In a column on IndustryGamers, EEDAR analyst Jesse Divnich lays down his case for premium downloadable content and its effect on the retail scene. According to Divnich, whenever a high profile game receives premium DLC, it can actually hurt the sales of lower profile games in the same genre.
He notes that a blockbuster game normally has a blackout period of a few weeks, meaning that when a new game comes out -- he uses Halo 4 as an example -- there's a period before and after its release when gamers are less likely to buy a similar game. Whenever that same game gets DLC, players are once again less liable to purchase a similar game for a certain period before and after the release of the DLC. After all, why would you pick up Call of Duty: The Next One, if you're still playing that fancy new Halo DLC?
The long and short of it, says Divnich, is that DLC has nothing but a negative impact on retail. It's actually a double impact, as DLC both prevents gamers from buying a new game and from selling their current games back to used game retailers like GameStop. According to Divnich, digital sales are going to seriously impact retail sooner than believed.
Reader Comments (59)
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 6:29AM Skruff said
Oh no.... Consumer choice and free market capitalism is hurting established retailers who don't want to modify their business models to adapt to the changing market!!!!
Won't someone think of the children?!?!?
Won't someone think of the children?!?!?
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 7:30AM FOI said
Ahh but you can sell digitally distributed games and with them their DLC by tying games to accounts and then selling said accounts.
All the time people create brand new Live/PSN/Steam/Impulse accounts simply to tie one game to them and retain their ability to sell that content should they decide to.
It's a pain and more than a bit silly but it's a means to an end. People do sell digitally distributed content and they do it all the time. License agreements be damned.
It's teenager logic mostly: tell a human that they can't do something and watch what happens next.
All the time people create brand new Live/PSN/Steam/Impulse accounts simply to tie one game to them and retain their ability to sell that content should they decide to.
It's a pain and more than a bit silly but it's a means to an end. People do sell digitally distributed content and they do it all the time. License agreements be damned.
It's teenager logic mostly: tell a human that they can't do something and watch what happens next.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 7:50AM GWord said
If that was a G-Force/Gatchaman/Battle of the Planets game I'd be all over it. Calling something that comes from Disney by that name is not the same. :(
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 9:59AM StormEagle said
See Capcom vs. Tetsonoku - Coming to your Wii this Holiday season!
Reply
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 9:02AM Johnny Neat said
This is a foolish, I think if anything DLC will hurt itself as people will eventually get annoyed by getting things they should get on their original disk purchase, for free or at the least very very cheap. Then again I'm thinking people are smart & aware, which generally isn't the case.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 9:31AM Faceless Troll said
So. . .I guess this means that people shouldn't be timing the release of "lesser known" (read: shit) games around the time of release for higher profile titles? Fuck, that just might be too easy.
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 9:57AM acme64 said
i didn't realize there was a time limit on the stuff i buy
Posted: Jul 7th 2009 11:39AM Mr Khan said
I think this is just another overestimation of the importance of DLC. You can't compare it to retail releases, no matter how lowly
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM




