Riccitiello talks 'Project Ten Dollar' and digital distribution

Then you haven't thought this through.

DLC is being made to keep the 'value' of a game? I say it cheapens it.

This is horrible news for the industry, and it's not the right way to keep sales of new games steady.

If anything, the regular consumer knows very little about DLC, and this resolves nothing except screws the hardcore gamer in the end.

I know they have a bottom line to meet, but this make the game feel very incomplete when you have devs pulling content from a game just to make sure everyone buys it new.

Ah, but I have thought it through. Because I buy all my games new already.

Besides, I would rather have to pay out the extra $3-5 for a new copy than knowing I just pocketed Gamestop $40 after they gave some little kid $15 for his game.

That's what I'm screaming Sam...

And hopefully those little kids (big kids too) realize that they are getting raped by these trade in companies and start keeping their games instead of giving them away for store credit.

Here's a great idea, guys.


Why don't they sell games for CHEAPER and people won't have to trade in a $60 game to buy their next one!

I know, crazy idea.

Because the market is what it is. Besides, if games were sold cheaper it would become such a standard that eventually you would again be saying they should sell it cheaper. No one is making you buy video games. There are rentals you know.

Why would they sell their games for cheaper, exactly? That's a crazy idea.

It's hard to not want them to be cheaper when the same games are $40 to $50 on PC. MW2 is the only exception to this I can think of, since it was $60 on PC too.

Games cost a lot to make these days. While I don't believe every game should be sold at 60, when you're approaching 50+ million dollars things get dicey.

Let's face it, for this plan to work, they're going to have to attach some serious DLC to the game.

If it's armor or a weapon, this plan is totally a moot point, anyway.

HEY WHATEVER YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT OR WHATEVER THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT, IT'S ALREADY ON THE DISC!!! Sorry that was just involuntary, I just blurt it out sometimes without any self control. Like at dinner last night when I got a side of ranch.

The reason games are cheaper on PC is because developers have to pay a fee to develop games on console, thus raised prices. PC is open ended, so there are no fees to pay.

@Wiizer: I personally don't think EA have raped their core games to deliver this day one DLC - Zaeed and his loyalty mission, plus the various pieces of armour and weaponry, in Mass Effect 2 were nice to have extras. Same with Shale and all the gear in Dragon Age: Origins. What's more, I'm thoroughly impressed to note that items received on one platform can be re-used on another with Bioware's games.

They are incentives, but if you can honestly say that you would be unable to enjoy the games without them, there's something wrong.

Certainly in the RPG space, publishers are getting DLC very right after the horse armour debacle. The Fallout 3 add-ons massively extended my experience, but I would have clocked in 70 hours on the game without them... and that's playing through once. Tales Of Vesperia had some cool booster packs that helped you avoid some grinding. Fable II's add-ons even had free versions.

"They are incentives, but if you can honestly say that you would be unable to enjoy the games without them, there's something wrong."

So, what about a game that's sold without DLC and has everything available? What about games discounted on Black Friday?

Are they any less of a game, because they aren't sold full price?

Well obviously if a game is sold with no DLC it's a game without incentives. And a game on sale is per the retailer. Your argument is unjust.

Wiizier those games are discounted by retailers...the publisher is usually paid already before at their regular price....the retailer wants to make more money so they drop prices on certain things knowing most people will come in and buy a number of other things as well

these "incentives" should already be in the game. i'm not sure if you remember but that's how games worked last gen or maybe many of you have forgotten because when you see the word "FREE" put up you assume you're getting more that you payed for when your not

Additionally, I'd like to point out that again, the consumer is being taken advantage of in these types of business models.

I thought I was paying $60 for Bluray, but I still don't get why 360 games are $60 and still on DVD's.

Is it because of the HD content? Do you really think that makes every game sold worth $60? Especially, now that you know you'll have to go to EA to get another portion of the game? And on top of that, you have an install and this content is already on the disc?

@Solace

It isn't so much more than we paid for. It's getting something for what we paid for by supporting the developers.

Why are some of you even so upset about it? You either pay $55-57 for a used copy minus the "incentive" or spend an extra $3-5 to get that incentive and a copy that isn't scratched like crazy. Put yourself in our shoes and realize how petty that $3-5 complaint sounds.

Especially when you can buy it new from Amazon and generally get a 10 dollar credit!

And these items aren't 'on disc', not in ME2 or Dragon Age's case.

Wiizer I thought it was already established that the fees for both MS & Sony were what caused the $10 jump from last gen and this gen...

1) Charging $60 for a video game is a crime, especially since that price point is the de facto standard, regardless of

-the game's quality (Bioshock and "Spongebob: the Next Garbage Videogame" both cost the same),
-the game's dollar to game hour value (DMC4, which took me under 20 hours to clear, and Fallout 3, which took 60 hours to clear without getting all bobbleheads or books, cost the same), and
-the cost of the same game for pc ($60 for Bioshock 2 on a console, vs. $50 for the same game on PC).

Yes, the devs can whine all they want about licensing fees, but in the end, they release games on consoles because its a much larger market than pc and they make wayyyy more sales (and thus, more money) off consoles than pc. PLUS, you can't possibly tell me that the 360 licensing fees are $10 per copy sold. That number is padded to hell and back, and we all know it.

If game devs would stop fleecing their customers, maybe they'd get a bit more customer loyalty and people would buy fewer used games.

2) The day one DLC they've released so far has all been suck. In Dragon Age, you got a set of armor, a 30 minute to one hour long quest (to get Shale), and a new team member whose entire backstory was uncovered in the 30 minute-1 hour quest it took to get him. Woo. In Mass Effect, the new armor is useless since the game only uses armor for appearances. At least the new team member's stuff took longer than Shale's--maybe 2 hours--but beyond that, it didn't add much. Oh, and lets not forget being able to go to the Normandy crash site! I'd pay $10 for 20 minutes of looking at things!!

If they want to actually entice consumers with day one DLC, they need to take a lesson from Bethesda or Rockstar on how to make worthwhile DLC. Bethesda's early stuff--horse armor!--sucked, but the Fallout 3 stuff really did rock. As for Rockstar, well, anyone who says you don't get your money's worth from TLatD and BoGT is insane.

"You either pay $55-57 for a used copy minus the 'incentive' "

Here's my take, and I have a feeling we just need to agree to disagree.

PC games are not having this issue. PC games on Steam are greatly discounted to the point where I got Mass Effect for like $5.

How is it that PC Games do not have an issue with used games, and consoles have to attach DLC to keep a profit?

These DLC things are not in place to hurt you at all. They are in place to give people more reason to purchase the copy new to support the developer. When supporting the developer they increase income meaning more better games in the future. This is a system to stop people from supporting Gamestop's horrible trade in values and price hikes on used copies. You are not supporting the developer by purchasing used copies of games. You are just putting money into the pockets of a giant chain store that is simply profiting off of your misfortune because you have few other options.

"These DLC things are not in place to hurt you at all."

Well, they're not there to help us, Sam.

And I think that's the point where we disagree. I feel that any additional costs should not be shouldered by the consumer.


If they've got beef with GameStop, publishers of video games need to go discuss it with them, not take it out on their consumers by putting the burden on them, instead.

"I feel that any additional costs should not be shouldered by the consumer. If they've got beef with GameStop, publishers of video games need to go discuss it with them, not take it out on their consumers by putting the burden on them, instead."

Consider my mind blown, those are absolutely ridiculous statements.

@Wiizer
You're paying for the game.
Whether it comes on a disk, download, or disk and download.
It's not like you're getting a collector LP.

I'm cool with dumping the disks alltogether.

Steam > Disk

This debate will go on until the end of time, because 1st day DLC is here to stay. To the detractors: you just spent 20 minutes reading comments and arguing over $4. Your time is worth more than $4 if you're making over $12/hr. How bout you stop raging against something that you cannot change and give your arguing money to a developer instead. You'll get better games... and you'll live longer!

EA is just throwing people bones.... If they were really serious about this, I have an idea.


If you buy a game new for $60, ALL OF THE POST DLC WILL BE FREE.

What's going to be the argument with this? They need MORE money than what they get for the post DLC? They need pre, mid, and post DLC to keep the studios alive?

Come on, guys. EA will screw you over just as much as GameStop is screwing them.

We're just the go-between in this DLC War.

Well this is a sensitive subject. Could it lead to people actually cutting out the ending to a game and only giving it as a free unlock-code download to those who bought the game new? Sure it could, but I'm going to assume good faith and say it won't, at least unless some drastic change happens in the future to warrant it.

Now consider most used games are around $5-10 cheaper than their new versions, this really shouldn't hurt anyone. If the DLC is optional stuff like armor, an extra character who doesn't change much, and stuff like that, then I say go for it. You're not missing anything by not having it, and there are always other options if you don't feel like paying the full $60 but do want the DLC (Black Friday? Steam sales? Waiting a year or two for the price to drop?).

If your point is about getting value out of what you paid for, then why ever buy games the year they release? You can save so much money, and get even more value, if you buy everything a year or two later once the price drops, or just get it in a Steam sale and hey guess what, you can get the DLC too!

The only reason you'd have to complain about this is if you bought the game used close to release time, and if that is the case then it's your fault for not knowing how to spend your money. You could've spent an extra $5 to get it new that same day, gone for an Amazon or Steam deal, or waited for Black Friday. These are games, you don't ever NEED to have them on release day.


Not that any of that matters since pirates already found ways around the Cerberus network and it's DLC for the PC copy of Mass Effect 2.

@ Wiizer

The reason why you can get games for so cheap on Steam comes down to a lot of factors some of it is clever marketing but a lot of it comes down to the fact that the only cost to steam is maintaining the servers on which you download from. Steam can essentially offer unlimited copies of said game without batting an eye or worrying about manufacturing costs...you can also NEVER trade in a copy of a game bought off Steam.

this is also good for people who are on the fence about a game and refuse to buy a game based off price.... once a game has made it's money back and starts to profit...that's when dev's and publishers can get creative with how they price the game. like for example the fact that you bought mass effect for $5 I'm sure it was after EA had either made all their money back or after they knew for sure they were going to profit from the game...so for all those people sitting on the fence about the game based on price why not offer it for $5? What do they have to lose? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And my copy was new, essentially. Here's the thing:

This launch DLC is a new type of DRM for EA. Do you see the guy in that $10 bill?

Does he look like he's living out of a cardboard box? Does EA have thousands of workers making shovelware? Is this a company that's on the verge of closure?

No. In fact, if they would take this issue up with GameStop or find a way to offer their games directly to the consumer without selling it THROUGH places like GameStop, they wouldn't have to scheme up things like "Project Ten Dollar".

They make just as much profit from GameStop selling their games as they spend time trying to undo them.

When GameStop actively pushes used copies over new, tries to hammer the consumer with 'save x and get x!', EA has no choice.

@sonicspike

You can't be serious.

1) Your entire argument is predicated on the argument that this only impacts early adopters and unsavvy consumers. The reality, however, is that a developer/producer makes the majority of its money within the first month or so of a game's release. Retail shelf space is at a premium (been to Gamestop lately? It's a Cluttersaurus). Plus, I think its disingenuous to blame the consumer for not knowing "the right time" to buy a game (sure, *we* know, but the joystiq readership is a minority of consumers).

2) Your argument also fails in that retailers, like gamestop, adjust the prices of their used software to match their new software. The result is that pc software is always $10 less than console software, and used software is always $5-15 less than new software (depending on supply and demand factors). So "1st day DLC" as a means of DRM is a valid concern regardless of where you are in the life cycle of the product.

@Wiizer

Have you used steam?

1) Steam isn't *always* cheaper. Left 4 Dead 2 is more expensive through steam than through gamestop right now. Go look it up.

2) Steam will always be preferred by developers because you can't "trade-in" steam games. They're tied to your log in . . . Seriously, have you used steam before? :)

Actually I don't think you understand how much money EA has lost due to making higher quality games instead of pumping out shovelware and screwing the consumer. Ea also had to lay off a ton of people this The guy runs a huge company...do you expect him not to be compensated for such or are you ignorant to the way that capitalism works? He's trying to keep EA a large competitive publisher while trying to balance giving the consumer what they want. Why do you think Activision doesn't employ the same tactics? It's because they put as little money as possible into their games and also only invest in "proven" products. While digital distibution is getting more and more popular the Brick and mortars is where the money is still made...the whole country...or even world doesn't have unlimited blazing fast internet access so it definitely isn't realistic for a company like EA to abandon that ship.

Whether you like it or not we are in a weird transitional period and these companies need to make money because they are losing quite a bit to piracy and used sales..

The main thing is you have to look at the bigger picture as a gamer...would you rather that EA go back how they used to be and constantly put out the same type of crap games while still charging 60 dollars or would you rather them put out quality titles and new IP's that are fully worth the 60 dollars and then maybe further reward players who buy their games new? I think the main question is that if EA didn't offer this DLC at all (that you're assuming was intentionally cut from the game) would you still complain about paying 60 dollars for the game itself?

My guess is that you wouldn't.

You're all assuming this is content that would have been in the game had it been released in the good old days of yore. Hard to really qualify that in a world where DLC exists. I just know I don't want to keep seeing developers and publishers I love going out of business because Gamestop are drinking their milkshake.

I buy new games because I'm a snob about scratched discs. For me, the DLC is just a little something extra. For many people, even though Gamestop charges ridiculous amounts for used games, that $10 difference takes a lot of consideration as it has an opportunity cost.

Dale Plainview

Wow, EA should hire you as a team of cronies, seriously.

The amount of effort you put into rationalizing this is insane.

Steam is the least of your worries JCD, if EA keeps producing DLC to limit the way gamers buy their games.

Have you heard of DRM, JCD? Steam games are mostly cheaper than their console counterparts, if you can't see that, you're diluting yourself.


My God, how did these publishers survive without online DLC??? They're not going through any 'transitiional weird times', they're going through a stockholders meeting where they want to hear how EA is going to make even more profits in the future.

@Brian Shaffner: "I've abandoned by Game Boy!" :D

you don't think the fact that EA has recently changed their business strategy for the better and the fact that the industry is slowly shifting it's focus to online distribution as transitional?

I'm defending EA because this is the direction I'd prefer they go in versus how they have been in the past. I also understand that if I want games to come out frequently with amazing quality that THAT is a giant cost to the publisher....if the consumer sees no value in it they're not going to buy it....just like the fact that you bought Mass Effect for $5 and I paid $60 for it on day one like a lot of other people...it all comes down to perceived value.

It seems like you're mostly a discount gamer...there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...but companies don't make that much money off of you so at the same time If I'm interested enough in buying a game day one at full price I don't see why EA should have to hold back rewarding me for that...besides, I highly doubt any of these items (much like the ME2 content) will be that substantial. However if it essentially locks out features I'll be right there complaining with you. The issue is that you're instantly crying about it when EA has barely even started to implement it.

I think the point that all of us here are trying to get to you is "don't knock it before you rock it"

But Brian, I'm not a bargain gamer.

It's not even about that for me, which may or may not shock you.

It's about a business model that is being put in place that is setting a precedent for consumers to be the ones who lose in this digital distribution war.

I hate the idea of paid DLC in the first place, as do many others. What makes you think people will be jumping for joy for Day One DLC, regardless of it being 'free'?

It's really not free, is it?

But it is free. They could never put it on the disc, then charge for the DLC later. How is this not free?

@Wiizer

I don't think you quite understood me. This is a thread about used game sales. Steam and the steam platform pricing has nothing to do with the topic because *you can't buy and sell used steam games.*

I have, on my desk at this very moment, a copy of Neverwinter Nights 2 that I bought used from someone. He deleted the game from his system, and I installed it onto mine. That's a used game sale. Simple. But if he got NWN2 on steam, he would *still* have NWN2 on steam. Your games are tied to your login.

And I don't know what point you're trying to make, but yes, I know what DRM is. There are alot of types of DRM. Are you talking about secureRom? Are you talking about the DRM schemes that only allow a certain number of installs? Because even those can be worked around if you call the company and explain that the old copies have been deleted and you are going to have the only active copy.

Also, I never compared steam prices to consoles, I compared steam prices to retail pc software prices. We all know that console software costs an extra $10 for some reason ("licensing fees," yeah right).

He makes no sense. There is a gas station near me that offers a free package of hostess donuts with every coffee purchase. It is an incentive to buy the coffee. Basically he is saying those donuts are not free because you are still paying the original price of the coffee. Same for the games. You are purchasing the original price of the game (Coffee) and as an incentive, getting free DLC (Donuts). Still do not understand how he is saying this is not a free offer.

@Wiizer.

First of all, some game companies do in fact give you free DLC. From what I've heard with Shale in Dragon Age for instance, they wanted to make him in the final game, but they didn't have time to put him in. During the few weeks where the game is being certified and they can't really add in new info, they worked on fully integrating Shale into the game and making sure everything worked. Without DLC, I would not have Shale and they would have lost money working on something that didn't make it into the final game. In this case, everyone wins (EA doesn't lose money on stuff they worked on, and you get FREE stuff).

I see your point, and yeah, there are companies that are going to maybe take out content and offer it later as paid DLC, but that's their choice and you can decide whether to buy it or not. If LittleBigPlanet wants to add levels into a game and charge me $10 for it, then I will buy it because LittleBigPlanet is completely worth the extra money and I will gladly support them. Dante's Inferno on the other hand is a bunch of crap and I will not buy their DLC.

Lastly, what the hell is wrong with what EA is doing with their digital distribution model? I much much much prefer the game developer/publishing making a model to overcome used games sales so that they make more total profit, and thus can make better games in the future. I think Gamestop and other shops are a complete rip-off for their used-games trade, and would much rather give my $5 to the developer/publisher to make better games in future.

As for DRM, well, I don't really get your point. DRM is a big issue when I want to play my music on other computers or other devices, or when I want to transfer my games from one computer to another. I only have one PS3, and I don't think many people plan on playing Dragon Age on different accounts spanning different PS3's. It's not a big deal. If you want the DLC, buy a new game, if you don't, buy a used game. Don't whine that you feel like you should have all the content of a game for free. You're not entitled to it.

Lastly, do you really think that in the future all the game companies are just going to make a game, then take out a section and offer it as free DLC? Really? Does it even matter if you're getting it for free anyway!?!! Whether the game content is on the disc or whether you have to download it, it's still the same price of $60. Stop being a whiny little bitch.

Totally agree with you. It's totally understandable for businesses to want to get a piece of the action for used games. They do all the work, but Gamestop seems to be absorbing most of the profit.

For those that want to complain about the prices, why not wait a few months before buying a game? I buy the vast majority of my games new, and it's pretty rare I pay more than $20. Sure, I don't get to play games the day they come out, but I'm not ready to pay $40 for that privilege.

I get a brand new game for a good price, and the company that made it gets a new sale. Everyone wins.

@Wiizer: What it seems like you are saying is that you think they are gimping the final product in favor of getting more money out of you. Is that right? Well you also have to look at the release schedule, and games that make their release dates and are not needlessly pushed back tend to receive less flack than those that are often delayed and still have a lot of bugs. Getting the core game correct first and releasing it gives them time to come up with extras to add later on. Look at Rock Band. The game itself comes with 80+ songs, and has a library of over a thousand songs you can download for a price. Are you really saying you expect Rock Band to have those thousand plus songs on the disc? It's not possible. I am, however against the "Episodic Release" of Fable II as DLC. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

So far people seem to be loving on EA for free DLC, but there is a "side B" to this record of course.

1) First, you'll never know if some of that "free" DLC was cut from a finished product in order to entice new game sales. I don't think that happened with ME2 and DA:O, but no one except the devs and publisher will ever know for sure. And we'll never know if that is the case in the future. So it is a dangerous trend in that regard. And if you say "never gonna happen," I feel obliged to point to the RE5 DLC debacle. The code was all there, ready to go, but Capcom deliberately held it back so it could be offered as DLC. I don't think any of us wants to see that become the standard practice.

2) Second, when you start toying around with ways to start curbing the trade-in industry, you start messing around with consumer rights regarding product ownership.

This is already a huge issue in the areas of music and video.

Every time you "buy" a song from itunes, its DRMed so you can only listen to it on Apple mp3 players, on Apple software (itunes, quicktime), and Apple hardware (Apple TV). And heaven forbid you want to sell a "downloaded CD;" you don't have that right even though you paid for the entire album. But if you own a CD, you can still sell that.

Every DVD and Blu-ray is copy protected to discourage you from being able to play that content on your ipod/apple tv/computer/xbox/whatever. If you want to play your DVDs on your ipod, you need to buy them *again* from itunes. And you can't play *those* files on your ps3 or 360!

I can already see where this is going in the video game industry. Will we have to "register" our games to match our consoles, so only new purchases will work? We already have limited rights regarding the making of backup discs and the like. How long before your game "purchase" is more like a rental where you keep the physical media?

Maybe it won't come to that. But from what I've seen, once you start telling people what they can and can't do with media they own, its hard to stop.

Oh, and I hate gamestop. "You mean I get a $5 discount on the game if I buy it used, ensuring you get the profits instead of the guys who made the game? Rock on!"

And no, I don't want to preorder anything today. LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE GAMESTOP MAN!

@JCD
"Every time you "buy" a song from itunes, its DRMed so you can only listen to it on Apple mp3 players, on Apple software (itunes, quicktime), and Apple hardware (Apple TV)."

Please sir, do check your facts.