By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EA's Strategy to Counter Used Games Sales

Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:


FREE!


Includes DLC not even created yet!

and includes maps that already are created.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
Akvod said:
Garnett said:
Akvod said:
Garnett said:


 

 

Its on the disc but its not in the game, somethings wrong with that. 

And are you willing to make a bet with me?

Kotaku is fucking interpreting stuff like conquest mode on Arica Harbor (which is avaiable in Rush mode) as being on the disc already. Fine, that's a shaky ground.

 

But there are definetly entirely NEW maps in the DLC, and those cannot be on the disc.

And I'm simply making my argument on the fact that it would be a misnomer to use the word DOWNLOADABLE content for things on the disc. It is purely illogical.

Would you like to make a bet then?

I have my last class today now. Write down the stakes while I'm gone, and I'll see if they're reasonable or unreasonable.

Basically If the download size for the maps are 10 mbs or less  than i win the bet.

 

If its 11mbs or more than you win. 

 

Loser gets banned for a week. Fair?

 

 

Err? Wut? I thought your argument was that the content were on the disc, not about how big of a size they are.

 

My conditions:

Subject is 360/PS3

If the DLC is not on the disc, and is in fact downloaded, I, Akvod, win.

If the above statement is false, you, Garnett win.

The only source that will be accepted is EA itself, or testing the claim when the game comes out. Not news sources like Kotaku.

If EA makes a clear statement that is proven to be a blatant lie, the bet is to be canceled (for example, if EA itself reports that "A is true", and in fact the truth that A is false is brought to light, then the bet is canceled).

The loser will be forced to have an sig of the winner's chosing for the entire month of March, 2010. The sig must be screened by a mod/admin/etc first. Nothing offensive or personal (for example, "Akvod sucks" is a no-no)

 

Accept/Decline?


You're totally missing the point here.  10Mbs is way too low for a map.  Which means if the download is 10MBs or even remotley around there, it's nothing but a command that unlocks the maps on your disc.



Akvod on 26 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
Garnett said:
Akvod said:
Garnett said:


 

 

Its on the disc but its not in the game, somethings wrong with that. 

And are you willing to make a bet with me?

Kotaku is fucking interpreting stuff like conquest mode on Arica Harbor (which is avaiable in Rush mode) as being on the disc already. Fine, that's a shaky ground.

 

But there are definetly entirely NEW maps in the DLC, and those cannot be on the disc.

And I'm simply making my argument on the fact that it would be a misnomer to use the word DOWNLOADABLE content for things on the disc. It is purely illogical.

Would you like to make a bet then?

I have my last class today now. Write down the stakes while I'm gone, and I'll see if they're reasonable or unreasonable.

Basically If the download size for the maps are 10 mbs or less  than i win the bet.

 

If its 11mbs or more than you win. 

 

Loser gets banned for a week. Fair?

 

 

Err? Wut? I thought your argument was that the content were on the disc, not about how big of a size they are.

 

My conditions:

Subject is 360/PS3

If the DLC is not on the disc, and is in fact downloaded, I, Akvod, win.

If the above statement is false, you, Garnett win.

The only source that will be accepted is EA itself, or testing the claim when the game comes out. Not news sources like Kotaku.

If EA makes a clear statement that is proven to be a blatant lie, the bet is to be canceled (for example, if EA itself reports that "A is true", and in fact the truth that A is false is brought to light, then the bet is canceled).

The loser will be forced to have an sig of the winner's chosing for the entire month of March, 2010. The sig must be screened by a mod/admin/etc first. Nothing offensive or personal (for example, "Akvod sucks" is a no-no)

 

Accept/Decline?


You're totally missing the point here.  10Mbs is way too low for a map.  Which means if the download is 10MBs or even remotley around there, it's nothing but a command that unlocks the maps on your disc.

Tell me what the lowest possible size a DLC map will be in your opinion.



Onyxmeth on 26 February 2010
Akvod said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Here's the illogical reactions I'm seeing:

Scenario A:

EA releases DLC for $15

Reaction A:

Nobody fucking cares

Scenario B:

EA releases DLC for $15, and decides to give it away for free as incentive to new copy buyers

Reaction B: Outrage!

So the difference between the two scenarios, and the thing people are getting mad at is that:

EA IS GIVING AWAY SHIT FOR FREE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then people start saying "Well, I'm going to be skeptical, and without any basis, assume that EA is withholding content".

But they'll say they got that from the completely unbiased source of Kotaku, and drop their skeptical mentality there.

Way to have double standards guys.


Since when has giving away shit for FREE considered as a BAD thing? All I see is people who feel they are entitled to anything they want, and demanding EA to give them shit for free as well.

Scenario C: EA give content for free for everyone like they did with Burnout Paradise.

Reaction C: Everyone thanks them, are super appreciative and say this is how other publishers should be.

 

Wut? So you're against DLC? Why don't we take that logic to expansion packs? Or maybe to entire games?

I'm not denying that reaction C will happen, I mean, that's why free stuff is great. But EA didn't just choose scenario B for no reason, it was a calculated incentive to get people to buy new copies. It benefits both the consumers who did find the value worth it, EA, and it does no harm to those who don't want to shell out either $15 for the DLC or $60 for a brand new game+free DLC.

Why did you choose to only address the smallest, most meaningless part of my argument and cut out the rest? That was just a silly alternative I cooked up because once upon a time, EA gave out free DLC to everyone, not just new game owners, and you thought it's either A or B, without any other options available.

The other portion is really what I wanted answered because it's what you've been talking about for two pages, that this wasn't on the disc of Bad Company 2. Madden has always had all original release content on the disc, especially the content that is the focal point of the release. Online franchises are advertised on the back of the Madden 10 box and nowhere on the box does it say there's a code to activate it or you have to pay extra. You don't find that to be bullshit? How is someone that isn't frequenting online forums supposed to know that? Not only that but what happens if EA screws up again and forgets to put the codes in the cases? That also happened when they did it in Madden 10.

I find it funny that you and Kylie both argued that this wasn't removed content, and then I bring forth an argument that suggests it very well could be, and you both choose to not address it. If EA was willing to go to those lengths with Madden, what makes you think they wouldn't go to the same lengths of removing in game content with the game they're pimping as a competitor to Modern Warfare?



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
Garnett said:
Akvod said:
Garnett said:


 

 

Its on the disc but its not in the game, somethings wrong with that. 

And are you willing to make a bet with me?

Kotaku is fucking interpreting stuff like conquest mode on Arica Harbor (which is avaiable in Rush mode) as being on the disc already. Fine, that's a shaky ground.

 

But there are definetly entirely NEW maps in the DLC, and those cannot be on the disc.

And I'm simply making my argument on the fact that it would be a misnomer to use the word DOWNLOADABLE content for things on the disc. It is purely illogical.

Would you like to make a bet then?

I have my last class today now. Write down the stakes while I'm gone, and I'll see if they're reasonable or unreasonable.

Basically If the download size for the maps are 10 mbs or less  than i win the bet.

 

If its 11mbs or more than you win. 

 

Loser gets banned for a week. Fair?

 

 

Err? Wut? I thought your argument was that the content were on the disc, not about how big of a size they are.

 

My conditions:

Subject is 360/PS3

If the DLC is not on the disc, and is in fact downloaded, I, Akvod, win.

If the above statement is false, you, Garnett win.

The only source that will be accepted is EA itself, or testing the claim when the game comes out. Not news sources like Kotaku.

If EA makes a clear statement that is proven to be a blatant lie, the bet is to be canceled (for example, if EA itself reports that "A is true", and in fact the truth that A is false is brought to light, then the bet is canceled).

The loser will be forced to have an sig of the winner's chosing for the entire month of March, 2010. The sig must be screened by a mod/admin/etc first. Nothing offensive or personal (for example, "Akvod sucks" is a no-no)

 

Accept/Decline?


You're totally missing the point here.  10Mbs is way too low for a map.  Which means if the download is 10MBs or even remotley around there, it's nothing but a command that unlocks the maps on your disc.

Tell me what the lowest possible size a DLC map will be in your opinion.

About 30 Mbs. i'd say... that's about as low as they seem to get for even usergenerated maps for the predecessor, except for the occasonal VERY bare bones obviously not worked hard on maps.

5mbs a map would leave you with practically nothing.

Actual good maps are usually in excess of 100 Mbs... which you'd expect these maps to be of the highest quality.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Here's the illogical reactions I'm seeing:

Scenario A:

EA releases DLC for $15

Reaction A:

Nobody fucking cares

Scenario B:

EA releases DLC for $15, and decides to give it away for free as incentive to new copy buyers

Reaction B: Outrage!

So the difference between the two scenarios, and the thing people are getting mad at is that:

EA IS GIVING AWAY SHIT FOR FREE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then people start saying "Well, I'm going to be skeptical, and without any basis, assume that EA is withholding content".

But they'll say they got that from the completely unbiased source of Kotaku, and drop their skeptical mentality there.

Way to have double standards guys.


Since when has giving away shit for FREE considered as a BAD thing? All I see is people who feel they are entitled to anything they want, and demanding EA to give them shit for free as well.

Scenario C: EA give content for free for everyone like they did with Burnout Paradise.

Reaction C: Everyone thanks them, are super appreciative and say this is how other publishers should be.

 

Wut? So you're against DLC? Why don't we take that logic to expansion packs? Or maybe to entire games?

I'm not denying that reaction C will happen, I mean, that's why free stuff is great. But EA didn't just choose scenario B for no reason, it was a calculated incentive to get people to buy new copies. It benefits both the consumers who did find the value worth it, EA, and it does no harm to those who don't want to shell out either $15 for the DLC or $60 for a brand new game+free DLC.

Why did you choose to only address the smallest, most meaningless part of my argument and cut out the rest? That was just a silly alternative I cooked up because once upon a time, EA gave out free DLC to everyone, not just new game owners, and you thought it's either A or B, without any other options available.

The other portion is really what I wanted answered because it's what you've been talking about for two pages, that this wasn't on the disc of Bad Company 2. Madden has always had all original release content on the disc, especially the content that is the focal point of the release. Online franchises are advertised on the back of the Madden 10 box and nowhere on the box does it say there's a code to activate it or you have to pay extra. You don't find that to be bullshit? How is someone that isn't frequenting online forums supposed to know that? Not only that but what happens if EA screws up again and forgets to put the codes in the cases? That also happened when they did it in Madden 10.

I find it funny that you and Kylie both argued that this wasn't removed content, and then I bring forth an argument that suggests it very well could be, and you both choose to not address it. If EA was willing to go to those lengths with Madden, what makes you think they wouldn't go to the same lengths of removing in game content with the game they're pimping as a competitor to Modern Warfare?

 

I answered this on page 2 of the thread.

If EA and DICE had a disagreement about this... which side do you think would win said arguement?

 

Developers have no control over what the publishers make them do. 



Onyxmeth on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Onyxmeth said:

Why did you choose to only address the smallest, most meaningless part of my argument and cut out the rest? That was just a silly alternative I cooked up because once upon a time, EA gave out free DLC to everyone, not just new game owners, and you thought it's either A or B, without any other options available.

The other portion is really what I wanted answered because it's what you've been talking about for two pages, that this wasn't on the disc of Bad Company 2. Madden has always had all original release content on the disc, especially the content that is the focal point of the release. Online franchises are advertised on the back of the Madden 10 box and nowhere on the box does it say there's a code to activate it or you have to pay extra. You don't find that to be bullshit? How is someone that isn't frequenting online forums supposed to know that? Not only that but what happens if EA screws up again and forgets to put the codes in the cases? That also happened when they did it in Madden 10.

I find it funny that you and Kylie both argued that this wasn't removed content, and then I bring forth an argument that suggests it very well could be, and you both choose to not address it. If EA was willing to go to those lengths with Madden, what makes you think they wouldn't go to the same lengths of removing in game content with the game they're pimping as a competitor to Modern Warfare?

 

I answered this on page 2 of the thread.

The only thing you answered me back with was the comments on Burnout Paradise. I just checked. I saw nothing on page two or three about how you addressed the similarities between Bad Company 2's situation and Madden 10's, and I never saw you point out how they're different in any way to suggest EA is any more right to do this now than they were back in August.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Here's the illogical reactions I'm seeing:

Scenario A:

EA releases DLC for $15

Reaction A:

Nobody fucking cares

Scenario B:

EA releases DLC for $15, and decides to give it away for free as incentive to new copy buyers

Reaction B: Outrage!

So the difference between the two scenarios, and the thing people are getting mad at is that:

EA IS GIVING AWAY SHIT FOR FREE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then people start saying "Well, I'm going to be skeptical, and without any basis, assume that EA is withholding content".

But they'll say they got that from the completely unbiased source of Kotaku, and drop their skeptical mentality there.

Way to have double standards guys.


Since when has giving away shit for FREE considered as a BAD thing? All I see is people who feel they are entitled to anything they want, and demanding EA to give them shit for free as well.

Scenario C: EA give content for free for everyone like they did with Burnout Paradise.

Reaction C: Everyone thanks them, are super appreciative and say this is how other publishers should be.

 

Wut? So you're against DLC? Why don't we take that logic to expansion packs? Or maybe to entire games?

I'm not denying that reaction C will happen, I mean, that's why free stuff is great. But EA didn't just choose scenario B for no reason, it was a calculated incentive to get people to buy new copies. It benefits both the consumers who did find the value worth it, EA, and it does no harm to those who don't want to shell out either $15 for the DLC or $60 for a brand new game+free DLC.

Why did you choose to only address the smallest, most meaningless part of my argument and cut out the rest? That was just a silly alternative I cooked up because once upon a time, EA gave out free DLC to everyone, not just new game owners, and you thought it's either A or B, without any other options available.

The other portion is really what I wanted answered because it's what you've been talking about for two pages, that this wasn't on the disc of Bad Company 2. Madden has always had all original release content on the disc, especially the content that is the focal point of the release. Online franchises are advertised on the back of the Madden 10 box and nowhere on the box does it say there's a code to activate it or you have to pay extra. You don't find that to be bullshit? How is someone that isn't frequenting online forums supposed to know that? Not only that but what happens if EA screws up again and forgets to put the codes in the cases? That also happened when they did it in Madden 10.

I find it funny that you and Kylie both argued that this wasn't removed content, and then I bring forth an argument that suggests it very well could be, and you both choose to not address it. If EA was willing to go to those lengths with Madden, what makes you think they wouldn't go to the same lengths of removing in game content with the game they're pimping as a competitor to Modern Warfare?

 

I answered this on page 2 of the thread.

If EA and DICE had a disagreement about this... which side do you think would win said arguement?

 

Developers have no control over what the publishers make them do. 

 

It isn't like devs have no voice.  They managed to make EA change minds on the DLC for BFBC1, making it free.

Well that kinda just defeats your whole arguement and proves my point doesn't it?  Afterall, this stuff, which used to be free... is now only free to some, and costs money to others.

No matter when it comes out, it's the removal of features previously provided.

The Devs have a voice, but the publisher has all the power.



Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Onyxmeth said:
Akvod said:
Here's the illogical reactions I'm seeing:

Scenario A:

EA releases DLC for $15

Reaction A:

Nobody fucking cares

Scenario B:

EA releases DLC for $15, and decides to give it away for free as incentive to new copy buyers

Reaction B: Outrage!

So the difference between the two scenarios, and the thing people are getting mad at is that:

EA IS GIVING AWAY SHIT FOR FREE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Then people start saying "Well, I'm going to be skeptical, and without any basis, assume that EA is withholding content".

But they'll say they got that from the completely unbiased source of Kotaku, and drop their skeptical mentality there.

Way to have double standards guys.


Since when has giving away shit for FREE considered as a BAD thing? All I see is people who feel they are entitled to anything they want, and demanding EA to give them shit for free as well.

Scenario C: EA give content for free for everyone like they did with Burnout Paradise.

Reaction C: Everyone thanks them, are super appreciative and say this is how other publishers should be.

 

Wut? So you're against DLC? Why don't we take that logic to expansion packs? Or maybe to entire games?

I'm not denying that reaction C will happen, I mean, that's why free stuff is great. But EA didn't just choose scenario B for no reason, it was a calculated incentive to get people to buy new copies. It benefits both the consumers who did find the value worth it, EA, and it does no harm to those who don't want to shell out either $15 for the DLC or $60 for a brand new game+free DLC.

Why did you choose to only address the smallest, most meaningless part of my argument and cut out the rest? That was just a silly alternative I cooked up because once upon a time, EA gave out free DLC to everyone, not just new game owners, and you thought it's either A or B, without any other options available.

The other portion is really what I wanted answered because it's what you've been talking about for two pages, that this wasn't on the disc of Bad Company 2. Madden has always had all original release content on the disc, especially the content that is the focal point of the release. Online franchises are advertised on the back of the Madden 10 box and nowhere on the box does it say there's a code to activate it or you have to pay extra. You don't find that to be bullshit? How is someone that isn't frequenting online forums supposed to know that? Not only that but what happens if EA screws up again and forgets to put the codes in the cases? That also happened when they did it in Madden 10.

I find it funny that you and Kylie both argued that this wasn't removed content, and then I bring forth an argument that suggests it very well could be, and you both choose to not address it. If EA was willing to go to those lengths with Madden, what makes you think they wouldn't go to the same lengths of removing in game content with the game they're pimping as a competitor to Modern Warfare?

 

I answered this on page 2 of the thread.

If EA and DICE had a disagreement about this... which side do you think would win said arguement?

 

Developers have no control over what the publishers make them do. 

 

It isn't like devs have no voice.  They managed to make EA change minds on the DLC for BFBC1, making it free.

Well that kinda just defeats your whole arguement and proves my point doesn't it?  Afterall, this stuff, which used to be free... is now only free to some, and costs money to others.

No matter when it comes out, it's the removal of features previously provided.

The Devs have a voice, but the publisher has all the power.

 

No, you are posting nonsense theory as fact when it is in bullshit.

 

The game has the same number of maps DICE said it would early last year.  These maps were never part of the game, they were never free, they DID NOT EXIST. 

 

They were created for the purpose of the 'buy new' deal they decided upon.

DLC for BFBC1 was free to all.  DLC for BFBC2 is not free to all.

That in of itself is a feature removed from a previous game in the franchise.



Raistline on 26 February 2010

It is not a feature removed from the franchise but instead a feature that is omitted in the latest installment.

*Edit* And yes, although they are similar, there is a big difference. A removal would be taking something out that is already there. An omition is simply deciding not to put it in as it was in the older installment.

It would be a removal if they said, all would be free to all, then later come out and say they changed thier mind and now it will only be free to all who buy it new.