revenue stream, per se, but as a way to increase standard retail revenues by discouraging the second-hand market. New buyers of the game actually end up feeling like valued customers because they get premium DLC for "free" with their game, while second-hand consumers aren't locked out of any content, as they always have the option of paying (unlike the ludicrous and ill-conceived "exclusive pre-order bonus" culture which other publishers have cultivated, which does little other than annoy consumers and directly encourage content piracy).

The danger, of course, is that EA veers too close to actions which could be considered to constitute cutting content out of the retail game in order to turn it into Project Ten Dollar DLC, at which point this policy will lose consumer support. DLC still needs to be add-on content; the core game experience needs to exist on the disc. Even the most reasoned of consumers have been adamant on this point since the outset of DLC, and this line in the sand is unlikely to change.

If EA's strategy is carefully managed, however, it will represent the first major positive thing that an industry which does plenty of moaning about the second-hand market has actually done to protect its sales, and should be applauded. Crucially, it doesn't attempt to remove right of first sale from consumers, or to actually shut down used game sales - and it's worth noting that what it will actually impact is not the $5, $10 or $15 sales of years-old games in second-hand bins or on eBay.

Rather, this is a policy targeted directly at the retail chains who massively boost their earnings by filling second-hand bins with games only a few weeks old, for only a few dollars cheaper than the brand new copies on the shelves next to them. This is a retailer policy which, frankly, gouges consumers as much as it does the industry itself, and few tears will be shed if EA manages to strike a blow against it.

This is not, however, the end-point of the debate over the DLC business model. Other firms have competing views of how DLC can improve their business, and the influence of consumer opinion should not be underestimated. If last year was the year in which GTAIV's episodes saw DLC's potential come of age, this year, it seems, will be the year in which the creative and commercial ramifications of that potential are finally understood.

For more views on the industry and to keep up to date with news relevant to the games business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can read this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • InternetRed #1 2 years ago

    I like the 10 dollar scheme. I will buy Mass Effect 2 brand new (when I've got all the achievements for the first, and made a character I WANT to go through to the second game). I bought Dragon Age (Asda, £25) new as well,and was glad of the DLC that was in the pack, I know that with that game there might not be the whole 10 dollar scheme running, but if I had bought it second hand, like I was intending, I'd never have got Shale and the blood armour (which I have yet to even be able to equip!)

  • Errol #2 2 years ago

    DLC should only ever be things like extra levels or stories (like GTA IV DLC). Think of BF2, with the new map packs or GTA IV with TBOGT etc.

  • MadCaddy13 #3 2 years ago

    As an employee of a popular games retailer I am very pleased with this scheme. Wouldn't want to say that to the boss but it really is ridiculous how much money we make on pre-owned. I'm not saying it's the retailers fault, I'm saying it's the consumers fault to accept the extremely low price. If the retailers can sell the preowned for a few quid less, why wouldn't they? It's entirely up to the customer to trade mass effect 2 in for 20 quid so the retailer can sell it for 38.

  • Curion #4 2 years ago

    Never downloaded any DCL for a game yet, it would actually stop me buying games especially when there is a load of DLC to coincide with the release of game,or if i felt wasn't getting the complete package. Rather just wait for the game of the year edition or not bother.

  • ChthonicEcho #5 2 years ago

    Personally, I would much rather see downloadable content be downloadable expansion packs. I quite miss the days of expansion packs. Meaty content additions which took time and effort on the developers' part. It may be the illusion of nostalgia, but still.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 10:02

  • RobTheBuilder #6 2 years ago

    Lets not forget though that if you cut off the used market for retailers then it will achieve the publishers other goal of forcing new prices up. Stores have to make money somewhere, activision must be loving this.

  • Chufty #7 2 years ago

    I agree with ChtonicEcho. Most of this new-era DLC is pretty trivial. A few new maps and some shiny armour here and there? It's a nice bonus but I'm still not sure it will turn many of these die-hard preowned-bin shoppers to new copies.

    Besides, I got my free Blood Dragon armour with Dragon Age, and I equipped it on my Mass Effect 2 character long before I was a high enough level to use it in Dragon Age.

  • INSOMANiAC #8 2 years ago

    The trouble with the 'dlc' for Mass effect 2 is that , without it one of the characters would never appear and there would be a blank space in the character select screen. The character was clearly made to be part of the game and so by leaving him out they are ruining a good section of the game for the second hand owners.

    I think its pretty underhand and will put me off buying a game at all in some cases. I bought Mass effect 1 2nd hand which , after playing, convinced me to buy ME2 at launch. Would I have bought the first one if it had pieces missing i had to pay extortionate price to download ? No. This plan will ultimately cost them I believe.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 10:26

  • Stepharneo #9 2 years ago

    Another thing....Ten dollars perhaps, but Shale costs £12 to download. I think the currency conversion still pisses me off more than any dlc related issues. Perhaps that is clever misdirection on their part, keep me angry at the fact that I would be paying twice what an American would be and I'll forget that I'm having to pay for one of the best characters in the game.

    I'd say the thing that gets me about dlc are map packs, when I was playing killzone 2 it was always lively, I really enjoyed it. When the first map pack came out I snapped it up thinking that it would be more great levels....but I seem to have been the only one. The levels weren't bad, but no one played them. When dlc splits a gamerbase like that, someone really needs to think about a better way to implement it.

  • Highspeed123 #10 2 years ago

    Seeing as games just seem to get smaller and smaller as graphics get better, I would prefer that more effort was put into making dlc that extended the game. At the very least we should get dlc like gta did. I am really not happy about armour and other items being the focus of dlc. The cost is also high and in the UK it's even worse. We pay more than the US. I'm one of those people that only play a game once and then trade it in for the next so I don't like waiting ages for content either. It should be available quickly or better still included in the game in the first place. Dlc should extend the length of games not provide pointless expensive items. Expansion packs are what dlc should be. I have already sold Mass effect 2 and Modern warfare 2 and have moved on to Bioshock 2.

  • ParanoidZombie #11 2 years ago

    I think the article is overlooking a key element: the actual price of the game itself. A HD console game is 70€ new, and that's a lot of money,expensive product => consumers need second-hand market, the same goes for cars, real estate and so on.

    Quality laucnh day DLC is a good incentive, but publishers have to be carfeul with the pricing: in France, SEGA games often launch at 75.99€, way too expensive.

    And don't forget that roughly 50% of HD consoles owners don't have XBL or PSN accounts.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 11:02

  • sfp_noodle #12 2 years ago

    im normally not againt dlc, but c'mon, we do get charged for stuff day one that SHOULD be on the disc. heres an example - the blatant rip off tht was the resident evil 5 versus mode. a friend of mine was unfortunate enough to pay for it and was suprised tht the download was 108kb in size. fair to say, he jus paid for an unlock key for content tht was actually already on the disc. i will never support ridiculous money grabbing tactics like tht. street fighter 4 also fits into this category where they charged £4 for an extra costume for only 4 characters. tht works out £1 per extra costume. im all for map packs and extra episodes tht significantly enhance or extend the experience. but some ppl jus take it too far

  • Red-Moose #13 2 years ago

    Finally the truth comes out. EA, having had hundreds of millions of losses in the past few years (11 quarters of losses? is that right?) realises it can't keep blaming pirates to maintain share value.

    As for the article, calling consumer objections "childish" says a lot about who this article is aimed at; not gamers or consumers obviously. The common response to the piracy debate on EG for 2yrs+ is that they want to prevent the second-hand market in PC games first (with new games having 2 or 3 types of DRM), but realise there are huge amounts of second-hand transactions in the console area - this has been denied by DRM advocates, but it's obvious now that the publishers want to stop second-hand game sales, and DRM has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with maintaining an undeserved long-term "subscription to DLC" revenue stream.

    This Project Ten Dollar is the equivalent of a government setting up a toll booth on an already existing motorway.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 11:11

  • Windypops #14 2 years ago

    Good article, but I think calling those who criticised Assassin's Creed 2's implementation of DLC "childish" is unfair.

    As you say, developers are adept at papering over the cracks left by dropped content. DLC is meaning more and more that those cracks are left there for all to see to encourage them to buy more product. It's in-game advertising built in to the fundamental structure of the game: gaps left in character selection screens, quests offered that you can't complete without paying for them first, and so forth. The consumer is being made to feel that their forty quid has gone on something incomplete.

  • RobotRocker #15 2 years ago

    Project Ten Dollar is generally bull as all it does is penalise the consumer. Most retailers will just move on to more profitable areas (Heck, Gamestop in the states want to experiment with store kiosks that burn DLC to disc and install it on the buyers console). But everyone who does get rid of their games on e-bay and the like will sadly get screwed. Even the time honoured tradition of letting a mate borrow a game will suffer. That is what is going to piss off the consumer more than losing cheap games.

    But, and this is an obscenely huge Dubai tower size but, if EA use this to instead bring back the old PC method of free expansions every so often for the player. This could work out. A player buys the game new, gets the code and every few months receives complimentary new levels, items, characters for free delivered through the game. Granted, it wont work in some games that need a paid DLC model due to outside elements (Rock Band in particular). But most games will have a major amount of longevity. Say, buy Battlefield Bad Company 2 brand new and get a new map or gametype every month while used players need to pay for it. Its better to the player instead of just giving them a couple of trinkets and then expecting them to pay £15 for the next expansion a few months later that will only serve to piss them off.

    Of course, gaming industry and slimy shitheads trying to wring cash out of the consumer go hand in hand so watch some other developer absolutely abuse the hell out of it and we will be back to square 1.

  • ohcomeon #16 2 years ago

    @ INSOMANiAC

    Actually, if you don't have Zaeed in Mass Effect 2 it doesn't leave an empty space in the squad screen.

    This video demonstrates: [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=RXr9rb9kWDA
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=RXr9rb9kWDA
    [/link]

    It's not like Forza 3, where they tease you with greyed out cars you can't get.

    Personally, I don't mind EA's approach. It seems the smartest way to go.
    Would've been interesting to hear about EG's take on that Gears of War 2 DLC that came out. The one that was almost like a 'deleted scene' in film terms. I doubt we'd see more of that in future though as I'm not sure that was a success or well-received.

  • Kami #17 2 years ago

    DLC was supposed to be the thing of 2009, and guess what? Most of us saw through the marketing bullshit and the lies and saw the majority of DLC for what it was - overpriced tat.

    Agreed, I would love codes from new games that continually gave us access to new content. THat would be a great way to boost new game sales. But come on, Resident Evil 5 is key example of the issue with DLC - two new campaigns, when the game itself really wasn't much cop. And we already paid for the extra Mercenaries content. Why was none of this free? When we already suffered such crap, why not throw us a bone and appease the players? Money. And we know it. Capcom are not alone, we all see the reality of DLC - shorter games at higher prices and then we pay just as much again for the rest of the game.

    This may be common in the MMO world, but they have an excuse... the way it's going, I foresee an almighty shitstorm. No wonder the MMO market is the faster growing segment... yes, MMOs are sometimes a rip-off, but it's a rip-off you are perfectly aware of walking into it, and aren't going to be shocked about a few weeks later or a few months later...

    That said, this may be the year of DLC - or rather, the year it has to prove to consumers it's not cynical marketing BS...

  • trip919 #18 2 years ago

    It’s very simple, people would like real meat on the bones of the frail skeleton of DLC. Stop treating fans like brainless cash cows. A tenner for 20mins of gameplay? Get fucked.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 12:02

  • mikeck #19 2 years ago

    Working in the digital content arena myself, it's amazing to see some of the download figures for DLC. It's not going away, and when the premium content stuff is released, it's nothing but a good thing for the publishers, and consumers alike.

    It's the more dubious packs (some may say superfluous in terms of the content included) that cause people to raise eyebrows, but even then they still see reasonably high download numbers.

  • Cappy #20 2 years ago

    I think the position of the 'enraged' is being misrepresented somewhat, it's not about DLC appearing at some point in the future, it's about DLC which has been intentionally trimmed out and is available on the day of purchase or very shortly after, which would have been part of the retail product if consoles weren't online.

    Heavy Rain for instance, on day one a chunk of back story is only available to those who managed to get the collector's edition, everybody else has the option of paying more on top of retail price to get that content.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 14:04

  • photoboy #21 2 years ago

    The main problem I have with DLC is the DRM. How am I supposed to play it in 10 years time if my console breaks? Same with any games downloaded off services like Steam. If they shut down or get switched off (like Xbox 1's Live support), you suddenly don't have access to the content any more. This is fine if you have it downloaded, but what if your hard drive is damaged/stolen/breaks? All the DRM and access restrictions mean that you can't copy if from elsewhere so the content is lost to you forever.

    I know most people don't care about re-playing old games, but I get a lot of satisfaction out of being able to turn on my NES and play a bit of Megaman 2 (I've got consoles from every era starting with the NES still hooked up). How will I replay Megaman 9 and its associated DLC in 10 years if my Xbox 360 hard drive breaks? The games companies need to stop thinking solely about profit and stop slapping DRM onto everything.

  • jellyhead #22 2 years ago

    Regarding calling us childish for expressing concerns was a bit of a shock then i saw the article is from GameIndustry.biz so of course it'll have a developer/publisher slant. It was somewhat balanced later in the article but i'd say the phrase is there to generate rage and hits. Cheap.
    As for the "Ten Dollar Project" until it's proven to be worth it to me all it'll do is stop me buying at launch, i'll be waiting for reviews and player impressions before purchasing. I also like to replay old games and with EA's fondness for taking down servers i'm wary that the code will only have a limited lifetime, as long as the DLC isn't fundamental to the game that isn't an issue of course but how long until that's the temptation?

    On the other hand the scheme might all be sweetness and light and full of awesome, don't know yet.

  • Collymilad #23 2 years ago

    Sorry but "childish"?

    Get a grip EG. You seriously think it's ok to have a "Memory Corrupt" (or whatever BS it was) bit AS PART OF THE MAIN STORY PROGRESSION, then sell that bit to gamers later on? No, it's not.

    Personally DLC is being used half to extend games and half to rip people off, when it should only be the former. Mass Effect 2's DLC is a good idea I think. You pay £40 and you get some free extra stuff (which is actually pretty decent) or you pay £30 or whatever, and have the option of paying £10 to get the extra stuff. You're not really being denied anything. People who are going on about 2nd hand need to understand something, the dev gets paid once, not again and again.

    It's especially bad that companies such as GAME are selling used copies for about £3-5 less (if a game is fairly new) and actually encouraging you to buy that instead when you go to the counter with a new copy. So basically they pocket almost full price just because they stuck the game on the bloody shelf. Yes there's the whole "once I buy a game it's mine and I can sell it/trade it if I want" which is true. The choice is you can have games cheaper or you can make sure some of the cash actually gets to the people who created the damn game in the first place.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 12:34

  • Neut #24 2 years ago

    There's an air of superiority in the article that's worrying if it reflects the opinions of the industry as a whole. You speak of people feeling like they're entitled to content, but what about the flipside? I get the impression that publishers feel like they're entitled to our money.

    Tbh I'm not too fond of this antagonistic attiude towards consumers, howbout instead of treating us as potential revenue streams and mindless masses of statistics, publishers treated us as people? They might find that people are actually willing to pay for stuff they enjoyed.

    Just look at Team Fortress 2. That game has at least doubled in size from free content since release and I would gladly pay for more, but Valve aren't charging me. They seem to be doing ok making money from new players who buy the game (and get all that extra content as well). When you're being treated this well why would you wanna waste a fiver on some extra skins?
    Edited by 2 at 13/02/10 @ 12:55

  • Gastrian #25 2 years ago

    I'm surprised the article didn't go more depth into the problems of the second hand market.

    The second hand market is worse than piracy for publishers and developers because every 2nd hand game bought is a lost games sale for them.

    Publishers and developers don't get a cut of the counter sales, the make their money by selling games to a distributor, the distributor then sells them onto stores and retail chains. By buying direct from the consumer the retail store cuts out the distributor, publisher and developer meaning the publishers and developers don't see a single penny from the sale of the game they funded and made.

    So taking this into consideration if you buy a 2nd hand game why should you be entitled to the same content that a person who buys the game 1st hand gets? You have in no way supported the publisher or developer so why should they support you?

    If you lend the game to your friend why should they be entitled to this extra content? They aren't paying for the game and supporting the dev and publisher so why should they support your friend?

    If you sell your game on ebay why shouldn't you suffer? You are assisting in a market that doesn't repay or reward the guys who made and funded the game?

  • Discalceaterabbit #26 2 years ago

    How the DLC is implemented goes a long way to colouring how it is viewed. Look at Dragon ages "Wardens Keep" quest. You meet a character at the camp who goes on a long and moving tale about how you must go to wardens keep to combat some evil or other only to suddenly be slapped with a "pay only £X to download the extra content".
    Immersion breaking pimpage.
    If you can't do it, then it shouldn't be mentioned. Stick your DLC adverts on the front screen if you must, but don't hamfistedly shove it up the players nose ingame.

  • secombe #27 2 years ago

    ontrary to what some consumers seem to believe, this isn't content which is held back deliberately to milk them of their cash

    Hmmm, the 3 year+ old build of the Nurburgring GP circuit that's just been released as 400p DLC for Forza 3 makes me think otherwise. Turn10 have gone to great lengths to tell 'the community' how expensive it was to scan and photograph the track (even in a blog post as recently as yesterday) yet it quickly became apparent that something didn't seem right with it. Inexplicably it wasn't linked to the Nordschleife despite all the elements being available in the game to do so, the grandstands etc predate 2008 and the colours are vastly different to other tracks in the game.

  • bad09 #28 2 years ago

    "So taking this into consideration if you buy a 2nd hand game why should you be entitled to the same content that a person who buys the game 1st hand gets? You have in no way supported the publisher or developer so why should they support you? "

    While that is indeed true, you need to look at the cause of people selling/buying games. Price of new. It's all good condemning these people but at the end of the day it's the high price of new games which push people to trade on the 2nd hand market.

    I stopped using the 2nd hand market when I switched to DD, my new buying is WAY down. My first purchase in 2010 is next week. All those "maybes" are now forgotten until the Steam sales, rather than trying them with a credit note.

    Dangerous ground messing with 2nd hand without looking at the root of the problem, dangerous ground.

    As for all this DLC, I couldn't care less I don't really buy DLC anymore (I think the last thing I bought was GTA: TLAD) so give it free sell it later matters not to me. Even cutting out of the game and making sure we damn well know it's missing isn't gonna sway me.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 12:51

  • Collymilad #29 2 years ago

    Some games are too expensive, but not all.

    Most games give you 10+ hours of entertainment in one way or another, and many give much more. Also, most games are still £35-40 as they have been for the past 5+ years, i don't see this thing about "high price of new games" - from my experience they are pretty much exactly the same as they were for Xbox/PS2/GC.

    I take it people who think games are too expensive don't buy any other type of media (e.g. CD's, Films) new then? A CD is still £8-10 and a film is still about £12 for DVD and almost £20 for blu-ray, for 2 hours entertainment. I also think people need to realise how many people and how complicated it actually is to create a game that's even average.

    I think if you actually look at the amount of time you get out of games for the price, they are fairly reasonable. If not then perhaps you should spend your time doing something else.
    Edited by 3 at 13/02/10 @ 13:02

  • webcider #30 2 years ago

    its all a matter of which games you buy, games arn't really expensive if you look at games as they are offering 200 hours enjoyable time. but if you willingly choose to support games which only offer 10-12 hours og gameplay then yes to expensive is a fair argument. I think the press should hammer that quite fairly when they review games. If a game is not worth the amount it offers then consider it quite a fail. the reviewers mostly ignore this, completely and only mentions the actually amount of replay features but doesn't really describe if they are worth it or not and what that means to the buyer. What matters is not that they add a hunt quest which takes 100 hours if its completely pointless for the player to do so. What truly makes a game great is a game which keeps pulling the player in. I good game can last everything from 100 to 200 hours.

  • Penguinzoot #31 2 years ago

    And don't forget that roughly 50% of HD consoles owners don't have XBL or PSN accounts.

    Actually that's a fair point.

  • Collymilad #32 2 years ago

    "I fail to see any decent argument that the content is worth any less second hand in most cases, If I go into HMV and buy myself a secondhand copy of F.E.A.R. 2 for £5 less, am I getting less of the game somehow? Or am I in fact getting the same game, in an opened box, for less money? "

    Er, no. What are you suggesting though? That 2nd hand should be the same price as new? Why would anyone buy used then?

    Also, I think it's an idea really isn't it? People THINK that something is worth less when it's used, but as you say this isn't really the case for games.

    @webcider: You're right, but then it's really down to you to decide what is worth it to you, based on personal taste. For me I find most of the games i buy worth it because I know what I like and I try new things based on descriptions of them in reviews or demos. However i don't think it's ONLY length, it's enjoyment too. If I paid £40 for a game and it was 10 hours long but it was quality 99% of the time, or it really pulled me in or made me feel things - then i wouldn't regret buying that. Plus i find trophies etc extend the life of a game, but i totally understand why that doesn't appeal to everyone (I think i have a very mild case of OCD or something :p)
    Edited by 5 at 13/02/10 @ 13:30

  • ChaK #33 2 years ago

    while I "like" the idea of the 10$ thing, who on earth are they to do that.

    Why wouldn't I be able to sell my good if I don't want it anymore. I mean why kill the 2nd market in THAT industry, while all other works.

    Do we see BOOK with DLC, DVD with DLC, pokemon card with uber-premium-DLC? no.

    Just stop that, we buy what we want, and sell it if we want to.

    maybe ford or toyota should include engine as a DLC just to kill 2nd hand market !
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 13:33

  • Collymilad #34 2 years ago

    Except they aren't stopping you doing anything, are they?

    Mass Effect 2 for example is still a full comprehensive game and if you buy a used copy you aren't really missing anything essential, and are getting a damn fine game.You even have the choice to pay the extra at a later date and access said content. It's an incentive to buy new, nothing more.

    It seems to me they aren't saying "If you buy used you're getting 90% of the game" It seems they are saying, if you buy used you get the entire game, but if you buy new (which helps them) they'll give you a little extra on top and will continue to do so. Seems perfectly fair to me.

    If this kills the 2nd hand market that will be because people have decided for themselves that the free extra stuff that you get is worth it. If it's not, the 2nd hand market won't die.
    Edited by 4 at 13/02/10 @ 13:39

  • feistycheese #35 2 years ago

    'rather childish anger from a vocal minority over Ubisoft's recent Assassin's Creed II DLC'

    Thanks for that. I really appreciate bieng called childish when I express my opinion that the publisher sold me short by not giving me a complete game, and then just a couple months later want to charge me for what essentially is a crap piece of DLC.

    I'd rather you charge me an extra £5 on top of the normal game price and give me the 'complete' game than drip feed me diarrohea.

    But dont listen to me and the opinions of other gamers Mr. Publisher, after all, our opinions are just childish.

    /goes away, throws teddy in corner and sucks thumb/

  • Averice #36 2 years ago

    I'd rather they sell you the first half the game for $10, and then the other half for $50. Instead of going $50 and $10. But most companies would never even dream of doing that b/c they know the games they make are terrible and they're just using marketing tactics to garner pulls. That said, I'll take EA's $10 policy over Steams you bought this but I'm not lettin you touch it policy.

    It's very rare that I find a game that I'm actually willing to put any money down on. ME2 and DA:o, definitely buys, and new buys why? Because that's how good they are going to be. FF13, new buy, maybe CE. Aion, new buy. WoW, new buy. 80% of the PC games reviewed on these websites: so not interested I wouldn't even dl them for free.

    DLC is a great move if your company is pushing hot product. If you've got mediocre product, the only thing DLC will do for you is alienate your player base. Also, map packs aren't exactly new to DLC, they were released as mini expansions if I recall for Halo 1, and NeverWinterNights 2 did something similar as well.

    Another major problem with all of this. If a game is broken, then retailers should have to take it back. That's the reason I don't buy video games anymore before dl'ing and testing them, because retailers constantly try to screw you with terrible no return policies even if they sell you something incomplete or broken. I believe in supporting good gaming companies, I don't believe in supporting people who made the eye catching title, box art, and tag line.

  • Shrike #37 2 years ago

    The bottom line seems to be: you're the only person who can judge whether or not the game, with or without launch DLC, is worth your money. Games are varied and divisive in ways unlike almost any other medium (except perhaps books, which are priced according to length) and so if New Game A is worth £40 for you then great - hell, I happily paid nearly £50 for the collector's edition of ME2. The argument that games are too expensive and therefore second-hand is necessary is reliant on far too many personal variables. I really hope the people that buy games one week to trade the next realise that they're basically paying over the odds for a rental.

    I don't intend to make the consumer out to be the problem. I fully believe that when it comes to commerical businesses like games you're being screwed whatever you do. In this situation the choice seems to be: do I get screwed by the retailer, or screwed by the publisher? I'll go with the option that means some of that money is seen by the developer.

  • Emmit_Assassin #38 2 years ago

    The only thing that worries me about the Cerberus Network, is that I didn't notice any rating. You cnnot view the content outside of the network in-game, and therefore you have to trust that the content is worth it. This is fine while its free, but when it comes to paying for extra dlc, I quite like the rating. It gives me a good idea if it's worth paying for.

  • Stoatboy #39 2 years ago

    This isn't going to kill the 2nd hand game market - it's just going to drive down the price of 2nd hand EA games by ten dollars, putting a bigger gap between new and used. It'll also reduce the value of trade-ins on EA games by ten dollars.

    At a guess, fewer people will trade-in EA games because they aren't worth quite as much (especially if the free DLC happens to be released after a couple of months, encouraging people to hang on to it past its shelf-life when the trade-in value will have dropped anyway). And more people will buy second-hand EA games that do get traded in because they'll be ten dollars cheaper than other second-hand games - and a portion of these buyers who really like the game will go on to buy the DLC too (and that $10 price tag is probably not too far off what EA would have made from the sale from a new copy).

    Smart move.

  • seanthejackal #40 2 years ago

    FUCK dlc and FUCK you...that is all

  • secombe #41 2 years ago

    @ ohcomeon

    The greyed out cars in Forza 3 are more frustrating than they first appear, as it's not even as though we have the option to pay for them once you've bought the game. Short of selling up, rebuying it in LE form and starting the whole thing from scratch, they just sit there in a 'this is what you could have had' fashion.

  • afghan_jones #42 2 years ago

    This industrys attitude to second hand sales is very short sighted. The store credit given for traded games is recycled back into the industry and spent on new games that otherwise customers would not be able to afford. Cutting off the second hand market is going to have an impact on new sales one way or another and publishers need to consider this. It would be very interesting to know jsut how much store credit is given out each year for trade ins, as I imagine it funds a significant chunk of new games sales figures.

    Also, yes, game stores do make decent mark up on second hand games but they are also the ones taking a hit up front when they give out store credit. if you trade a game against another purchase the store is giving up their profit until they sell the game you have traded. So they are holding extra inventory and deferring their profits. I dont see why the publishers feel they deserve any of this.

  • Mnia786 #43 2 years ago

    I still laugh at some DLC after the Resi 5 "dlc" which was more of a bloody unlock key than anything. 60kb or something to get more MP modes - bit of a no brainer that they devved it before hand and charged idiots afterwards.

  • RobTheBuilder #44 2 years ago

    sorry but this feels like such a case of hypocrisy. Publishers saying its wrong for stores to make money off of old games and then saying its fine for them. Try not ripping us off with crappy costumes and car downloads for the cost of a live arcade game.

  • Stepharneo #45 2 years ago

    @STKD

    It gouges the customer who sold it back to the gameshop for £20...you may be buying for only £5 less than a new copy, but they have slapped on an arbitrary £15 to satiate their own greedy needs.

  • andyconr #46 2 years ago

    Resident Evil 5's Versus Mode is a fine example of a company cutting content from a game simply to make an extra buck off of a game. Capcom's attitude in general to DLC is terrible e.g. the stupid amounts of money required for simple costumes in Street Fighter 4.

  • Gastrian #47 2 years ago

    @afghan.

    No, just plain no.

    The stores lose next to nothing from 2nd hand games. That credit they gave you is less than what they would have paid for a brand new copy of the game and the profit deferment is exactly the same as a brand new game. The store has to pay up front for both types so won't see any profit on their purchase until it gets purchased be it 1st hand or 2nd hand.

    The 2nd hand market is a relatively low risk market as it almost guarantees a sale through the store credit and nets them cheap stock.

  • Johnhost #48 2 years ago

    The sooner we cut out the retail chain and get 100% digital the more everyone wins. Digitial Delivery can give consumers quick access to content from their own sofa, set standardize pricing that can be lower for consumers but end up making more for developers and publishers. I see the day when GAME is gone and stores like Tescos is where you buy your Xbox 720 or PS4. The game content is digital and consumers can continue to get content delivered and game studios can continue to make games without downtimes or layoffs.

    What did it for me was when I bought Dragon Age brand new from ASDA and it was opened and treated like a used game. Also my wife and I pre-ordered EA Active. The store only had one copy left and it was a crumpled box with a tatty manual. That isn't new!!! GAME and the retail chain charge for new give you what might as well be used. I hope they all crash and burn. If other retailers treater their products like this the wouldn't be in business anymore.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 20:23

  • My1stLoveJak #49 2 years ago

    I applaud EA for doing this - I bought Deadspace from a buddy for $20, when I could have just bought it new, myself. Never again. I HATE going into a used game store and seeing used games for $5 cheaper than the full retail game, it's outrageous; I can't understand why anyone would cheap out just to save five bucks, when they could have the new game that no one's touched.

    My views on DLC are mixed - I don't like seeing alternate costumes for download when they're priced at more than $2. That said, I've bought a lot of DLC for Little Big Planet. I payed for the Kratos costume, as I missed it initially with the pre-order (another thing that should be abolished - pre-order exclusive bonuses are bogus. When two people walk into a store on the day that the game comes out, and one leaves with more content - especially if they're paying the same price - that's not fair).

    Extra levels I will pay for every time...recently, I was burned by LBP for the first time, as I bought a caveman DLC package for the PSP game that was titled as a "level pack". This level pack, however, didn't have a new level! Just two (lame) new costumes and a few stickers (that I can't seem to find). I won't be buying any more DLC for the PSP game as a result, but my support of the PS3 game goes unspoilt: I LOVE the Pirates of the Caribbean and Metal Gear Solid expansions, and I truly believe that they add a lot to the game, both the large number of costumes and the level itself.

    So! Costumes suck, new levels are great

    Edit: that is to say, one costume for $3 is stupid, costume packs and ACTUAL level packs (packs that don't just aesthetically improve the game, but add a new LEVEL) are great.

    in response to one of the comments, used games can, in some cases, gouge you as a consumer, as you probably won't get the slip of paper with a code for a beta inclusion, or for registration of your game with the developers who made it (and will often give you bonuses for registering your game). Heck, sometimes you won't even get an instruction manual!!

    That's how you can get gouged as a consumer, but the real damage is to the developers, especially if it's a smaller company, not one that everyone knows will sell copies, regardless (like MW2...although, that game lost millions to piracy, so that point might be mewt). I get a lot of pleasure in knowing that I'm directly supporting a developer - every time I buy DLC for Little Big Planet, that money goes straight to Media Molecule (at least in part). I won't condemn my friends for buying used games, but I really do think they miss out on that joy of supporting a game that you're actually excited about, before you even read any reviews to sway your opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 21:01

  • Shrike #50 2 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    Why would someone use their store credit to buy a new game, rather than another second-hand game for £3 less? Store credit is not designed to ensure people buy more games. It's designed to prevent people from shopping around, and that's bad for the industry.

  • GamesConnoisseur #51 2 years ago

    Project 'Ten Dollar' is a new idea that I think will catches on, as its reward new first time buyers and yet allows second hand buyers a chance to get extra contents by which IS the only way for the devs/publishers to claw back missed revenue of their work which retailer profitted from (second hand seller).

    As for DLC, arguments will still rages on and at end of day, dont get it if you dont agree with it, people who does, its THEIR money to do with as they wishes!

    Sure we need to encourage better quality of DLC and exposes rip off or unlock keys to lessen these sharp practices, still wallet talks.

  • 1471 #52 2 years ago

    Looks to me like there is a fairly significant difference between games and other media. Most people keep music cds, movie dvds and books for years with the intention of experiencing them again for decades to come, they tend to be sold on en masse in Spring cleaning and suchlike. It seems like people often want to buy (rather than rent) games, but with no real desire to keep many of them for any extensive amount of time. Clearly, people who do this will be prone to finding games too expensive.

    I suppose some of those Wii games, Guitar Hero stuff and Sims add-ons sell so well because they are bought by people who are willing to lavish a lot of money on their game since they will buy very few others.

    Personally, my shelf is still adorned with Discworld Noir and large, cardboard boxes with Grim Fandango and Sanitarium inside.

  • Grayvern #53 2 years ago

    It's more a question of whether preowned sales will still make strong profits with less trade from newer preowned games. But really it's not too much of a leap to see the just out games ,sold pre-owned for a few quid less, as the retailers taking the piss and being harmful to games companies.

    Besides all that though, the main problem that I forsee is that retailers could simply offer higher pre-owned prices for games that had unused activation codes. If it's easy enough to tell if the code has been activated or not. There's not really an example of this currently but it's not hard to imagine if EA scheme CIA sucessful for it or catches on that retailers would got to the effort that this would entail.

  • gandhimaster #54 2 years ago

    i have zero problem with dlc in the sense its there if you want and you dont have to buy it. when it looks deliberately left out the game or its day one dlc then thats bollocks!

    also, pre order bonus (or also the ten dollar scheme) are good ways of giving us a bit extra for free BUT i think it should be the same bonus for every retailer as otherwise having 3 or 4 sometimes even 5 different bonus items/levels etc is dividing the consumer experience as we cant have a "complete" game unless we bought all of them! (selling them seperately would be shit but at least fair to people who wanted it all!)

  • drxym #55 2 years ago

    I'm surprised the industry hasn't used DLC before to limit second hand sales. It seems like an obvious thing to do to pack in a code that can only be used once. The good thing for consumers is they can't go too far with this since not everyone has online, so any DLC code probably has to impact on multiplayer, not the single player experience. It also means the likes of Gamespot & GAME will have to lower prices of second hand titles.

  • drxym #56 2 years ago

    @Johnhost, "The sooner we cut out the retail chain and get 100% digital the more everyone wins."

    You obviously haven't look at the prices of physical vs digital have you. Steam prices for new content are an outright scam, for example Bioshock 2 is €49.99 on Steam when its €32.49 on Play.com including postage. PSN is no better - when a game appears on PSN and in retail (e.g. PSP games, Warhawk, GT5P, Wipeout HD) the retail price ALWAYS wins.

    How is it that even when piracy and second hand sales are non existent in download land, and there is no publishing, shipping, distribution, returns or middlemen, the price of digital titles is so much higher? The price should be lower and it isn't.

    Digital is an outright scam and I don't see it improving with even less competition.

  • Murton #57 2 years ago

    This remains controversial, however - witness the outpouring of rather childish anger from a vocal minority over Ubisoft's recent Assassin's Creed II DLC,

    I have to take exception with this comment. The first page of the article mentions that most consumers never notice what has been cut during development because the developer is "adept at papering over the cracks" but in the case of Assassins Creed it wasn't a crack, it was a gaping 10 year hole in the plot that was plain to see and the attempt to patch over it was pretty poor.

    It's also unfair to herald the GTA4 DLCs as "how it should be done" as this was bought and paid for MS, for 50 million USD which even before Rockstar's own investment is more than double the budget of most third party games. By all rights they should have felt like full AAA titles rather than just "DLC done properly"

  • Oh-Bollox #58 2 years ago

    --Contrary to what some consumers seem to believe, this isn't content which is held back deliberately to milk them of their cash; rather, it is content which simply wouldn't have been created without DLC, extra labour and time which isn't justified in the budget for the retail game.--

    How on Earth can you possibly know that? And how can you prove it? How many people are going to put their hands up to "So, did you hold back stuff for DLC to squeeze a few more quid out of the suckers?" How many game journos would dare to even ask such a question?

    There are hundreds (thousands?) of games with DLC, yet this has never happened, in a medium dominated by infamously greedy companies? Pull the other one.
    Edited by 1 at 14/02/10 @ 13:25

  • Stoatboy #59 2 years ago

    @Oh-Bollox

    When a publisher hires a developer to work on a game they will have negotiated a budget to produce a game with a whole bunch of features. For the sake of argument let's simplify it to $20 million to make a 10 hour game. The developer then will have to provide costings for where that 20 million bucks is going and how they plan to achieve that 10 hour play time. Publishers are rather fond of their own money, so you can guarantee that they will be getting 20 million dollars worth of manpower and technology out of the devs for that game.

    During the course of development you'll usually find that the original plans were over-optimistic, or have become so due to unforeseen problems. This happens a lot. At this point, something has to give and usually content is cut, because it's the only way to make the deadlines. It may be that extra padding is added to the remaining game to try to fulfil the 10 hour criteria, or the publisher may just accept the shorter game. What's very rare is a publisher throwing more money at a project to get pretty much the same game they already have, albeit a bit longer.

    So at this point content is almost certainly cut from the game, and the developers go on to finish what's left. The publisher will absolutely definitely still have got their 20 million dollars worth of manpower and technology for the reduced game, because nobody is fool enough to let millions of dollars slide. They get a game that they spent all their budget on, basically, despite some of the content getting cut.

    Which means there's a bunch of half-finished assets lying around that in the past nobody would get to see. With the advent of DLC though the publisher and developer can discuss not letting that stuff go to waste. Whilst the publisher wouldn't spend more money to keep this content in the main game, they will pay more money to have it as paid-for DLC, because it's another revenue stream. From a consumer's point of view it looks like the content was cut to provide DLC, but without the possibility of DLC it would have been cut anyway.

    I'm not saying this is what happens in every case, but seriously, before DLC came along an awful lot of levels and other assets got cut from an awful lot of games in order to make deadlines and hit budgets, never to be seen again.

    And whilst it's possible that some games have had content pulled deliberately to become DLC, consider what's at stake here. If we assume a 20 million dollar budget for the game, you can double that investment from the publisher when you add marketing and advertising and all the other bits and bobs to the equation. So that game is a 40 million buck gamble that it will prove popular enough to sell the necessary millions to make a profit. As a publisher would you jeopardise the chance of recouping that $40 million by not putting out the best game you can with your budget, for the sake of selling some bits of it later for extra cash? If the game goes on to bomb, the stripped DLC (that could have been its downfall) is practically worthless anyway.

  • FenderMaster #60 2 years ago

    I wholeheartedly support EA's Operation 10 Dollar Plan, and agree that they do have a right to try and claim back some of the huge revenue loss that GameStop's second hand business is costing them, and they are doing so without cutting out content for people who buy the game new (unless they are unfortunate enough to not have a broadband connection).

    However it is a fact that some companies do deliberately hold back already finished content for DLC... I don't know how common it is, but i do remember ex crystal dynamics staff saying how this was done with Tomb Raider Underworld [link url=http://kotaku.com/5129215/to mb-raider-underword-dlc-was-meant-to-be-in-original-game
    ]http://ko taku.com/5129215/tomb-raider-un...[/link]

    then theres the type of "DLC" not mentioned here at all, probably because it's not really DLC: THe abominable unlock codes...

    Capcom and Namco are two serious offenders, Capcom for their SF IV costumes, and Namco for locking Darth Vader on the 360 Soul Calibur 4, and Yoda for the PS3 Soul Calibur 4... and then having the balls to go and try and make it out to be exciting console exclusive characters... yeah right... exclusive unless you cough up another fiver for a character already on the ****ing disc
    Edited by 1 at 14/02/10 @ 16:19

  • Red-Moose #61 2 years ago

    Basically all the publishers are realising that WOW's subscription service is where the money is, not on single game sales. The next step is a subscription to EA, monthly, where you get access to all EA's game DLC content for any game you buy. They want around €200 from each game player per year, just like WOW gets.

  • kongzi #62 2 years ago

    I think some part of piracy is actually caused by the companies themselves.. they release a lot of crap, and by doing so they devalue their own products in the eyes of consumers. Like i'm gonna pay real, actual, factual money for a britney spears song or a game like Rogue Warrior? I buy everything Rockstar puts out, without question. I dislike DLC but I bought the Lost and Damned, and i bought it again when it was on disc. Why? I really like GTAIV, but that isn't the point. Their games have never disapointed me, so I trust their brand. EA's problem is that nobody trusts them anymore, even if they sometimes do try do it right. Activision is going that way too.

    Like it or not, DLC is (at least a big part of) the future, but I think people will always value physical objects over downloads. Just like real friends are better than online friends, even if they sometimes puke in your house. All this value-adding bullshit only works if there is something to add the value onto. Just keep making good games and we'll continue to buy them and support your coke habits, don't worry.

    I still don't understand why there is a standard price set for every game. There's a lot of games I won't buy full price. ME2? GTAIV? sure.. another 6 hour shooter? Hell no..

  • FenderMaster #63 2 years ago

    ^^ actually, EA under John Riticello, has completely turned itself around... Mirrors Edge, Battlefield Bad Company, Dead Space, EA has turned a new leaf, and despite their sordid past, I fully support their current direction.

    Activision on the other hand gets no such good will, they don't care about the gamers goodwill, or the developers

  • Darth_Flibble #64 2 years ago

    with Dragon's age, the code expires in April, "forcing" you to buy one of the best characters in the game even if you buy it new. What is the point of buying it new then? EA should make the Shale code ongoing for new copies. Its like buying the "best seller" or budget re-release and some of the game has been removed because you didn't buy when it was £35/40 (which I can see some companies doing.

    There is big double standard with 2nd hand films and games, someone who I use to know was a game programmer and who use to sell films and books when he was finished with them but couldn't see the double standard with selling games even to other people (not trading at game etc) How is the film studio being supported?

  • kongzi #65 2 years ago

    I know they did. And they did release some great titles since then. But they made that change because they knew nobody trusted them anymore. I should've used past tense there. And Dead Space and Mirror's Edge were critical hits, commercially not so much.. I don't think it made them a lot of money. And in turning the company around they bought Bioware and Pandemic. They had to kill Pandemic already, so the plan isn't all working. If they keep it up, in the long run it probably will and that was what I was pointing out in my post:
    It's all about the long run and the industry is way too focussed on the quick money. In the long term, it's better to have a trusted brand, or image, or track-record or whatever. Like Bioware (even though they're part of EA) or Rockstar or Rare back in the n64 days. I think that's always gonna be true, even from a purely financial standpoint. EA seems to at least have gotten the message.

  • alasdairm #66 2 years ago

    My main worry for DLC is future support

    The switch off of Live for the Original Xbox concerns me about how easily content that has been paid for can be rendered obsolete overnight and no longer available

    Those who say it will never happen on the 360 should be concerned as there is already a precedent about Microsoft stopping support for a game
    Premium and free DLC for FEAR on the 360 is no longer supported, so although I have the content on my hard drive it is not recognised by the game - the game no longer gets the "game update" to recognise the content on the hard drive.

    This is significantly different from EA switching their servers off for a game; it shows Microsoft are able to effectively render DLC worthless with pretty much immediate effect - how many of us will be upset if our Rock Band libraries were to be suddenly unavailable
    As far as i can wee this WILL HAPPEN in say 10 years time when Live need to be upgraded for the XBox 3 or 4

    At least retro games can still be played on their original machines, will this still be an option for us retro gamers in a decades time??

  • kongzi #67 2 years ago

    ^^ very valid point there.. One of my main gripes with DLC as well. But microsoft has better lawyers than me, and I'm sure they made some 'provisions' there.

    When you buy a piece of software, you don't actually buy a piece of software that you own, it's not an object. Legally, you just own the right the use the software and by using it you automatically agree to whatever they put in the terms of service that no-one reads. It's an excellent way to scam people.

  • oerhoert #68 2 years ago

    It is, but people aren't stupid. If they are going to be treated badly repeatedly such as companies turning off the services for these titles, although those companies might legally be allowed to do so, the consumers will answer (in time) by stopping buying games and services from that company.

    If they're smart, Microsoft will base its next Live service on the current one, Sony the next PSN service on the current one, and both will avoid public outrage. The big question is Nintendo, which so far does not have an "account" at all for your downloads, everything linked to the one specific machine you bought it for. They will have to tread carefully.

  • metalangel #69 2 years ago

    Most DLC is overpriced for what you get (horse armour is still an apt description for most of it). Proper sized expansions (GTA episodes, all the Fallout stuff on disc, the forthcoming Dragon Age expansion) is what I'll buy. But claiming the content blatantly sliced out and labeled "a reward" for new buyers is just an insulting smokescreen.

  • Kerome #70 2 years ago

    Actually it's not just second-hand games, but also game rentals that get caught by the $10 programme. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a way to encourage people to buy full copies.

    But it should be very interesting to see what happens when Dragon Age and ME2 go to budget. Then the value proposition versus second-hand changes dramatically, as a second-hand copy may be very slightly cheaper but the budget copy includes significant content additions. I'd expect second-hand copies of these games to lose just about all value when the game goes to budget, and just disappear from the shelves.