EA Sports reveals "Ten Dollar"-like plans

By Robert Purchese Published 2 March, 2010

Moore keen to "monetise", "digitise".

Peter Moore has spoken of digitising and monetising Madden and EA Sports games, suggesting that his department be the next to employ "Project Ten Dollar" measures.

"It keeps the disc in the drive longer, it stalls trading the game in, it allows me to be able to take further advantage of that consumer over a longer period of time," said Moore at a Morgan Stanley Technology conference reported by IGN. "Even if we do get second sales, we see that as an opportunity to drive digital margins."

"Sports games, because their seasonality runs out, are always something tempting to trade in. We've got to be able to build business models around allowing that consumer to trade it in and then monetize them".

However, Moore didn't specifically name "Project Ten Dollar" - EA's anti-trade-in manoeuvre that gifts a DLC platform with first-hand retail copies of games that must be bought for around $10 should someone buy the game second-hand.

Moore added that we're going to see "digital subscriptions" and "digital micro-transactions" crop up in EA Sports games. Snatching another $4/5 from a high install base is a "high margin digital revenue", explained Moore.

What's more, Moore's keen to do "a lot of that this year".

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

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

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

You may also like...

Comments (58) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • ignatiusjreilly #1 2 years ago

    I bet they're really regretting the "Project Ten Dollar" name, and I expect they'll change it for something else pretty soon. Kind of restricts your pricing...

  • Paperghost #2 2 years ago

    Project fifty dollar tries, fails to woo punters.

  • X3Entente #3 2 years ago

    maybe im just crazy, but why dont you try and nurture fresh ips with innovative gameplay. all this talk about pricing structures, and subscription models, just make fucking good games then people wont trade in those games after exhausting it wthin 2 days and realising its the same shit as last years

  • Anthony_UK #4 2 years ago

    What percentage of people who are buying these recent EA games taking part in this incentive are even aware of it?

    Even myself who's Eurogamer every day, thought that the Cerberus code in Mass Effect 2 was initially something to ignore. Thinking it was something along the lines of ubisofts 'Uplay' - I've still no idea what that is, and have no intention of finding out!

    If EA are genuinely giving people stuff for free (Which is great with Mass Effect 2 - debatable with BC2) then great, but at least make some effort to let us all know about it.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 10:01

  • Ryboy #5 2 years ago

    Like Tiger Woods, you're just trying to fuck everyone.

    Cunt.

  • Shikasama #6 2 years ago

    Behold the future of gaming.

    Men in suits with bar charts make the decisions now, not people who like, understand or even want games. I think my 360 will be my last console.

  • EgbertoTheGreat #7 2 years ago

    "it allows me to be able to take further advantage of that consumer"

    For a man paid such a vast amount to be ,in part, a spokesman, that is an incredibly poor choice of words.

  • bad09 #8 2 years ago

    "Moore added that we're going to see "digital subscriptions" and "digital micro-transactions" crop up in EA Sports games."

    Bad09 added that EA are going to see "his money" crop up less on EA Sports games.

    I tell ya I want to go back a generation now, all these money men this gen are killing my hobby with their bloody DLC and milking.

  • Shikasama #9 2 years ago

    bad09 - We can start some sort of book club or something

  • malexous #10 2 years ago

    Me thinks this will lead to more people becoming pirates.

    - for mentioning a cardinal sin?
    Edited by 2 at 02/03/10 @ 10:35

  • towser #11 2 years ago

    Games are a business. Deal with it and move on.

    I whole heartedly agree with EA's stance at combating the pre-owned market.

    the Pre-owned market robs Developers of hard earned profits and ultimately stifles creativity and innovation. Don't think it does? Well, you're wrong.

    Without the money to pay wages and overheads, companies have to stick with what they know rather than trying something new that might not succeed. If you want to see more new and exciting games buy them new, give the Developers the money that they worked hard for and see what happens.

    Buying and selling games to a degree is fine, its the consumers right after all. But it has completely taken over. It's ridiculous that Game and Gamestation now have (at a guess) around 75% of shelf space dedicated to pre-owned games.

    Anyway... rant over :-)
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 10:25

  • Nylz #12 2 years ago

    "It keeps the disc in the drive longer, or else it gets the hose again."

  • asharkman #13 2 years ago

    How do they know the difference between the first owner and the second owner of the game?

  • TOOTR #14 2 years ago

    We all know that gaming is a business but I don't know of any PR in ANY business that openly announces they will TAKE FURTHER ADVANTAGE of the consumer.

    That's an outrageously jarring quote.

    Only in the darkest depths of the fat cat corner offices are such things bandied about openly.

    Consider : 'looking to keep the consumer engaged with quality products and services over a longer period'. At least with the latter comment you can try and believe that some small part of the corporate soul believes this - particularly because that is the best way of building a happy customer base who will return for repeat business.

    But ' taking advantage of'?! You're having a giraffe.

    I will be very surprised if that quote is not retracted in some way.

  • Shikasama #15 2 years ago

    Towser, the developers make their money from the project fees paid by publishers. That's WHY the majority of game developers are owned by EA or Activision. The lions share of the wholesale price of the game goes to the Publisher with the Developer getting a token royalty.

    The attack on the pre-owned market is all about publishers profit margins and has shite all to do with developers. It's all about creaming as much money as possible, which is why they simply don't drop prices. As for the generality of claims that pre-owned gaming is ruining the industry (an industry that is still bauking after wandering into a recession with claims of being untouchable) I've yet to see the numbers on that one. The assumption that everyone who buys a pre-owned game would have bought it new shows the same level of naivety as when the same argument is used to try and sell the extent of piracy.

    That's not even touching how the ability to trade in titles sells new games so releases like MW2 can get all that press breaking all of those records. Or how pre-owned is foten the ONLY way to purchase a game beyond 6 months of it's release.

    As for 75% of shelf space dedicated to pre-owned games, No.

    Piracy? Second-hand trade ins? The biggest problem with the industry is the monopoly the EAs and Activisions have over it. Thats what stifles your innovation and throttles developers. That's what keeps the prices nice and high and forces the ridiculous situation we are in with DRM and DLC.

  • Murton #16 2 years ago

    AS long as EA Sports titles are released on a yearly basis they're going to get traded in, annual releases drive the pre-owned market more than any other game. Walk into any games retailer when the new FIFA is out and there's dozens of copies of the old one in the pre-owned section.

    If you want to stop trade in on annual releases the only way to do that is to offer a means to update last years release to a current one at a reduced price.

  • Shikasama #17 2 years ago

    Murton - Which would be a fantastic idea but they rely on the people who bought the last one to buy the new one.

    AND PEOPLE DO!

    Never ceases to amaze me

  • Shakey_Jake33 #18 2 years ago

    Giving Moore the benefit of the doubt, we know what he meant. Very careless choice of words from someone as PR-savvy as Moore though.

    Didn't Kotick do the same thing a few years ago? He probably meant it literally though, of course.

  • towser #19 2 years ago

    @ Shikasama

    "the developers make their money from the project fees paid by publishers"
    Not true. And I know first hand, trust me. Developers will get paid at various milestones through development but they also (in some cases) get profit related bonuses. These are the guys doing the art, code and design of the game. And they get rewarded for the number of copies being sold. therefore if everyone buys pre-owned these guys aren't getting rewarded for all their hard work.

    "That's WHY the majority of game developers are owned by EA or Activision"
    I call this as bullshit without cold hard data to back it up. sorry.

    "The lions share of the wholesale price of the game goes to the Publisher"
    Bullshit again - the biggest share of a brand new game goes to retail. When the sell it on as pre-owned they then get all of the profit - none returns to the Developers or the publishers for that matter.

    "The attack on the pre-owned market is all about publishers profit margins and has shite all to do with developers"
    Dont agree with this either. Publishers in some situations commission Developers to make games. If they are unable to take risks as to what sort of games are being made due to profits falling then that impacts on the Developers. If I'm a publisher who is finding times hard I would much rather take a chance on a MW2 clone than something like an Okami game. It makes more sense. Now whilst the consumer might enjoy this, Devs hands are often tied as to the types of games they can make. The two are linked.

    I could go on all day... but have other things to do unfortunately :-)
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 11:26

  • Syrette #20 2 years ago

    Ah, typical EA. All about the $$$ and the £££.

  • ignatiusjreilly #21 2 years ago

    If I'm a publisher who is finding times hard I would much rather take a chance on a MW2 clone than something like an Okami game.

    I don't see any evidence that as publishers get richer they take on more risky or innovative projects. In fact, it seems exactly the opposite. It's clearly the struggling devs and publishers doing the interesting stuff.

  • cnlfailure #22 2 years ago

    Given that this story is reported from a talk he gave to a bank it's not surprising it has a heavy leaning on the monetary side of gaming. "Not even trying to sugar coat it" is completely wrong, he's coated it entirely in the kind of sugar that bankers will respond to.

    Could well be that this kind of information is not intended for game players and more intended for investment types.

  • metalangel #23 2 years ago

    "Keep the disc in the drive longer", right up until they pull the plug on the servers because the new year's edition is out.

  • FireMonkey #24 2 years ago

    Quick breakdown of how 2nd hand sales work for the shops:
    (Prices are guessed by my last experiences. Have no time to search for proper values but this is just an example anyway).

    Note: The game shop's running profits are listed in brackets

    - GameShop sales new Game for £5 profit (£5)
    - GameShop buys Game back from customer for £5 (£0)
    - GameShop re-sales Game to a new customer for £30 (£30)

    So form just the initial sale and 1 second hand sale the GameShop makes a profit of £30 on that game.

    Now for everytime that game comes back the following happens:
    - GameShop re-buys Game for (£5) (£25)
    - GameShop re-sales Game to a new customer for £30 (£55)

    So each trade-in and sale after the first GameShop makes an additional £25.

    So say each game it sales is re-sold once they make £30 profit, twice is £55 profit and three times is £80 profit.
    With game shops putting more and more emphasis on second hand games over new and the fact that most people I know who buy second hand also re-trade the games, I wouldn't be supprised if a lot of games go around 3 times. That means that is £80 gone directly to the shop and not on supporting the development of the games you love so much.

    Ideas such as 'Project Ten Dollar' do nothing to screw the end user over, but game reviewers NEED to review the game WITHOUT the addition of the 'Project Ten Dollar' and DLC add-ons so that customers know what they will be getting and to make sure no dodgy companies start removing things from the games just to add them in later.

  • metalangel #25 2 years ago

    Devil's advocaat (slurp): Perhaps there's such a booming second hand market because new games cost too much in the first place? Price them as impulse buys and you'll sell more new, enough to offset the smaller profit per unit.

    (I know this is an ancient argument)

  • PoundHound #26 2 years ago

    I don't have a major issue with the code thingy that allows the first purchaser free access to DLC, such as the Cerberus network on Mass Effect 2. However, it should be console specific, not user specific. As I used the network code on Mass Effect first, my wife couldn't use it on her profile and has to buy access. That is totally wrong and really needs looked at.
    Edited by 1 at 03/03/10 @ 22:20

  • FireMonkey #27 2 years ago

    @metalangel - I doubt it. Most second hand games are only a few quid cheaper than they are brand new and I have seen plenty of times in Game and GameStation where second hand games (placed nice and prominently near the door) are actual at a higher price than the same game brand new in the same shop.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 12:24

  • secombe #28 2 years ago

    How would it work with sports titles? Lock the 10 most popular teams and supply a use-once unlock code with the original copy?

    There are already about 80 DLC packs for NHL 10 which allow you to boost your player artificially, therefore essentially paying for an advantage online without putting the hours in to naturally boost your ability. I thought that was bad enough, but I can't see how they can impliment '10 dollar' into a sports title without locking crucial content if you don't have an unlock code.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 12:33

  • FireMonkey #29 2 years ago

    @secombe - I'd hope not as that would affect the main game. They should always do it in ways that would not affect the main game. Not sure what they could do for sports games. Zombie players (wouldn't pay for it myself but..)?

  • AliRay #30 2 years ago

    How can you do yearly updates to games AND expect people to keep last year's (almost identical) issue for DLC?
    It sounds like two conflicting business models to me.

    Or greed. Pure greed.

    I eagerly await next year's press release complaining that the DLC worked so well that no-one bought FIFA 11, Madden 2011, etc etc....

  • Murton #31 2 years ago

    Firemonkey beat me to it. Look in GAME and you'll see the new releases at £45 and then on the next shelf, same game pre-owned for £42. Even games that a little older the difference is rarely more than a fiver, on principle I'd rather pay the couple quid extra and not fund the pre-owned market and the way it screws consumers with bad trade-in prices. All too often my mate who does trade in gets a fiver for his game while the same game pre-owned is being sold for 25 or even 30.

  • secombe #32 2 years ago

    Zombie players (wouldn't pay for it myself but..)?

    That sums it up really, if it's not 'important' content they wouldn't make much money from it, it's going to have to be something reasonably substantial to either get you to pay up or think 'sod it, I will just buy the new game'.

    I would have said that it would be a risky strategy given that not everyone is online to use the unlock code...but Forza 3 LE has proved you have a successful game that ties an awful lot of content to having a Gold Live account.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 12:37

  • kestral #33 2 years ago

    serious question, what does 'drive margins' mean? make more profit?

  • bigtechno #34 2 years ago

    maybe if they didn't release a new version every year people wouldn't trade them in so quick!

  • kestral #35 2 years ago

    Eventually though you are going to compete with yourself and your yearly installments, how are you stalling the trade in problem when you bring out annual versions?

  • kestral #36 2 years ago

    project $10 game (ingame purchase required*)






    *multiplayer unlocked via downloadable content**





    **$40

  • FireMonkey #37 2 years ago

    @secombe - Personally, I think the way sports games are done needs changing anyway. The should develop the engine which is what you buy and the yearly updates to players, stadiums, stats, etc. are what you download. I'd pay a few quid to have an older game that I like updated to contain all the new data.

    The only time they should then release a new game would be to box it with the new updates (for people who haven't got access to download them) or for when there is a big change to the gameplay or engine.

    If they do go this route then it would be nice if everyone gets an initial update for free to take it to the current stats and the 'Project Ten Dollar' voucher allows the player with it to get a number of future updates.

  • ignatiusjreilly #38 2 years ago

    I'd pay a few quid to have an older game that I like updated to contain all the new data.

    So would everyone, and they'd do that instead of buying the new game for £40. Which is, of course, why it will never happen :)

  • FireMonkey #39 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly - but if they think too many people are buying the games second hand each of those games is making them no money so maybe £5 per update will actually make them more money in total. It's one for there finance team to figure out really.

    One day a game will come out with updates like that and it will pretty much force the way for the others. Why would you spend £40 on game X every year when you can have game Y for one off payment of £40 then £5 a year?

    Also remember they could and would still release new versions that have better graphics, control schemes, etc. and these would be full purchase only. So you want a better game, then you buy a new one but you just want updated data then you download it.

    Would you seriously still be playing one of the original Fifa games if the data was updated or would you have bought a newer engine?

  • ignatiusjreilly #40 2 years ago

    Would you seriously still be playing one of the original Fifa games if the data was updated or would you have bought a newer engine?

    I'd probably buy one every few years when significant improvements have been made (in theory - I'm a PC player and they've barely made any improvements for over a decade). I also agree it would be much better for the consumer if things were done that way.

    It might make a difference with some extra revenue and fewer second-hand sales, but I feel pretty confident saying releasing a new version every year (or even more often) as they currently do is a hugely more profitable strategy.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 13:10

  • Power_n_Glory #41 2 years ago

    I don't trade in games because it's a rip off. I refuse to pay full price for a game then be told it's worth £10 when I go to trade it in 6 months later. I know they'll bump that price up £30 on preown so I refuse to do it.

    Companies like EA need this project Ten Dollar crap because they churn out rubbish every year. For certain games, it's hard to find a preowned copy because it's quality and if you do it won't be that cheap.

    I rmemeber the good old days when I used to sawp games with friends. This trade in rubbish has only created a way to milk gamers for more money and now the developers will start to get in on the act and think of a new way to milk us for cash.

  • jambolio #42 2 years ago

    Ah the second hand market, as consumers we all know that it makes sense to wait for a few months and pick up some bargains. You pay full price for the priviledge of playing it at release and being part of the hype machine.

    Second hand sales allow people to experiment and play the games that are initially gambles, a lower price point after all is a lower risk. These plans are seriously going to hurt start up studios and talented development teams as Retailers will carry fewer second hand games.

    As an Ex-Game employee, second hand sales are a massively important part of their buisness model. The regional manager on a visit to our store in West London claimed that 75% of the region's profits came from second hand sales after all.
    While certainly no fan of Retailers, I think that the plurality of choice offers the consumer a much better deal than what we seem to be moving towards, where the publishers and the platform holders decide on a seemingly abritary price that they think they can get away with charging. If they can decrease the number of ways to acquire content, it's only going to increase the amount they feel they can charge us.

  • kangarootoo #43 2 years ago

    As I might have expected, most of this threads seems to be built on the use of the phrase "take advantage".

    All he did is spell out in plain terms what every profit driven company is doing. Every games publisher, and indeed every company outside of games, wants to make the most moeny they can out of each customer. Attracting new customers is extremely hard work, so making additional money out of existing customers is an attractive prospect.


    "Not even trying to sugar coat it."

    So in a nutshell, everyone would prefer to be lied to in a way they can easily spot, than be told the truth directly. Peronally, I take more offense and being lied to badly as it implies I am too stupid to spot the lie. Being told straight that I am a source of money for the companies that I buy products from is far more preferable.

    This sort of thing really baffles me. Its as if the bubble has burst, people have discovered that the world does not see them as a charitable cause, and the revelation has driven them mad with rage.


    I am NOT in any way defending his attitude. I am just pointing out that his only crime over his peers as I see it, is brutal honesty.

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    "If they can decrease the number of ways to acquire content, it's only going to increase the amount they feel they can charge us"

    That is an unsafe statement. It is equally possible that second hand sales shore up a higher priced first hand market.

    You said youself "You pay full price for the priviledge of playing it at release and being part of the hype machine". For the many gamers who won't pay for that priviledge, the removal of the second hand market means they will end up buying less games. Remove the option for first hand buyers to trade in their games, and they too might end up buying less new games. both of these reactions COULD actually result in a lowering of first hand game prices (because at the end of it all, the only thing really controlling the price of games, is whether people buy them or not).


    I don't know which way things will go, but I know its not as straight forward and predictable as you are suggesting.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 13:36

  • UKLL #45 2 years ago

    I usually don't wait long enough for second hand titles so I'm not fussed by this new idea.

    I get free DLC and when I'm done with the game I still get the same trade in value that I would of anyway. Regardless if DLC is coming in the future I can usually tell if I'm going to keep a game or not in the first few hours of play. At the end of the day any substantial DLC is going to be charged for on the MP/Store - this is EA after all....

    I bought Bioshock 2 and could of returned it to Gamestation within 10 days for a full refund (store credit), I wrapped up the single player in a few days but I'm having a blast with the multi so I decided to keep it.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 13:38

  • ignatiusjreilly #46 2 years ago

    Well, taking advantage of your customers is one way of doing business, and plenty of people have been very successful doing so, but I don't like the idea that somehow as long as you are engaged in the pursuit of money then you shouldn't come in for criticism.

  • kangarootoo #47 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett

    "oh dear, made the mistake of reading the latest comments while not logged in"

    Yeah. You miss me really ;)

    I'm not sure how I might not write in monotone given this is text. And to be honest, playing devil's advocate in the face of a tsunami of exagerated outrage is bound to bring the same "stating the obvious" out of me on a repeated basis.

    Every time somebody says something even remotely less than angelic, the same bunch of people act like someone punched their grandma. It is FAKE outrage I say. It is the stuff Daily Mail editors are made of. All this guy did was state the obvious the way I apparently do.

  • kangarootoo #48 2 years ago

    "but I don't like the idea that somehow as long as you are engaged in the pursuit of money then you shouldn't come in for criticism."

    A fair point. Critisism is fine. A little less rightous anger is all I ask for :)

  • Day8000 #49 2 years ago

    Heads up EA! The fact that after any EA related article is posted in here or anywhere on the web there are hundreds of posts from people pissed off with your greed, probably means you should take note.

    It's not a problem I have as such with the $10 DLC for secondary users, but EA's business model for the last two years.

    Im an avid EA Sports fan (even though that is starting to wane). NHL 10 was the start of the problems from my point of view. The endless unlockable (paid) content that was featured in the game started to make the game feel cheap and tacky.
    'IF IT'S IN THE GAME, IT'S IN THE GAME' is the tag line of the company. Really? Are bobble hats an integral part of hockey? Are artificial boosts really adding anything to anyone's enjoyment of the game (aside from aiding the cheesers of this world)?

    Madden 10 also took this to a new level. Paying to stop a player from retiring had to be a low point of these new additions.

    For anyone who loves sports, grab a copy of MLB the show 10. A fantastic sports sim that relies on gameplay and not cheap gimmicks.

    EA Sports this is a make or break year for you. People pay enough to support your company (£40+ per game).
    Keep it up with the wallet and energy sapping add ons and you won't have anyone left to sell the game too, leaving the DLC points mute.

    We should all be reviewing your product on the thing that matters (the game itself), not this subsidiary BS!

  • ignatiusjreilly #50 2 years ago

    Nonsense- anyone with any grasp of economics can see that a second-hand market this prominent is raising new prices, not lowering them.

    This is as spurious as the claim you are trying to refute unless you can provide some sort of evidence or statistics to back up your argument - saying it's basic economics is not enough. If it's obvious, proof or evidence should not be hard to find.

  • kangarootoo #51 2 years ago

    "If it's obvious, proof or evidence should not be hard to find."

    Perfectly put.

    I'm buggering off now. Even I'm sick of the sound of my own voice :)

  • Freek #52 2 years ago

    If you buy the game new then you get it for free, if you buy it second hand, then you hve to pay 10 bucks ofr the added content.
    Somehow Moore managed to turn that into consumer exploitation, massive PR mistake.

  • ignatiusjreilly #53 2 years ago

    Couple this with the reduced number of new sales making it harder for everyone in the chain to use an economy of scales to pull prices down, and it's not hard to see that second-hand is, at best, not letting prices come down.

    But prices have come down, have they not? And this has been happening while the second-hand market is booming.
    Edited by 1 at 02/03/10 @ 15:51

  • ignatiusjreilly #54 2 years ago

    Hmm, but that still means it's not true to say second-hand sales won't allow game prices to come down.

    If we're talking simple economics, the way I see it is

    1) increased demand for new games leads to increased prices
    2) no price competition from used games leads to increased prices
    3) smaller choice of retailers selling games means increased prices (Game etc. couldn't survive without pre-owned revenue, and even if they could prices would rise to compensate)

    I warn you I'm not capable of going much further than "simple" economics however ;)

  • ignatiusjreilly #55 2 years ago

    Hmm, good points, especially about retailers being able to negotiate better wholesale prices with larger volume - although my previous experience has shown publishers to be pretty tough hagglers ;) When no shops can no longer buy stock from the man in the street then publishers will suddenly have a trump card when sitting at the negotiating table.

    One point we can certainly agree on is that there would be more shelf space for a wider variety of games, and perhaps encourage a longer tail (as long as publishers are willing to lower RRPs as time goes on), and that can only be a good thing.
    Edited by 2 at 02/03/10 @ 16:33

  • ongjg #56 2 years ago

    "Sports games, because their seasonality runs out, are always something tempting to trade in"
    It doesn't help that you close the servers when the next annual edition is released.

  • GiarcYekrub #57 2 years ago

    I do think Project 10 dollar is a genius strategyy, admittedly speaking as a compulsive release purchaser and horder seems win win to me, Retail get to reduce prices earlier, release purchaser are rewarded, Devs/publishers get some 2nd Hand action,2nd Hand market may see a bigger differential from new at least in opening 3 Months

  • Digtrio #58 2 years ago

    Don't see any problem with anything going on here. A company is trying to increase it's profits. Not really anything to get worked up over. Second hand games heavily cut into a developers profits and this is a way to combat that. It's not going to affect you unless you buy second hand and want all the DLC. And even then it's just an unlock to a whole heap of stuff - it's not like you're paying $10 for an extra mission. Besides, if you wanted the DLC you'd pay for it anyways so instead of paying 400MSP for a mission you get it for free if you buy the game new which I think most people would do anyways.