EA's "Project Ten Dollar" explained

By Tom Bramwell Published 11 February, 2010

Discouraging second-hand sales.

Systems like Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network, Dragon Age's DLC network and upcoming launch add-ons for Bad Company 2 are all part of something EA calls "Project Ten Dollar".

That's according to a report in BusinessWeek talking about CEO John Riccitiello's plan to reduce second-hand sales, which the company makes no money from.

The idea, apparently green-lit last autumn, is to include a coupon or redeemable code with every new game which gives the buyer another chunk of content. Without that code, second-hand buyers will have to spend $10 to obtain the missing extras.

Riccitiello told BusinessWeek that despite 11 straight quarters of losses EA is on the up again thanks to its 2010 line-up and strategies like Project Ten Dollar. "You see a six-foot hole that we're in. I'm telling you that we were in a 20-foot hole and we've climbed 14 feet out of it," he said.

As well as providing consumers more reasons to buy games new rather than second-hand, EA also plans to try and stop people trading their games in by tacking multiplayer onto everything - something that rival Ubisoft this week said it was also planning to do.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (116) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • the_dudefather #1 2 years ago

    so this is ISN'T a plan to gain extra money through through 'soldier boys' via 'sucky-sucky'?

  • jellyhead #2 2 years ago

    Actually it kind of is. ;)

    As long as that code is not needed to complete or even enjoy the game i'm not too bothered but if the game is effectively useless without the code then i'll want all sorts of assurances that the code will be valid for the life of the game or is it limited like in ME2?

    Oh well, it's just another thing i will weigh up when appraising EA and Ubi games purchases from now on. Especially Ubi.

  • Zomoniac #3 2 years ago

    I personally think it's a good idea. For two reasons; people are more likely to buy new, thus helping the industry, and if people realise they're missing out by buying second hand (not that they will, people are idiots) then maybe Game and Gamestation will be forced to lower their used game prices to a price more realistic than the current £2 less than RRP.

    Companies certainly need to do something to try and boost new game sales, and this is certainly preferable to game-crippling limited-install DRM.

  • HermitArcader #4 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Dave797 #5 2 years ago

    The end of the highstreet is nigh ; ) digital distribution and content barred trade in's can only mean game over for physical stores. Well untill they've got rid of the last 5 years of back catalogue that is.

  • dpb135 #6 2 years ago

    Or how about people wait for a cheap second hand version & then buy the dlc through the Market Place/Online Store & still save money then buying it brand new!!

  • HermitArcader #7 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • INSOMANiAC #8 2 years ago

    EA is fighting it out to become that number 1 most hated company again after losing ground to Activision.

    They got away with it once with Mass Effect but if they do it with every game they can should their tat up their arse !

  • Pastici #9 2 years ago

    I really don't see the issue with it. It's simply rewarding early customers. Did anyone kick up a fuss that Gears 2 had a map pack code packed in?

  • andywilkie35 #10 2 years ago

    Looks like this is the last generation of games for me then.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #11 2 years ago

    I tend to fall in the camp that believes that a person has the right to sell on something that they have bought. That said, there is little doubt that retail seems to be biting the hand that feeds it by undercutting brand new games, even in the launch period, and maximising profit for themselves. This seems like a reasonable compromise, given we're in the awkward transition period where retail is still required, but are losing their relevance rapidly.

    Looking at the launch period specifically, a preowned copy of a new release is probably only going to be ~£3 cheaper than the full price title anyway, going by the likes of Game and GameStation. It makes more economic sense for people to fork out the extra couple of quid. This is the issue here - the problem isn't people who buy a game for £10 two years down the line, it's about the launch period undercutting by the retailers.

  • Paperghost #12 2 years ago

    "As long as that code is not needed to complete or even enjoy the game i'm not too bothered but if the game is effectively useless without the code then i'll want all sorts of assurances that the code will be valid for the life of the game or is it limited like in ME2?"

    do you mean the "can be shut down at any time" message that pops up when you first register? i think that's the boilerplate babble EA throw at you - unless there are specific online features like multiplayer that require servers etc, the single player content you've already downloaded should work for as long as you have it installed, even if they decide to kill the cerebrus network at some future point. of course if you buy the game "new" but a month after they shut down cerebrus you could have some problems getting the content onto your console...

  • Johnhost #13 2 years ago

    This is exactly why Dragon Age included the 1200 MSP DLC as a code with the game. And I think it's a brilliant idea! The next solution is to offer digital distribution for a slightly slower cost to retail but still higher then second hand sales.

    This is the facts folks. Imagine if you made widgets and sold them for £10.00. You had 100 people who wanted a widget but only 60 of them purchased it. However the other 40 people bought the widget second hand for £8.00 within six months of it's release. Wouldn't you want to also make some money from the other 40 people? Of course you would! EA is simply being smart about second hand sales. In the end they will still make money on DLC from second hand sales anyway so it's a win-win.

    In the end EA making money means games are produced. You like video games? They don't grow on trees.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 09:07

  • CosmicFuzz #14 2 years ago

    I don't mind the free content with new copies, in fact I quite like it - loved the Blood Armour and Shale sidequest in Dragon Age. Tacked on multiplayer sounds like a waste of time though, just spend longer making the game so good people don't want to trade it in!

  • Lee_Morris #15 2 years ago

    "To me this just seems like more of an excuse to bring games out quicker, while missing out key parts of what should be the base content like Ubisoft did with AC2. "

    MrMarc, some of the DLC is out day one and for both of them games these pieces of DLC are free. No one can honestly complain about a company trying limit people buying a game second hand can they?

    To me it's just as bad as piracy, maybe even a little worse, as the people who pirate games are more than likely not going to buy most of there games. Whereas I believe second hand buyers would as they are only really spending £10 less than they would if they bought it first hand.

    I was brought up to believe that people deserved to be paid for the work they've done. For some reason people seem to downplay workers in the entertainment industry as slaves who should do are bidding.

  • GiarcYekrub #16 2 years ago

    Aslong as they don't put multiplay acheivements on everything they truely are the spawn of the devil

  • HermitArcader #17 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • GiarcYekrub #18 2 years ago

    I understand how the tactic applies to 2nd hand games as the code is one use per owner but the code expires after 3-4 months thats going to effect people who buy new

  • seasidebaz #19 2 years ago

    Trouble is that they need to make the free DLC actually WORTH the points. Mass Effect 2's free DLC is nice but it's currently not worth buying if you pick up the game preowned. You get: a suit of armour which is worse than the one I had acquired by level 5, a shotgun that becomes redundant by the time you hit level 5 as there are better alternatives, an extra team member who I don't use because he's not that great, and a rather boring dog-tag collection mission. Plus, EA'll still end up charging for anything that's any good.

  • Machetazo #20 2 years ago

    You're not required to buy from specific stores to obtain the content, or pay anything over the odds. Neither is it content critical to the functioning of the game. It's readily available, and is likely to add future content to your game. Where's the problem? Nobody's being disadvantaged, that wants to support the games industry, and ensure that companies can take chances, and provide original titles with the necessary time put in, in the future. I agree that people ought to be paid for work accomplished.

  • afghan_jones #21 2 years ago

    idiots. If i go buy mass effect 2 new right now from gamestation but I fund that purchase by trading in a copy of Bayonetta for example, then ME2 only costs me maybe 15 quid. Point is, EA still get paid, in full for my ME2 purchase. Gamestation are basically subsidising my purchase and deferring any profit they might have made until they shift that copy of bayonetta. Obviously it works out for them in the end or they wouldnt do it but as they are the ones taking the hit up front, they should be entitled to make a profit on the resale. Publishers and devs seem to forget just how important trade ins are when it comes to funding new sales. If i go trade ME2 in, EA make nothing whne the store resells it, but that trade in will allow me to buy another new game which i couldnt have afforded otherwise. The trade in ,arket massively boosts the sales of new games and without it sales would decrease not increase. Not to mention that for a lot of people they would think twice about buying anything other than the top tier games if they knew they couldnt trade them and get some money back.

  • jellyhead #22 2 years ago

    So the codes will be given for the lifetime of the product or only for the first batch to try to force early-day purchases?

    If i can buy the game new in a years time and still have a valid code and the DLC access then it's fine otherwise it's a pre-order bonus and i'll bear it in mind when considering the game.

  • Toothball #23 2 years ago

    @jellyhead

    Yeah, I don't like all these pre order bonus codes that crop up depending on who you buy a game from. Some standard code in new copies of the game seems like a reasonable incentive to pick it up new though.

  • actionfitz #24 2 years ago

    i dont mind it as long as the game is still more than playable without the content.
    I think it's only fair that game makers should have crack at some income from Pre-owned guys.

    I read an article a while ago that something like 1.5 million people had bought Deadspace, but usage stats on things like xbox live and PSN showed that over 3 million had played the game. This wasn't an article ranting about piracy btw.
    It's pretty disheartening as a games business to find you only got revenue from half the people who paid for the product - those who bought it first hand.

    I think something like "Project Ten Dollar" is a viable compromise between the right of resale and buying preowned and the right of the devs to actually mak money without ripping people off.

    I guess it only works if it's done right.

  • ybfelix #25 2 years ago

    I don't really get why so many people trade in games so soon after release date, thus creating a unfair used market. Wouldn't they be better off renting it?

    edit: We don't have such established shop trade-in programs in my country(we sell our games individually on online auction) so information is welcome.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 10:10

  • jonsaan #26 2 years ago

    And when they stop supporting that game? What happens then? Sounds cuntish to me. Oh and until they stop charging 31.99 for PSP games on PSN they can fuck right off.

  • TeaFiend #27 2 years ago

    Seeing as the people that made the game get no money from a pre-owned sale, I think this is an excellent plan. I don't see why people are complaining. So far we have seen a new character and a DLC browser with a lot of DLC. Not exactly crippling, but still significant.

  • ybfelix #28 2 years ago

    @MrMarc: What you said is indeed worrying. What's stopping the publisher make these "free bonus" grow into half the game - maybe the whole game? Essentially DRM on consoles, that tied your game to an account like Steam on PC (worse, since Steam is a unified authentication system while this is every publisher for its own). IMO microsoft and sony should discourage such dual structure on their network service.

  • jellyhead #29 2 years ago

    I'm not even looking at it from the point of a second-hand buyer. I play a lot of games so i have a backlog of games i play maybe 6 months after release. I'm concerned they're going to use it to front-load their sales by time limiting the DLC service. If i buy the game new a year later i want to have access to the content everyone else has had.

    It's a slippery slope.

  • penhalion #30 2 years ago

    It's amazing isn't it. I guarantee that 6 months from now EA will be wondering why their sales have fallen still further as will Ubisoft. It will simply not occur to them that there is no justification in trying to get money off of a second hand purchase of something that you (meaning EA, Ubisoft, activision etc. etc.)

    A) no longer own.
    B) have already been paid for.

    It's been said before but, software houses don't seem to be getting it. You wouldn't buy a table, TV, CD, laptop or clothes or indeed anything and then expect to pay again if you sold it to your neighbour or a second hand shop. Why then do these stupid companies think that they have any right to charge someone else for buying your property from you! Do they not grasp the concept that once you have paid your money they no longer own the thing!

  • Pastici #31 2 years ago

    Well you do, you buy the game for £10 less, and you get less the £10 DLC.

  • etherfiend #32 2 years ago

    Whilst I am fine with adding the codes, etc to prevent second hand sales what does really get on my wick is the fact you have to register with multiple sites, initiatives and god knows what else to use them.

    Dragon Age DLC, there is something you register for. AC2 you have to register seperately for Ubipoints or whatever that tosh was (didnt actually bother signing up for that). ME2 again seperate registration for Cerberus even though I owned DA:o. Thats multiple sources that now have my gamertag, email address, etc on record. Just one more place for my details to get 'lost' or hacked.

    If this is the trend going forward then it either needs to all be linked into gamertag (PSN user for PS3 or whatever) as trying to use different passwords to register for each new EA/Ubi game I buy will result in chaos.

  • TeaFiend #33 2 years ago

    @Penhalion:
    Sales won't drop, if anything they will rise. Second hand sales do not count towards the publisher, they count against.

    The table example would be more like you selling a table on ebay without a leg, the leg only comes with a table that is bought at retail brand new.

  • ybfelix #34 2 years ago

    Yes, but if you can't sell it later at a acceptable price, some people would not buy it in the first place (I bought some used game with the intention of selling it off after finish them). So I think this strategy would only work on big titles that people really really want to play.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 10:44

  • penhalion #35 2 years ago

    @TeaFiend

    You seem to have missed the point. I wouldn't buy a table if the vendor held back a leg and required me to pay extra for it and I doubt you would either.

    The move by EA means that people will be reluctant to buy used EA games in future simply because they will need to pay again to get all of the content. This in turn will mean that you and I have trouble selling the games to shops like Game etc. etc. as the buyback prices will ultimately fall as shops start to have trouble selling the games on. This then has the knock on effect that we will buy less new titles as the cost can't be offset anymore.

    While I'm being a bit dramatic I would hate to look back at this point in gaming history and have to say this is where it all went tits up.

  • Machetazo #36 2 years ago

    Best intentions...There is always the potential for this safety net to be misused. I guess responsibility, and trust are going to have to work both ways. (us, in wantiong to support games and creators, THEM in resisting the temptation to let greed take hold).

  • TeaFiend #37 2 years ago

    @penhalion:
    People not buying pre-owned games is the entire idea of this. Pre-owned sales go straight to the retailer, the publisher and developers get nothing for it. This way people are encouraged to either buy a new copy or to spend the money online to get the additional features. This ultimately helps the people who made the game, pre-owned sales are of no concern to them.

    Publishers had tried to discuss this before with retailers saying they should have had a "publishers cut" from pre-owned sales, retailers said no. This is quite simply the answer to it.

  • the_mtfr #38 2 years ago

    "You see a six-foot hole that we're in"

    Amen brother, where's the shovel!

  • Derblington #39 2 years ago

    afghan_jones: That logic is flawed. It only applies if you trade and buy new, and even then it's not accurate. What happens when you trade and buy used, or just buy used in general? Retailers make a small profit on all sales, and a full profit on used. Devs make none on used, and by trading titles you're effectively lowering the sales of new games because a new game can only be bought once, but a used title can be bought, and traded, over and over.

    You are correct that trade-ins can fund the sales of new titles, but in no way do they help maintain or [massively] increase them.

  • Zomoniac #40 2 years ago

    You wouldn't buy a table, TV, CD, laptop or clothes or indeed anything and then expect to pay again if you sold it to your neighbour or a second hand shop.

    The big difference here is a culture and volume thing. Other than cars and houses, can you name me any other product where pretty much half (going on the Dead Space numbers) of all sales come from used products? I'd be surprised if the number of TVs and laptops bought second-hand was even at 5%, let alone the 50% we are talking here. That creates a big problem. In your nearest city centre (a big one, rather than local village high street, where lots of people shop), you might have one indie shop on a back-street selling second-hand CDs. You might have a couple of charity shops selling 10-year old clothes for a pittance. But how many prominent shops are there selling second-hand TVs and laptops? Almost certainly none.

    Contrast this to games, and look at the big high-street players. Game and Gamestation stores have considerably more pre-owned stuff than new stuff, and really push it because it maximises their margins. CEX I think are 100% used, and HMV are increasing their pre-owned game shelf space. But HMV don't sell pre-owned CDs or DVDs, despite the fact they'd have bigger margins on them, because the demand isn't there since when it comes to buying a CD, most people wouldn't even think of buying second-hand. It's just not part of the culture in that market.

    So whilst you do have a 'right' to sell stuff on once you're done with it, I think it's hard to deny, looking at the stats and the gaming market as a whole, that the huge rise of the trading in a game (probably bought used) at Gamestation towards another pre-owned game (and probably getting through a lot of games without ever buying a new one in many cases) is having a problem on the market, because the relative scale of it vastly eclipses the sectors you compared it to.

  • CosmicGypsy #41 2 years ago

    @ybfelix - "What's stopping the publisher make these "free bonus" grow into half the game?"

    Microsoft, Sony, reviewers & most importantly US, the customers.

    Pretty sure half a game would get a pretty shit score on EG. The platform holders will not allow anyone to unfairly cripple their games in the way you are suggesting, it wouldn't make sense for them to do so. These games go through a pretty demanding certification process to ensure they are up to expected standards

  • the_mtfr #42 2 years ago

    @Lee_Morris, "I was brought up to believe that people deserved to be paid for the work they've done. For some reason people seem to downplay workers in the entertainment industry as slaves who should do are bidding."

    Would you say the same thing about the second-hand car market? What about the second-hand books market? Would you also categorize the car-makers and authors as "slaves" just because people buy second-hand cars and books? If not, then whey do you call just the game developers slaves?

  • jellyhead #43 2 years ago

    If you don't need the code to play the game you could not enter the code until you've played the game a bit to see if you like it. If you like it you can enter the code, if you don't you can keep the code unused and sell it with the game for a few extra quid i suppose :)

  • sarcasmoidosis #44 2 years ago

    Some people are bothered by anything and will always whine. I think it's a great idea to reward first hand buyers. ME2 didn't have the best free content ever, but it was good.

    Edit: stop comparing it to second hand cars or TV's, those are actually used. There are no scratches on the content of a second hand game. The textures are just as good :)
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 11:27

  • Freek #45 2 years ago

    It is deliberatly NOT worth it if you pick it up second hand. The point is to encourage new sales.

  • jellyhead #46 2 years ago

    @sarcasmoidosis, by the same generalization some people will lap up any old tat blindly without thinking of the potential consequences :)

    I'm going to wait-and-see on this but it won't encourage me to buy early, quite the opposite unless the game is stellar.

  • TeaFiend #47 2 years ago

    If you were trading in a car within a week of having it, fair point. But complaining about trading in a car a few years after having it? If you traded in a copy of a game a few years after it was out, nobody would be as fussed. It would be worth nothing.

  • floatstarpx #48 2 years ago

    there are a lot of people (generally younger) who constantly trade their games to buy new ones. this kind of thing will affect them dramatically, as the value of their used game will be lower... meaning they will get less money from their trade-ins (if it is worth them trading in at all), meaning they can buy fewer new games..
    it's not a good thing for the industry, no matter what people try to tell you. it's good for certain parts of the industry, certainly. it is definitely going to be very effective for certain major-AAA releases, but for the "2nd place" game/ non-EA/Activisions -- it's probably going to reduce their sales numbers.
    a lot of people buy a £40 game on the premise that, they can get £20 of that back if they trade it in.. if it looks like you're only gonna be able to get £10 of that back if you trade it in (who's gonna want to buy it 2nd hand if you don't get as much stuff??) - is it still worth £40? not to everyone.
    personally, i never trade anything in. i like to keep stuff.. i'll buy pre-owned. i'll buy 2nd hand CDs, too. and dvds. games are no different.

  • Zomoniac #49 2 years ago

    Would you say the same thing about the second-hand car market? What about the second-hand books market? Would you also categorize the car-makers and authors as "slaves" just because people buy second-hand cars and books? If not, then whey do you call just the game developers slaves?

    Second hand book sales aren't as high as second hand game sales. And it doesn't cost $100m to produce a book.

    As for cars, the cost of a used car three years old is around 40% that of a new car. Most people simply can't afford to buy new. No doubt the car manufacturers are well aware of this and price their new stuff accordingly to cover the second-hand sales. They also make an absolute killing on vastly overpriced services to offset these losses. Games, on the other hand, are usually available used for 95% of the new price. 99.9% of people buying a used game can afford to buy it new (hell, half the time it's cheaper new than the cheapest second-hand price if you look around), so it's less understandable. There's also the fact that if publishers try to offset losses made from used sales by increasing the prices of new products or releasing premium DLC, everyone whines about it. They can't really win.

  • sarcasmoidosis #50 2 years ago

    Let's put it this way. If you buy a new car, you get free service for 2-3 years. If you buy it used you get squat and have to pay for it. Same here.

    /Bioware fanboi, so I might not be entirely objective on the matter.

  • Zomoniac #51 2 years ago

    Let's put it this way. If you buy a new car, you get free service for 2-3 years. If you buy it used you get squat and have to pay for it. Same here.

    Great analogy. Pissed off that I didn't think of it myself :)

  • MyPointIs #52 2 years ago

    Great insights. It's a volume problem as people say. Put simply, the % of people's money that goes to publishers/developers is WAY lower than it was before the second hand market exploded into this monster. And the % retailers keep has increased to an unknown quantity.

    I don't know you, but I prefer if my money goes to the game developers, as opposed to every middle-man.

  • MrChuckles #53 2 years ago

    For those who don't understand just how much devs get ripped off vs retailers... Lets pick an example life of a computer game...

    Player A buys Assassin's Creed 2 on xbox 360 day 1 release for £39.99 from GAME... About £5 goes to game, £35 to Ubisoft, of which of that £5 goes to marketing, £5 to production and distribution and £10 to develop the game.

    So, so far,

    GAME Profit (GP) = £5
    Publisher Profit (PP) = £15 (Non publisher made games split this with the developer).

    Player A, sells game to GAME for £20 a week later; GP = -£15; PP = £15
    Player B buys the game for £30; GP = £15; PP = £15 (So 1 second hand sale makes it about equal)
    Player B sells the game for £17, GAME resells it to Player C for £25; GP = £23; PP = £15
    Player C sells the game for £12, GAME resells it to Player D for £20; GP = £31; PP = £15
    Player D sells the game for £8, GAME resells it to Player E for £15; GP = £38; PP = £15.....etc....

    So in this example, the shop on the street makes over twice as much profit as the company that took the risk on funding the game development for 2 years, did the marketing, and made the game. All GAME did was have a shop on the high street and push 2nd hand sales down your throat...

    I know where i'd rather my money went... But until someone makes 2nd hand sales non-viable, my only option is to go into GAME and do the same thing, as otherwise i'm ripping myself off...

    I can't wait for Direct Download to cost 50% of the shop retail price, then i won't buy a single 2nd hand game again.

  • CosmicGypsy #54 2 years ago

    @sarcasmoidosis

    Let's not forget the feee insurance companies like Citroen offer, those evil money grabbing bastards :)
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 12:09

  • penhalion #55 2 years ago

    @TeaFiend

    Your last comment makes my point for me. When I buy something it's mine to do with as I please. If i sell it on after a day for near full price why the heck does the developer deserve a cut of that money?

    Here's the thing that makes this "we deserve a cut of second hand sales" thing the nonsense it is though.

    A retailer buys the game from a publisher for the wholesale price. They then sell it on to you and I for a retail price and pocket the profit. Later on, after playing and hopefully completing the game, I sell the game back to a retailer for a trade-in price. The retailer then sells the game on to someone else for a reduced price. Nothing wrong so far except that EA, Activision etc. etc want a cut of that second, completely unrelated transaction between me and the retailer. Why?

    They have done nothing to deserve a cut. The retailer is taking all the risk here by having to store and sell on the game. Activision and EA have already been paid right at the start of this whole process and most likely in advance!

    Only pure ignorant greed would ever allow someone to think they can sell something and keep getting an income from it as long as it exists. It's like selling a table to a guy and getting paid every time that table changes hands. For all eternity. And you really can't see the nonsense in that!

  • MrChuckles #56 2 years ago

    Oh and the car analogy is rubbish. A car degrade over time so you take a risk every time you buy them... i know this, just bought a car, and the fact you have to check everything over so you don't get ripped off.

    The most accurate analogy is a film DVD or music CD... So, the direct comparison here, is to walk into HMV to pick up the latest Lily Allen album (see, i'm down with the kids) and as you walk up to pay £9.99 for it the spotty youth behind the till says with his breaking voice..'We have that 2nd hand for £7.99'.

    Why don't HMV do this? Because all the music companies would rip them a new one... Trading in your 2nd hand CD's or DVDs in a SEPERATE SHOP is widely seen as fine, because people who want new music and films don't go into that shop, they go to HMV.

    GAME has such a stranglehold on the market, and the games publishers are so impotent to play hardball with them, that they'll keep getting ripped off. You'll never hear a games developer complain that someone sold/bought a 2nd game on EBay, or at a bootfair, but in a store that is on every high street, yes...

  • TeaFiend #57 2 years ago

    "For all eternity. And you really can't see the nonsense in that! "

    See art sales and the law changes in that. Artists get a fee when their work is resold at auction. Why should Game make money several times selling on the same game? Are they a glorified pawn shop?

  • CosmicGypsy #58 2 years ago

    @MrChuckles

    That is nowhere near a good analogy.

    By the time a DVD has been released, the studio have already made their money back on Cinema releases and selling to Sky Movies.

    It is not even close

    The fact is, likening the games industry to any other is impossible. It is a unique market that can't be based on or compared to anything else (as far as I can see)
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 12:30

  • Zomoniac #59 2 years ago

    Player A buys Assassin's Creed 2 on xbox 360 day 1 release for £39.99 from GAME... About £5 goes to game, £35 to Ubisoft, of which of that £5 goes to marketing, £5 to production and distribution and £10 to develop the game.

    There is no way the retailer margin is that low. I can't see Game selling anything at a loss, and their standard staff discount is 30% (what their manager told my Mrs when she was working there in 2005 was roughly their margin after various costs).

    I'd imagine it's more like £15-18 to Game and £22-25 to Ubisoft.

  • Zomoniac #60 2 years ago

    A car degrade over time so you take a risk every time you buy them...

    I've bought enough second hand games on eBay to know that this issue isn't exclusive to cars :)

  • ignatiusjreilly #61 2 years ago

    When I worked at a video game retailer we earned about £3-5 on each new game sale. This was a while ago and we were charging £30-35 when games had an RRP of £39.99.

    The argument is pointless anyway - game makers could charge retailers a higher cost if they wanted to, but at the end of the day eveyone's charges are set at what will make them the most profit.

  • ckyman2 #62 2 years ago

    I bought Dragons Age second-hand, I just asked the nice people in gamestation if it still had the voucher inside the box, which it did, so if you want to be a hero and beat the system, leave your voucher in it when you trade it in, cause it still works for the next person hehehe idiots ea times lol

  • makeamazing #63 2 years ago

    I dont think it matters if you compare it to cars or books or anything else, this is an issue with games, games companies must try and rectify it. The issue is that with piracy and shops doing trade in, this is a massive problem that affects the bottom line for a games company. If you are spending millions on a game you want as many of those sales coming direct to you - is that really a problem? This is why games companies will do more of this kind of thing to ensure people hold onto the games for longer and dont trade them in straight away, ensuring they can try and profit from their games.

    Anyone who thinks games companies should just make games and sell them and not worry about this kind of thing, sadly doesnt understand the issues in the games industry.

  • jellyhead #64 2 years ago

    Oh, i understand them makeamazing but as a consumer i don't have to support these initiatives with my money. So i won't.

  • darleysam #65 2 years ago

    You're not 'beating the system' by waiting for the used copy of the game to drop $10 then buying that and the DLC, that's why it's a good strategy. You're still giving EA $10 for the game. Buy it new and save that if the shops aren't selling the used for significantly cheaper, or buy it used for less and still give them money for the game. Either way, everybody wins.

    Unless you want to be the whiny berk who complains they're having to give money to 'the man'. Before putting on your favourite Linkin Park CD and wondering why she still isn't talking to you, even though you looked at her for like, a whole half hour today.

  • darleysam #66 2 years ago

    MrChuckles, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

  • ignatiusjreilly #67 2 years ago

    Maybe it would be a good idea for publishers to offer a downloadable version of the game that is cheaper than what GAME charges for a second-hand copy.

    That way gamers can still find a cheap copy which there is obviously demand for (although it will have less value than the retail without the disc, manual etc.), and the game maker still gets paid for every single sale?

  • TeaFiend #68 2 years ago

    Less than half of a retail console game sale goes to publisher. Shop takes a lot.

  • TeaFiend #69 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly:
    And then retailers refuse to sell the games, system or accessories. The retailers cannot be undercut or they will not play ball.

  • Murton #70 2 years ago

    MrChuckles has the theory behind second hand trading down pat, nobody really knows the numbers involved so we can't really comment on that but the theory is spot on.

    CosmicGypsy: Sony and MS don't vet their games based on content so I don't think they'd really notice that a game doesn't offer much without the first buyer bonus content, in fact I doubt they'd even test without the content beyond "does it crash" and "can you earn 1000g/platinum trophy" type testing.

    This shouldn't be looked at as EA trying to shaft customers but as a direct response to retailers refusing to give publishers a cut of the trade-in market. Retailers are ordering smaller first runs than they used to because they know a sizable number of them will come back through trade-ins, their second run is also smaller because they have pre-owned to sell and that continues down the line as more copies are traded in, eventually you reach the point where they simply stop ordering new copies and the publishers revenue stops. EA saw two choices before them, increase the wholesale price to cover the lost margin (MW2) or give incentives for buying new (ME2), I personally think they made the right decision.

  • ybfelix #71 2 years ago

    By the same logic isn't game renting even more harmful for the industry?

  • Derblington #72 2 years ago

    Jellyhead - what is it that you don't like about this "scheme"? I can't see how it effects you, as a consumer, negatively.

  • TeaFiend #73 2 years ago

    @ybfelix:
    No, as they pay large sums for the right to rent the games for profit. Read the back of normal game boxes, there is a line that roughly says "you cannot legally rent this to people for cash". People get money.

  • ignatiusjreilly #74 2 years ago

    @Derblington

    It affects consumers because it lowers the value of the game disc, meaning it's worth less if you try and sell it on; and meaning if you want all the content that first-hand buyers get, saving money by buying pre-owned is no longer a viable option.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 13:28

  • Shikasama #75 2 years ago

    I can fast see the day coming where I stop buying games at all.

    Awesome business strategy there.

  • seanthejackal #76 2 years ago

    TEN DOLLA!!!

  • CosmicGypsy #77 2 years ago

    @Murton - I know a few people who used to work with you Keith, so I know what you just said is based on opinion rather than experience. I know for a fact that MS and Sony would not approve a DLC option which is detremental to the end user, so you can 'doubt' all you like. DLC has to be explained in detail and approved before it is produced and sent to them for testing, so there is no way that a developer would get MS or Sony to approve DLC which adds "half the game"

    My facts trump your doubts :p

    We seem to be on the same side in this argument anyway, but in your point against me you seem to have omitted the fact that I was responding to a statement which said "What's stopping the publisher make these "free bonus" grow into half the game?"
    I stand by my point that neither MS nor Sony would allow it. The reason that this "Project 10 dollar" concept seems so well thought out and balanced is because EA know that if it isn't, MS & Sony will not approve it.

  • Shikasama #78 2 years ago

    All of these arguments by price breakdown are moot.

    The developers sign a deal with the publisher. A deal negotiated by the developers.

    It is the publishers that are the greedy money grabbing cunts and it is the publishers who take the lions share of the wholesale price. What the hell gives EA the right to dictate what I do with my property? Also, for all those people who are fighting against the 'evil GAME and CEX' shops (because they obviously hate getting things cheaper), bear in mind that these business, built on a perfectly economic sub market that has existed in all creative industries since the dawn of time, employ people. People will lose their jobs so EA can earn a cut of the sale of YOUR property.

    The large publishers are the cancer of the gaming industry. They stifle innovation and have absolutely no common sense and we suffer for it. If you want to support 'the industry' then stop bending over as consumers so Bobby Kotick and his ilk can by another yacht.

  • Derblington #79 2 years ago

    "It affects consumers because it lowers the value of the game disc, meaning it's worth less if you try and sell it on; and meaning if you want all the content that first-hand buyers get, saving money by buying pre-owned is no longer a viable option."

    Sort of. It only lowers the trade-in value at highstreet retailers, there is nothing stopping you from selling the game onto friends, or via other channels. Other channels that would potentially make you more money per sale anyway, but require slightly more effort. No one is trying to stop you from selling games on, the industry is trying to stop retailers pushing used sales ahead of new because it is currently detrimental to our health.

    Buying second hand will still save you money, but you will lose certain bonuses, yes. So it's for the consumer to work out whether bonus content is worth the added cost from used to new, in the same way we are all able to decide whether or not to buy special editions, etc.

    The incentive works by trying to provide the consumer with more content that lasts longer and more entertainment for the same cost. If you do not want that, by all means buy used, and no-one can or will stop you.

  • MrChuckles #80 2 years ago

    @darleysam: If i was only an acrobat too, i'd be the Pink Panther!

    @ignatiusjreilly: As you may have guessed, i work in the industry, and i'd LOVE it if the games i make were sold cheaper online than at retail... You know why they aren't? Because if we undercut retail then they refuse to put our new games in their store. I have been in management meetings where that has been quoted.

    @ybfelix: Renting isn't great for the industry, but i believe publishers get a % of all rental revenue, so aren't technically being ripped off.

    Personally i see a world where the base game is free (A demo if you will) and all of the extra content is paid for... Xbox Live is already doing that with the Episodic Fable 2 experiment. You pay for as much of the game as you like. Isn't that the fairest option of all?

  • Derblington #81 2 years ago

    Shikasama - stop spouting shit. The industry also provide millions of jobs, and those people will also lose their income if/when studios are closed. There are many reasons for this occuring, but if new game sales cease to provide adequate income, how are studios expected to keep the lights on?

    At the same time, when publishers are unable to afford to fund risky IP, and must instead rely on tried and tested formulas to stay afloat, how much innovation do you expect to find on store shelves?

  • ignatiusjreilly #82 2 years ago

    @Shikasama: You are so right.

    People are acting like games retailers are out to bring down the games industry, when in fact they are the ones that are bringing down the cost of gaming for the average person. They are doing it for profit, just like everyone else, but at least it is to the benefit of the consumer, not just shareholders.

    Totally agree that the publishers are the biggest leeches, and to sit here arguing that they should get an additional slice of the pie when I've had enough of the game I gave them £40 for makes no sense to me, unless of course you work for a publisher yourself.

    The real utopia here would not be a situation when publishers get more and more money for less and less work, but when publishers are no longer needed and my money goes straight into the pocket of the men and women that actually made the game.

    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 14:02

  • stampax #83 2 years ago

    Sounds like a clever idea to me - don't really see an issue with it. They are a business after all, can you really blaming them for trying to make money?

  • rob76 #84 2 years ago

    Assuming this goes ahead, games' resale value will fall dramatically hence the orignal purchaser will not afford to buy more new games, which @ £40 a pop is not exactly cheap. The second hand buyer will buy the same amount of 2nd hand games or maybe more cos they're cheaper now.

    Who's to lose?

  • Derblington #85 2 years ago

    "People are acting like games retailers are out to bring down the games industry, when in fact they are the ones that are bringing down the cost of gaming for the average person. They are doing it for profit, just like everyone else, but at least it is to the benefit of the consumer, not just shareholders."

    So what side of the fence are you on when the specialist retailers are complaining that supermarkets are unfairly lowering prices to a level that they cannot compete?

    Unfortunately, retailers have far too large a hold over the industry. You only see the "good" because you only see a very narrow slice of what is actually happening, but retailers arenot out to provide yo u better services and prices for anything other than their own benefit, and it's not as simple as you think.

    Also, publishers are not trying to get money from you, or from your sale of the game. You can do what you choose and you will never be stopped from reselling. It's not about that, and never has been. It's about retailers pushing used sales over new, and the effect that those sales have. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

  • ignatiusjreilly #86 2 years ago

    At the same time, when publishers are unable to afford to fund risky IP, and must instead rely on tried and tested formulas to stay afloat, how much innovation do you expect to find on store shelves?

    This day has been and gone I'm afraid. What was the last genuinely original game to come out of a big studio? They are rarer and rarer. Things are so bad now that people praise EA for releasing 'innovative' and 'risky' games like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space.

    The problem isn't that they can't afford to fund risky IP, it's that there is no reason for them too when they can guarantee profits by taking the obvious route. in fact, it's the less rich studios and publishers that are producing the genuinely risky IPs, because they are the ones who have a passion and love for gaming, whereas the publishers with the money just spend it on larger and more powerful vacuum cleaners to suck as much money out of the industry as they can. They then act like it's unfair people are buying old copies of FIFA 2009 when they have the new FIFA 2010 on the shelves for just £40!

    edit: I can tell you I am on the side of the specialist retailers when it comes to supermarkets selling games below cost, but that is a whole other issue, mainly about monopolies and competition. And I'm quite happy to debate the issue, but not if you insinuate I'm an idiot who is too dumb to understand, and that must be the reason I disagree with you.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/10 @ 14:31

  • hazelam #87 2 years ago

    so long as it remains extras that are locked to new copies like this then i wouldn't be a big fan but i can see where they're coming from, but you know they're going to push it further and include essential game content in this program sooner or later.
    maybe they'l take that bloated blimp newell's advice and make the end boss locked to a 100k unlock key you download with a one time use code.
    and when you go to play the game a few years down the line and you're on a different console by then, hardware failure most likely reason, and you find they're no longer hosting that content so that's you stuffed and the game you paid money for has been rendered unfinishable.
    it's the same with these drm systems that companies like ea and now ubisoft are using.
    people who buy legitimate copies new and preowned are the ones who get punished.

  • Silvervein #88 2 years ago

    Out of curiosity, did anyone ever wondered why, in the time of digital downloads, said downloads cost as much as boxed version of the game?

    And who gets the money that comes from a digital download skipping disk production, package, storing and distribution parts of boxed game selling process?

    Do you think it's developers? HA!

    I might be wrong, but all that crying about retailers killing 'the industry' is nothing more than cry of publisher trying to squeeze as much cash as they can from people. Yeah. Cry me a river. I got a spare tissue I can give them.

    One last thing. There's an old saying. Whether wolf beats the bear, or bear beats the wolf, rabbit always loses. Consumers were and always will be the rabbit, because it's them that's going to pay for the schemes of both publishers and retailers. And in reality, neither publishers or retailers give a damn about you, the gamer. You are just a wallet on legs. Supporting moves that will make you pay more for things you would like to buy, now and in the future, doesn't strike me as a wise move. Unless you are one of those lucky bastids that just inherited several million and don't have to lift the finger till your deathbed.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 14:32

  • CosmicGypsy #89 2 years ago

    @Silvervein

    Have you ever read EG when they post an article about digital Distribution or Games on demand? To answer your question, YES. MANY people have wondered and MANY people have detailed exactly why DD games are similar in price to boxed versions. I can't be bothered to explain, because many people far more intelligent than I have already done so numerous times on this site (pretty much any time MS releases a new GOD)
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 14:37

  • TeaFiend #90 2 years ago

    @Silvervein:

    Already discussed, because if the first parties put the games up at reduced prices then the retailers would no longer stock consoles, games, accessories, etc. Why do you think many refused to stock PSP Go?

  • Derblington #91 2 years ago

    ignatiusjreilly - I'm not insinuating anything about you, I was merely pointing out that the retailer/publisher relationship is not as simple as you're making it out to be, and that's because the public at large are not fully aware of the effect that each player has over the industry. Mr Chuckles has been pointing it out, from first hand knowledge, yet you seem to be ignoring it over the drivel that shikasama is posting, which I can promise you is an incredibly uniformed opinion.

    None of this should be publisher vs consumer, which you seem to be making out. It's about publisher vs retailer tactics, and the only way to combat this is to provide better content for the consumer in order for the consumer to want to give us their money. Why anyone is arguing about how hard done by the consumer will be as a result of this is baffling. Retailers cause far more issues, regarding pricing policies and DLC plans than you realise, because they refuse to stock items if they don't see enough profit in it, which actually prevents devs giving you stuff for free. It's incredibly annoying.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/10 @ 14:42

  • Silvervein #92 2 years ago

    @cosmicgypsy

    As a matter of fact, I didn't read any explanation of that fact. And it's something I'm really keen to learn. And I hope the explanations are good. Unlike opinions of mr. ricotello and mr. kotick.

  • Murton #93 2 years ago

    CosmicGypsy: oddly enough I know a few people I used to work with too, I have no doubts that the guys in compat or the studio would know a great many things that a tester wouldn't, what Sony/MS allow and do not is their domain rather than a tester's so yes, I admit it was more opinion than fact, but then I didn't say anything to the contrary. I know that Sony/MS wouldn't allow a publisher to throw out half a game on a disc and half as a DLC, but I doubt the original statement was to be taken literally. I took to mean that they could put out a complete game but with substantial bonus content available for free to new buyers, such as side missions, something which I personally don't think either MS or Sony would have a problem with as increased sales from publishers means increased royalties for them.

    But yes, we're on the same side here in that we want publishers to have a secure revenue rather than the game retailers having all of the cake and eating too.

  • MrChuckles #94 2 years ago

    @Silvervein: The Read TeaFiends response, the one below the one you replied to. It is correct... He'll i'll include it so you can read it again...

    '@Silvervein:

    Already discussed, because if the first parties put the games up at reduced prices then the retailers would no longer stock consoles, games, accessories, etc. Why do you think many refused to stock PSP Go? '

  • CosmicGypsy #95 2 years ago

    @Murton - Who can blame them though?

    Cake is fucking delicious

  • ignatiusjreilly #96 2 years ago

    @Derblington: OK, sorry if I took your comment a little personally.

    I should say I'm not completely uninformed, but my experience comes from the other side of the divide - I spent quite a while working for a specialist games retailer, and not just working the tills. This particular retailer actually went out of business, partly due to the anti-competitive prices of supermarkets and partly due to the very low margins we made on games sales.

    However I do accept that there is a complicated relationship between publishers and retailers that I am not privy to, but really it can be summed up by saying the publishers do everything they can to get the most money for their games, while the retailers do what they can to get them cheaply. That much is obvious.

    I can't see why you would complain that retailers refuse to stock stuff if there is not enough profit in it - profit is the reason they run their businesses, so why would they want to sell your game otherwise? I'm sure you know publishers employ similar tactics, charging extortionately high prices unless retailers agree to stock thousands of units, and removing buy-back agreements that have been in place for many years.

    Anyway, this whole twisted relationship wasn't really what I began with - my only problem with this story is publishers witholding content with the express purpose of making second-hand sales less attractive, along with the general tone in the comments that retailers are effectively stealing a large portion of money that should rightfully belong to the publisher.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 15:05

  • monkeywithnoeyes #97 2 years ago

    in some ways this is a good idea, as it does indeed tempt more people to buy the game new. But at the end of the day this day1 content should be, and would of been, on the disc. The reality is that we're not getting "rewarded" by buying the games new.. we're simply being offered what we've already paid for..at the price of eating up more of our overpriced console harddrive space.

    I suppose we should be greatfull that they're offering us content taken out of the main game (which day 1 content is) for no additional price... well for now atleast.

    I'm far more concerned on how EA will practice this with online based games like bad company 2. If the contents free then fine.. if how ever they start micro-transactions with weapons then it's a bad step for online gaming.. offering unbalanced games. Ofcourse it will sadly sell and be a success for them..as you will always have those people who will crave that advantage

  • homerbert #98 2 years ago



    What an interesting made up statistic. I could afford to buy new games, but for the price I'd pay I can buy two used games. Or a game and a night out.

    The problem is one of pricing. Why don't books/comics/DVDs/CDs have this problem? Because a new unit of these items is 10-15 quid. A new comptuer game is 40-50. Yes, it's 30 if you shop around online, but then if you shop around for other stuff, they're cheaper too. At 2-3 times the price of other entertainment goods, of course second hand is going to be a big attraction.

    They're creaming off the hardcore gamers, which is clever in the short term, but market limitting in the long term. Look at laserdisks, bought at exhorbitant pricing by the hardcore, but nowhere near as big a money spinner as cheaper, mass market DVDs.

  • Derblington #99 2 years ago

    "I can't see why you would complain that retailers refuse to stock stuff if there is not enough profit in it - profit is the reason they run their businesses, so why would they want to sell your game otherwise? I'm sure you know publishers employ similar tactics, charging extortionately high prices unless retailers agree to stock thousands of units, and removing buy-back agreements that have been in place for many years."

    Of course, everyone is trying to get the best deal. I was actually referring more to this:

    "People are acting like games retailers are out to bring down the games industry, when in fact they are the ones that are bringing down the cost of gaming for the average person. They are doing it for profit, just like everyone else, but at least it is to the benefit of the consumer, not just shareholders."

    And this:

    "Maybe it would be a good idea for publishers to offer a downloadable version of the game that is cheaper than what GAME charges for a second-hand copy.

    That way gamers can still find a cheap copy which there is obviously demand for (although it will have less value than the retail without the disc, manual etc.), and the game maker still gets paid for every single sale?"

    Retailers, unfortunately, hold the cards on this issue. Devs/Pubs can't offer more competitive prices because then retailers will refuse to stock boxed copies, which is still the biggest retail channel available. Even if the $10 code, that is the focus here, offers too much content, retailers will refuse to stock the item, as it will hamper their used sales...

    So, in actual fact, retail is not doing anything for the benefit of the consumer, as you point out. They are actually doing everything available to them to block you from seeing the benefit, instead only allowing what they deem "good value" so as not to damage their own profits. I don't deny it's good business sense for them, but it is not a benefit to the consumer, and it is not the publisher that is trying to shaft you.

    Obviously, these are only the biggest retail chains, as they are the only ones with the leverage, but they set the standard for the rest. It's a complicated mess that publishers are trying to get out of, because they can make more money with schemes such as this, that offer the consumer more value. And you know full well that they want that money :)
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/10 @ 15:34

  • ignatiusjreilly #100 2 years ago

    On the other hand, how many games would be £30 (or less) if there wasn't the upwards pressure on new prices from second hand?

    It's my belief that pre-owned games actually exert downwards pressure on prices. If new games didn't have to compete with pre-owned prices, I think you'd see the price creep up.

    Apart from its massive popularity, one of the reasons MW2 could get away with a high RRP was because the popularity of multi-player makes it hard to find a second-hand copy.

    @ Derblington: that argument does make sense and I'm sure there's alot of truth to it, but I do have a couple of misgivings about it - firstly as a PC gamer I see the same high prices on digital downloads, even though retailers have long since given up on the PC and don't stock many of these games anyway. Secondly, why don't other industries have this problem? Why don't HMV refuse to stock CDs when they are available cheaper on iTunes, or Boardmans refuse to stock Dan Brown because his work is available as an eBook?

    I guess that after all the nickel-and-diming I've seen publishers do in the last few years, i just need a little more convincing that publishers are desperate to give us cheaper prices but are being held back by the bricks and mortar retailers. At the end of the day, shops can't refuse to stock everybody's titles as they would soon go out of business, so maybe it just needs the publishers to stand together and show they have some balls. It can't be good for them to have GAME dictating their busines decisions anyway.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/10 @ 15:44

  • darleysam #101 2 years ago

    See, no-one's trying to destroy the games industry. That benefits no-one as they all go out of business. Everyone's just trying to maximise their profits, but it's an imbalanced system because the retailers are the ones holding all the cards. GAME (and to a more severe extent, Gamestop in the States) have an absurd monopoly and know that their biggest income is from used sales. It's to a point where, in the States, you can't buy new in one of their branches. You can pre-order (guaranteed sale for the shop) or you can buy a used copy. With this kind of power, the publishers and developers can't undercut them or make any threats. Sell it cheaper as a download? They'll just never stock your stuff again. This is an actual thing that really does happen. Everyone wants the money, but only one person's really getting to call the shots at the moment.

  • Derblington #102 2 years ago

    "...as a PC gamer I see the same high prices on digital downloads, even though retailers have long since given up on the PC and don't stock many of these games anyway. Secondly, why don't other industries have this problem? Why don't HMV refuse to stock CDs when they are available cheaper on iTunes, or Boardmans refuse to stock Dan Brown because his work is available as an eBook?"

    PC games need to recoup the costs of development through to retail, and combat piracy, so I assume that prices are kept slightly higher than is ideal in order to try and achieve that. Piracy is an issue that I don't want to go into here, as it really is a messy argument from every angle.

    Regards to CD and books though, while I know little of their respective industries, I assume that the retail channel for physical copies is still the largest, just like games, or at least highly competitive, and makes enough of a profit that it just makes good financial sense to keep bricks and mortar stores operational. Both of those products appeal to far larger audiences, and specifically less tech-savvy audiences that are either unaware or unable to invest in their digital counterparts. It's just a different market.
    Edited by 2 at 11/02/10 @ 15:53

  • ignatiusjreilly #103 2 years ago

    OK, good points.

    Thing is, it's a completely theoretical argument anyway, as there is no possible way for developers or publishers to sell downloadable console games, so I can't see how it's an issue that crops up too often in board meetings.

    I guess DLC is a good way for them to avoid the retailers' demands, but value for money hardly seems to be a priority for publishers there...
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 15:57

  • ignatiusjreilly #104 2 years ago

    You may call it simplistic but I still think that competition has a much greater influence on retail price than development costs does (see prices of identical iPhone vs DS games and the wildly varying development costs of different studios). And seeing as it's the same game, the real competition for a new copy of Assassin's Creed 2 is a pre-owned copy of Assassin's Creed 2.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 16:21

  • monkeywithnoeyes #105 2 years ago

    you know what this will ultimately lead to? it will simply lead to gamers not buying games as day 1 purchases.. instead waiting for the sales. After all, you trade in games because you cant afford the price tag of new titles. Waiting for games to be heavily discounted (though not a long wait if nobody buys them day of release - look at dark void, £49.99..2weeks later you can pick it up for £12), is still not going to earn EA the profits it believes it's losing through trade-ins.. and will probably result in franchises dieing off, and nobody investing in new IP's.

  • ignatiusjreilly #106 2 years ago

    Prices can only come down where there is room to do so

    Well prices have come down significantly in real terms in the last ten years, despite (I would say partly because of) the huge pre-owned market in that time. An the price of iPhone games suggests there is more room still.

    However at this point I'm way off topic, and pretty much out of my depth, so I'll leave the economics of game prices to someone better informed than I :)
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 16:41

  • the_mtfr #107 2 years ago

    The second hand market is a balancing tool for the price of new games. In this world every action needs a reaction for the outcome to be balanced. It's gonna be bad if they cut off the second hand market.

    Long live independent devs who have the balls to:
    - sell games without DRM
    - port to Linux
    - experiment with buyers choosing their own price
    And who then ultimately enjoy the fruits of their labor (as with World of Goo). I wish the corporations stop trying to do the exact opposite of what 2D Boy did for achieving the same target as them.

  • darleysam #108 2 years ago

    Competition will influence retail prices, but the problem is, there is no competition. If GAME aren't stocking your release, then you're pretty screwed. The reason it doesn't work the same with cds and dvds? Well if HMV don't stock your cd, there'll be plenty of other places that will. Same with your dvd. And these sell to a much wider audience, since pretty much everyone in the UK is a potential buyer (compared to the much, much smaller games market which is already competing with itself across multiple platforms). If the stores don't stock your CD, they lose out because someone else will pick it up. If GAME or Gamestation don't stock your newest title, you are boned.

  • ignatiusjreilly #109 2 years ago

    Touche ;)

  • Shikasama #110 2 years ago

    The day is coming in which you will not own a game, they will only be available on license and if you are lucky, EA MIGHT let you play it from time to time. If you're on the internet. In their office. With ID.

    Derblington - Honestly, I don't know what to say to you. You seem to be suggesting that publishers are desperate to knock down their prices but they can't because of those pesky, pesky retailers. Mmhmm. I'm sure they are. As for the 'extra' content for 'new' purchasers, please step away because the bullshit detector is running hot. There's nothing 'extra' about something being released at launch, theres simply something 'omitted' from my 40 quid purchase that I need to incur extra cost to receive. I was going to get BFBC2 after having an awesome time on the demo, but now I'm thinking that I'll give it a miss and give my money to a company that isn't out to punish me. Show me the numbers. Tell me how much ACTUAL REVENUE you lose through second hand gaming. Maybe then I'll consider it a little more than fatcat dollar chasing. 'Every person who buys our game second hand would have brought it brand new.' What typical gaming publisher thinking.

    I hope they destroy the second hand market and then realise that actually, now they can't sell games anymore because noone can afford them.

    All of this, ALL of it (including this new ridiculous policy of DLC) is because the games industry were so arrogant going into the recession. They went in with bold claims of being recession proof and then got royally fucked over and deservedly so. Being a gamer is a lot like being a football fan these days. You're treat like shit and when you complain you're accused of being disloyal. Fuck that.

  • VibratingDonkey #111 2 years ago

    If Mass Effect 2 is an indication of how this is going to be handled, then no thank you. Fine if you want to discourage used sales, I can accept that that's a thing you need to do, but not at the expense of me, as a consumer, buying your game new.

    With Mass Effect 2 you are forced to go through a lengthy registering, code inputting, downloading, exiting game, restarting console process. It's like...thank you so very much for forcing me to go through all this crap. Even worse with all the pre-order bonus BS that's so popular these days.

    If in the future all you have to do is input a code printed on a voucher, and it unlocks content included on the disc, then that's fine. Although, people buying used being forced to pay $15 to be able to pay for DLC....kind of questionable. Potentially lowers the value of used games. That's the only kind I can sell. I make less money so EA can make more.

  • craigm #112 2 years ago

    ten dolla ea love you long time

  • Redeye #113 2 years ago

    Here's my ten dollars, EA - wrapped around my middle finger.

    And yeah, this is probably guaranteed to gain me all sorts of negative shit, but if you can't see that this is purely and simply corporate bollocks spoon-fed to investors in order to gain more of the consumer's cold hard readies, you're living in la-la land. The fact that publishers aren't getting anything more from a title that someone has already paid for makes my heart bleed with purple piss...and don't give me that 'it threatens future IP and product development' garbage, because that is the biggest crock of all, wrapped up in a shiny veneer of emotional blackmail.

  • dirtysteve #114 2 years ago

    This is actually a pretty positive initiative. When companies first started talking about second hand games, I expected their response to be DRM or something negative.

  • icematt12 #115 2 years ago

    Mass Effect 3 and Mirror's Edge 2 going to have some sort of multiplayer then? Doesn't sound that appealing to me, think I would rather have the existing online capabilities for these IPs. There can't be 3 Sheperds on screen at once surely. How would Mirror's Edge work - Runner v Runner combat, races where you can hinder your opponents (like shoving them off a building and forcing them to respawn)?

    Nothing to stop people buying used games and then for the extra content. They just need to be aware of this. I do hate how it forces people to get an EA account though, which I have had problems with in the past. Can be better than something tied to your PSN or Live account though as your relative/partner can use it on too on their account.
    Edited by 1 at 11/02/10 @ 20:36

  • jmg123 #116 2 years ago

    @ybfelix

    If a publisher puts out a half game, with the other half being via a DLC code for first time buyers, then I think Eurogamer et al should divide the final score by half. As soon as they start getting metacritic scores of 45 rather than 90 they'll stop it.