They have no obligation to provide free content to people who didn't pay them. None. Just because they gave it away free in the past doesn't mean they are obligated to do so in the future. For most games, content costs money so since they are giving it away free you're getting more value from a new purchase than most other games which require you to pay for maps etc. The difference between this system and the typical game is that with the typical game everyone pays for DLC and under this system only used purchasers pay.

Art is a different market entirely. Actually artists often make no money on their works and its only the people who buy them and have the art appreciate in value which make money.

The used market does not help game sales because not all the money earnt from selling a game is spent on games and any margin Gamestop takes is typically margin which is lost by a game publisher. Besides this, this is EAs call to do with their content as they wish. If you're so adament that they are wrong then why not wait until the sales numbers come in for BF: BC 2 so you can point and say "AHA I knew I was right".

1) Yes, they do have an obligation.  That content became a standard part of the game.

2) That's not true... artists actually do make money off their works... that's how proffesional artists... you know pay their bills.

3) Yes it does... it doesn't require ALL MONEY SPENT from selling a game.  If you'd actually you know, bothered to read the thread you'd know that people who buy New, often do because they know they can later sell the game.  You make it so you can sell away less of the content that should be available, and these people are much less likely to buy your game. 

I mean, i'll pose a queston to you i've posed many times before in this theread.   Where do you think those used games come from the first couple weeks?  What do you think goes into the purchasing behavior of someone who buys a game knowing they are going to sell it back within a week?  As for the "wait for their numbers".  What am I supposed to guess what their numbers were before... sorry i'll just go over accpeted economic theories and models based off your general out the ass guesswork.

1. A standard part of the new game purchase.

2. When I said no money, I was talking about relative to living expenses and relative to the price works can fetch after the death of the artist.

3. They come from used sales of course. If used sales are reduced in value then more people who want to play just the single player will be able to get better value from their purchase whilst people who want to play it multiplayer will have to buy it new. It will effect a change in behaviour of people in a way which favours EA. If the used price of a game is $45 with the DLC costing $15 then the used price without DLC is $35 to $40. People who buy used games for single player will benefit and people who sell used games will lose out and EA nets the rest of the difference.

1. Correct, content given away for free in the first game should be considered a standard part of the new game.

2. Only if the artist is a particularly famous one... which is VERY rare.   Most proffesional artists works don't fetch a larger price after death.  Videogames actually have comparable things here.  For example FF7 with the original label.  (Man, i wish i didn't give mine away.  Could of just bought my friend a non original label and banked the difference.)  Chrono Trigger, Ogre Battle.

3) Those used games after week 1 come from used sales?  Do you understand what your even saying there?

You can't have used games unless they were bought new first.  

Also, you know, what if the price of the game goes from 45 to 30.  Since you know... 15 dollar difference to the SELLER.  The person who we're talking about in this number.  The person who buys the game new... only to sell it within the first week.  Heck actually it'd probably go from 45 to 20-25.  Gamestop isn't going to take a hit to their margins.   Used games show up after week 1 because of people who buy the game, knowing that if they don't like it, or if they beat it... they can sell it back for 45-50 dollars and only be out 10-15 bucks.  

You know people can always do what they used to do and just wait for word of mouth, reviews AFTER release etc before jumping in. The whole industry would be smarter and we'd get better games that way. People don't have to all rush to the cliffs like lemmings and it'd save a bunch of money trying to motivate first day/week buyers.

The industry has never said they have a problem with used game sales. They have always had a problem with chronic and repeated used games sales as in the style gamestop practices which effectively makes them a rental service with the option of returning the game. So effectively used games cover the point in the market where movie rentals would exist.

Actually, you have not taken into account the possibility that people buy some games used and some games new-- which is what I would bet most people do.

The thing I am trying to point out is that many customers, right or wrong, will think that EA is screwing them over.  These customers, feeling ripped off from the used game purchase, will refuse to buy any of the EA games that they would have purchased in the future (which would have included both NEW and USED). 

Whether or not EA is really screwing over their customers is besides the point and I am trying to make.    

I do not care for E.A. that much, but this seems like a decent move to try.

The idea's already been done, and in pretty high profile releases.

Gears of War 2 had the Flashback map pack, Rock Band 2 had a code for 20 bonus tracks. Individual vendors regularly give away codes with new purchases for additional bonus items.

Most consumers generally don't even care about these extras. The heavy gamers generally appreciate the bonus items, especially when they aren't only available through the purchase of "special edition" copies for $10-20+ more (which rabid game fans will still happily buy).

But the general consumer who either isn't aware, or doesn't care about the bonus content won't even know whether it's there or missing.

If the extras matter that much to the regular buyer of used games, they'll see the value in just buying a new copy of a game when it's discounted instead.

So the message should be buy discounted new as a better option than buying used.

It's not a bad idea and it's not effecting anyone but gamers who exclusively buy used.

Some see it as bonus content, an incentive of sort.

Some see it as original content disguise as bonus.


I am in the second group.