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:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

 

 

Sorry but who is meant to care about this?  EA got no money from used buyers before andnow what?  They used buyers are going to refuse to buy the game?

 

I fail to see the threat.

 

If people wanna go to gamestop and buy a used game for $55 instead of a new one for $60 then is about time companies started rewarded the people who bother to pay the $5.

A) Yes, today, it's used players have to pay for the DLC.  For BFBC3... it's EVERYBODY has to pay for the DLC. 

 

B)Your missing the fact that Used sales drive New sales as well.

A lot of people who buy games, do so because they know that after they beat it, they can return them and get money to buy a new game.

Lower the demand for used games, and it lowers the demand to customers to sell used games, which lowers the money in the person who buys new's pocket and lowers his incentive to buy new.  People who buy used do in fact support the New game market.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

 

 

Sorry but who is meant to care about this?  EA got no money from used buyers before andnow what?  They used buyers are going to refuse to buy the game?

 

I fail to see the threat.

 

If people wanna go to gamestop and buy a used game for $55 instead of a new one for $60 then is about time companies started rewarded the people who bother to pay the $5.

A) Yes, today, it's used players have to pay for the DLC.  For BFBC3... it's EVERYBODY has to pay for the DLC. 

 

B)Your missing the fact that Used sales drive New sales as well.

A lot of people who buy games, do so because they know that after they beat it, they can return them and get money to buy a new game.

Lower the demand for used games, and it lowers the demand to customers to sell used games, which lowers the money in the person who buys new's pocket and lowers his incentive to buy new.  People who buy used do in fact support the New game market.

 

 

A) Now you are just posting nonsense without a shred of anything to make such a claim.

 

B) People who BUY USED do not help the NEW GAME market.  The less used games there are the better for companies since it means if people want a game they'll need seek out a new copy if not enough used ones.

A) Except that's how it's always worked... you always need to protect the rights of the consumers.

B)  That's not true... read B again... and you'll see why.  Used markets very much do help new markets.   It's basic economic theory.

 

Here is an example for books.. it's the same with pretty much ANY market that has a secondary used market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html

 

People buy New games knowing they can sell them back.  If they couldn't... chances are people who buy their games new would in fact buy less games new or possibly none at all.



Garnett 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?

If the maps are on the disc then the download will be less than 10 mbs, as it will be a unlock code used to unlock the maps on the disc, if its more than 11 mbs then you really are downloading the maps, hence there not on the disc.

 

There is no way to tell if the maps are on the disc until we see how big the DLC size.

 

Therefore if its more than 11mbs then you win and i get banned for a week

If its less than 10 mbs then i win and you get banned.

 

And just a 1 week ban, im not giving up my sig or anything like that. 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

JaggedSac on 26 February 2010

Is there any data to support the used market helps new market theory?



Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
JaggedSac said:

Is there any data to support the used market helps new market theory?

Other then the fact that it's true for every other used market including books and cds?

Probably but it'd be a bitch to wade through all the recent bitching about the used market. (which ironically authors whine about too despite being a positive).



Around the Network
JaggedSac on 26 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:

Is there any data to support the used market helps new market theory?

Other then the fact that it's true for every other used market including books and cds?

Probably but it'd be a bitch to wade through all the recent bitching about the used market. (which ironically authors whine about too despite being a positive).

Sassy pants, just asking for a link, which I see you edited a post above with one.  Reading it now.



Hawk on 26 February 2010
Galaki said:
I never bought used games but companies doing this only devalue their games and in a way giving customers the middle finger.

This is not bonus. It's just existing content that's locked up when it should be available in the first place. That's devaluing to me.

I guess I won't be buying Ubisoft and EA games altogether...

If you never bought used games before, and so no DLC content will cost you anything, how is this devaluing the game to you?



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
Hawk said:
Galaki said:
I never bought used games but companies doing this only devalue their games and in a way giving customers the middle finger.

This is not bonus. It's just existing content that's locked up when it should be available in the first place. That's devaluing to me.

I guess I won't be buying Ubisoft and EA games altogether...

If you never bought used games before, and so no DLC content will cost you anything, how is this devaluing the game to you?

Because it takes content that should be a given... but instead marks it as an "extra."

Which means that "extra" can be gotten rid of in future games or charged for... because hell... it's just an extra.



Hawk on 26 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Hawk said:
Galaki said:
I never bought used games but companies doing this only devalue their games and in a way giving customers the middle finger.

This is not bonus. It's just existing content that's locked up when it should be available in the first place. That's devaluing to me.

I guess I won't be buying Ubisoft and EA games altogether...

If you never bought used games before, and so no DLC content will cost you anything, how is this devaluing the game to you?

Because it takes content that should be a given... but instead marks it as an "extra."

Which means that "extra" can be gotten rid of in future games or charged for... because hell... it's just an extra.

Hmmm, I may be missing something.  But that 'extra' is not a cost to the person that bought the game new.  Whether or not it was on the disk, or had to be downloaded later, it is not extra cost to the person who bought it new.  And if it's free DLC content for the life of the game, the person who bought it new, will, over time, get extra content for no cost.



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

JaggedSac on 26 February 2010
Hawk said:
Kasz216 said:
Hawk said:
Galaki said:
I never bought used games but companies doing this only devalue their games and in a way giving customers the middle finger.

This is not bonus. It's just existing content that's locked up when it should be available in the first place. That's devaluing to me.

I guess I won't be buying Ubisoft and EA games altogether...

If you never bought used games before, and so no DLC content will cost you anything, how is this devaluing the game to you?

Because it takes content that should be a given... but instead marks it as an "extra."

Which means that "extra" can be gotten rid of in future games or charged for... because hell... it's just an extra.

Hmmm, I may be missing something.  But that 'extra' is not a cost to the person that bought the game new.  Whether or not it was on the disk, or had to be downloaded later, it is not extra cost to the person who bought it new.  And if it's free DLC content for the life of the game, the person who bought it new, will, over time, get extra content for no cost.

But all the content that will be released, was content that was removed from the full version :)