PROJECT: TEN-DOLLAR

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/10/riccitiello-talks-project-ten-dollar-and-digital-distribution/

There is some interesting discussion regarding this position by EA to recoup from losses perceived to be caused by the used game market. To sum up, new EA games will be shipped with "day-one DLC" which is "bonus" content codes packed in with new games, redeemable as soon as you buy the game and get it home, in the form of many things such as additional equipment (Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age), and even as much as bonus quests and contests (Dragon Age). This could possibly go so far as to include the capability to use online multiplayer for the title. The purchaser of used games obviously will not get these codes, but have the capability to purchase these codes (which is where the "Ten-Dollar" moniker comes in) to restore the bonus content.

I have my own thoughts on the matter which I can go over later, but before I taint the pool, I invite you to share your thoughts first.
Just sounds like any other DLC ever, except that it is packaged for free with new games. I have no problem with this, as long as the DLC isn't required to play the game.

It is kind of like bonuses that some games offer if you pre-order.
Hexatona
JESEUS MIMLLION SPOLERS
3702
Just another case of a company wanting to limit what you can do with something you own. If companies had their way, anything you bought would only be usable in the one way they wanted you to use it, and only by you.

I can understand this slightly, in terms of games mostly meant for multiplayer that don't make you pay to play - They had these notions from years ago that new purchases would pay for server maintenance.

I tend to almost universally avoid games with a poor single player campaign for this reason - the multiplayer server will go down sometime. At least include bots for christsakes.

On the other hand - when you release a game, and there is content on the disc that is unreachable until you pay for some dlc. ie: 100 kb downloads for dlc. If it's on the disc, I get to play it, end of story.
EA could give away their games for free they would still be the worst compony in exitance.

/Thread
This could possibly go so far as to include the capability to use online multiplayer for the title.
this is, I'm not gonna lie, pretty fucking retarded, no offense.

First off, Multiplayer shouldn't be an extra function in any way, it needs to be presented at any time if you want it to actually gain a good following (Multiplayer fans usually stick with a series) and denying ANY of your customers, be they pre-orders or people who just bought the game from a friend Multiplayer, will severely hamper the chance of any sort of multiplayer gaining a following and will likely cause it to fail, meaning no games will be online anyway for the people that did buy your extra multiplayer.

Plus, here's an extra scenario; say that a guy bought Space Mercenaries Kill Aliens in Brown Environments 2: Extra Grey Edition from a buddy of his, and finds that he really likes the multiplayer in it. Then, when SMKABE3 comes out and they say they're gonna improve the multiplayer a bit, he's probably going to pre-order it from the start.

Now imagine that when he got it from his friend, he couldn't play the multiplayer straight off so he just forgot about that, and when the sequel comes out he doesn't pay any attention and buys another, different game about space mercenaries.

Total money gained from the first scenario: ~$50 depending on the cost of the sequel.
Total money gained from the second scenario: $10.

Hm.

This post turned out extra-angry.
post=142200
I totally agree that this sort of thing should be limited to the kind of content that would probably end up as DLC if this scheme wasn't in place.

In fact, thinking about it, a better incentive would be to give "day-one" gamers a code that lets them get all future DLC for free. This would then force people who buy pre-owned copies to pay for DLC. Why is this fair? Because pre-owned buyers didn't pay the developer for their copy of the game, they only paid GAME or GameStation or whatever (Gamestop in America?)

I don't think this would necessarily work either. The idea here is to make the companies extra money (well, really, just any amount of money at all) from used copies. I don't think pigeonholing people who buy used in to paying even more money just to play the same game as everyone else, since the reason most people buy used anyways is because they pay the money for the new copy, but I don't think that giving people who pre-ordered even more figurative money will answer it either.

Hey, maybe they could try making the DLC interesting and a good deal, not huge failures like every DLC ever made for any console.
Yeah, every EA game is required to have "free DLC" on release, which is already on the disc.

Before you guys go jumping on the bandwagon, you might want to look at Gamestop first. Buying used games doesn't support the publishers in any way, all of that money is going to Gamestop. It is shitty that you have to pay $10, but that's the world of games (and hey it's only $10).

The problem I have is all of this is tied to your console. If you want to go to a friends house to show them the game, you won't be able to access the content if you put the game disc into their console. How nice of them!

One thing you can learn after walking away from this is that everybody (even publishers) hates Gamestop. It's cool to hate EA, but Gamestop is far worse.

Hey, maybe they could try making the DLC interesting and a good deal, not huge failures like every DLC ever made for any console.
Fallout 3....?
Alright, that was a bit of a blanket statement.

But my point stands, a lot of DLC isn't worth it.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/29/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it-ea039s-riccitiello-moore-earn-big-bucks-bad-year

Sorry bro, I'm gonna have to lay you off and create this $10 project so I don't lose a dime off my paycheck.
post=142194
EA could give away their games for free they would still be the worst compony in exitance.

/Thread

Uh why the EA hate? They haven't been that bad recently compared to Activision. I liked Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, some of BFBC2.

As for DLC in general, I've always had a traditional idea about a game being its own singular product rather than one game with 2/4 DLC on it and that one game with 3/4 DLC on it. I also don't like expansion packs and refined street fighter 4 edition turbo, but idk DLC feels really "intangiable"
wait


What's wrong with using the First Sale Doctrine?
Hexatona
JESEUS MIMLLION SPOLERS
3702
post=142205
The problem I have is all of this is tied to your console. If you want to go to a friends house to show them the game, you won't be able to access the content if you put the game disc into their console. How nice of them!

That is a conscern of mine as well, regarding DLC.

It all ties back into my rant about Actually owning/having what I purchased. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.


This is a load of shit
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
sucky sucky
Frankly, I hate the way everything has been changing so far as the definition of one "owning stuff". If I pay for something I expect to be able to do what I want on it, which would include selling it when I no longer need it. This is equally as ridiculous as for example, back when home developers tried to license the homes they built in such a way that they would get a cut of all future sales of the house,
Freehold Capital Partners, a company started in Texas, is selling developers across the country on a plan that would attach a private transfer fee to homes, allowing developers to profit for generations.

The fee, written into neighborhood restrictions, would encumber the property for 99 years and throw 1 percent of the sale price back to the developer -- or his or her estate or another investor -- and Freehold each time the home changes hands.
I especially don't like it that the courts are enforcing licenses on completely physical goods. The point being though, is that this is equivalent to such idiotic things as saying that you get a cut of all future money made off of a house for all of its existence because you were the one who built it, just in a different form.

post=142205
Yeah, every EA game is required to have "free DLC" on release, which is already on the disc.

Before you guys go jumping on the bandwagon, you might want to look at Gamestop first. Buying used games doesn't support the publishers in any way, all of that money is going to Gamestop. It is shitty that you have to pay $10, but that's the world of games (and hey it's only $10).

The problem I have is all of this is tied to your console. If you want to go to a friends house to show them the game, you won't be able to access the content if you put the game disc into their console. How nice of them!

One thing you can learn after walking away from this is that everybody (even publishers) hates Gamestop. It's cool to hate EA, but Gamestop is far worse.
Actually, the resale market does benefit the publishers/developers by adding value to the game. There's no way I would pay $60 for a new console game unless I would be able to get half of that money or so back later by selling the game. Having a blanket policy on games having to follow this plan is plain retarded. There's also the fact that trying to destroy the second hand game market will completely blow up in their faces with negative publicity and won't cause people who already don't buy the games new to start doing so, but you can't expect them to make a decent business decision in that regard when it would appear to be a new source of money, now can you?

Also, I have hated EA ever since they bought Westwood Studios and got rid of everyone there.
post=142299
Also, I have hated EA ever since they bought Westwood Studios and got rid of everyone there.
This, basically.

But I don't buy games and I never ever resell them, and I don't play online multiplayer, so I only care about any of this stuff in principle (but it is hard for me to get emotionally invested).
I have no objection to this. Developers want money for you buying their game. Preowned they get squat. If I was in their position I'd be pissed every time I saw my game sell and no money came in.

Of course I can't complain I hardly ever buy games used anymore and even then the way Games Sales go on a few months new games go in with preowned prices. And besides even if I did buy Dragon Age used, I wouldn't have any sleepless nights missing out on one golem quest or a suit of Armour on Mass Effect. Most of the add on DLC is trivial.
Pages: first 12 next last