Eh, Nintendo seems to be doing well in this department. Hell, I just sold Wii Sports, a 3 year old game bundled in every Wii in the west, for $20 2 weeks ago. Kinda shocking.

As for people acting as if second hand customers are doing nothing for EA, I disagree. People always seem to overlook this. The used game sales does have an effect on new games. Buying a copy depletes the used games supply, which effects the demand (the price).

The funny thing is, the people that really get screwed over for this are the new game buyers that end up selling the game. Since the worth goes down if they used their DLC code, people going for the used copies will take this into account and pay less for it.
(I guess this is assuming you're not buying from some crappy place like Gamestop)

Easy there killer.  I used an imperfect analogy, I didn't murder your pet gerbil (that was Galaki).

Now, let's look at your analogy of the Subway sandwich.  Subway's staff is (modestly) trained to put specific portions of food on the sandwich.  There are set numbers of slices of meat, cheese, and the like that they are required to put on.  You only get so many meatballs, not more and not less.  Essentially you know what the final product will be.  However, a game is different.  There's no functionality that you're guaranteed to have, no definitive limit on what the content must include.  The final product is what you get in the box.

That's the way it's always worked or always used to anyway.  However, new things came along such as DLC and microtransactions which force gamers and developers to reconsider what constitutes a "complete" game and what should be in the final product.  Microtransactions enrage gamers because we know the content is there.  It was available at release and was specifically chosen to be withheld.  They are deliberately not giving it to us.  By locking away those elements of the game and pricing them, they have essentially increased the price of the "complete" game.  Sneaky way to backdoor a price increase if you ask me.

DLC is a little murkier.  If the DLC is done before the game is released or shipped, then we look at it and have to ask "Why didn't you include it with the game?"  At that point, it's no different than a microtransaction in that it's content being withheld from the gamer.  If it was developed and released long after release then it's akin to an expansion pack of old.  Maybe it's cheaper and smaller, but it's something a PC gamer can relate to and that's okay.  The murky part comes in when you have DLC that is available "soon" after release.  If they held the release of the game for a week, could the content have made it in? 2 weeks? 

Obviously the cut-off is different by the person.  A company could release DLC the next day post-release and Akvod might kiss their feet and thank them.  I'd just call them bastards because my tolerance for that is less than some others.

However, what EA is doing is a little different than what Kasz and I were griping about.  What we were talking about is timed DLC but what EA is doing now isn't really about DLC or about countering used game sales.  I'm guessing it's about pushing EA's profile service.  Really, the little slip of DLC paper in the box could be sold with the copy so gamers looking to buy used can still get it that way.  The point of locking away that content from the gamer while still making it free with every purchase is more likely to be getting them to sign up to the EA profile service.  There's very few carrots that hook people quite as well as the promise of "free" stuff and with the recent release of Mass Effect 2, it's very clear to me that EA is going to be driving their service in the future.  Can't say to where but they're going for something and this is their way of getting a foot in the door to a lot of people.

Eh, Nintendo seems to be doing well in this department. Hell, I just sold Wii Sports, a 3 year old game bundled in every Wii in the west, for $20 2 weeks ago. Kinda shocking.

As for people acting as if second hand customers are doing nothing for EA, I disagree. People always seem to overlook this. The used game sales does have an effect on new games. Buying a copy depletes the used games supply, which effects the demand (the price).

The funny thing is, the people that really get screwed over for this are the new game buyers that end up selling the game. Since the worth goes down if they used their DLC code, people going for the used copies will take this into account and pay less for it.
(I guess this is assuming you're not buying from some crappy place like Gamestop)

Or I could make up an equally plausible situation on the other side of the coin.  People will be less likely to sell their games when they have the possibility of getting extra content down the road.  Now that Mass Effect 2 folks know they are getting some stuff in the coming weeks, they probably will not be selling it before then.  And then after that, EA might announce some more DLC, making people wait even longer.

Well, that sounds more like the PC route, which I don't mind. Most of the PC games I get constantly come out with new patches, content, mods, etc. long after release, so I'd always buy with the assumption of holding onto it forever (who sells PC games anyway?). Then again, they also tend to be online / local multiplayer games...

Still, I don't think the upfront DLC code deal is necessary for this, as it feels like they're unfairly devaluing your copy of the game. Wouldn't the promised content in the future be enough for people to hold out? It just seems like they're trying to screw us over with all this DLC nowadays.