Charging Used Game Customers for DLC Defeats its Purpose

Charles King/DCI from GOS gives his opinion about charging used game customers for DLC:

"Most of the games released next year by Ubisoft will have DLC already available? I thought that DLC was something that gave your game longevity, as in they would be available a time after the game releases. I understand that EA, and now Ubisoft, want to gain money lost by second hand game sales, but these new systems take away the actual purpose of DLC in the first place."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Solidus187-SCMilk3100d ago

It simply rewards original copy owners with some sort of free DLC. If developers didnt do this then everyone would have to pay for the DLC anyways. Right now you can decide to buy used and save some money or you can spend the extra money for a new copy you get some sort of free DLC. This is good as new games drop in price and you can often find a new copy for the same price of used new releases.

Like Alan Wake. Its DLC will be in episodes and a new copy has a code to DL the first DLC episode free. Its better that new copy buyers get some free DLC then no one get free dlc.

CharlesDCI3100d ago

Then if you are going to have DLC at the game's launch then why couldn't the developers make the content a part of the game to begin with? DLC is normally used to add to a game during its lifespan. It keeps you playing the game because something new has been added to it. Paying for the DLC doesn't go against the purpose but having it a the game's release does.

Solidus187-SCMilk3100d ago (Edited 3100d ago )

I like that the new copies of ME2 and AW give you access to future DLC that isnt released yet. Im not sure about what games you are talking about as I havent noticed that much.

In the example of AW, the DLC will be released this summer and people who have a new game can get the first DLC free. I think its a good incentive to buy a new version opposed to a old one.

I agree that your scenario is dumb for devs to do, but I think that granting Free Access to DLC that is released later down the line is a great way to get people to buy new games instead of used. Or even just a good incentive to keep a game instead of adding it to the number of used games out there.

CharlesDCI3100d ago

I agree too. AW DLC is a smart way of doing it because an added part to the story would make me buy a game new if that was the only way I could get it. However, new weapons and items aren't.

IdleLeeSiuLung3099d ago (Edited 3099d ago )

a) Well what stops a developer from still cutting the content from the game and charging you for it as DLC later date?

b) What if the developer put in extra man power (i.e. get more contractors, new hires etc) to create this extra content that they now expect to recoup their cost on?

Here are a few things also to consider:

1) DLC released earlier on is likely to attract more customers still interrested in the game before they move on to the next latest and greatest. That might be why they plan DLC in parallel.

2) When you buy the game, you are free to find out what it includes before you buy it. Publishers/developers aren't falsely advertising it to you.

3) The process of cutting content has been around for a long long time, you just didn't know about it...

4) We can also talk about how GameStop is making great profits while almost all the big publishers are loosing millions. This still doesn't justify publishers asking for higher profits if the product is worth less, but it is worth considering. If publishers aren't making money, they will try to find ways even if it hurts the industry.

Just vote with your wallet!

Enate3099d ago

What about people who don't have mass amounts of money to blow on games an like to rent first. What if in turn the features they cut for the DLC .Turns out to be something that would have in turn made you buy the game instead of just renting it. This so called used games battle is hurting a huge area of the gaming market that helps turn plenty of sales. The whole cutting of content has already made me turn away from purchases on certain games due their obvious feature losses to day 1 dlc.

Delive3099d ago

But, respectfully, I don't agree with it. As long as you get a full version of a game on disk that is playable be it used or new, any "extra" content not required to play can be distributed as the devs see fit. If it backfires, they screw themselves. If it helps them make some extra money on the used game market, that should help them make better games for us down the road. I feel they have been getting cheated for a long time and this is a better solution than going fully digital. It's like the dev says "Buy it new, get bonuses, buy it used, you have options for the same bonuses, but not free".

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3099d ago
Lex_Yayo_4073099d ago

When you pre-ordered Heavy Rain from GameStop you got the first DLC free.

ClownBelt3099d ago

I think Alan Wake did it too.

Milamber3099d ago

If publishers didn't have to compete with used game sales, they could sell their games cheaper, probably cheaper than what the used copies currently sell for.

jagstatboy3099d ago

you forget publishers are greedy. If there were no such thing as used game sales, do you really think games would cost less? NOT!

kjordanreyna3099d ago

Lately, I've seen every game released not without some form of DLC. Which is crazy to me.

NAdkins013099d ago

This actually won't hurt places like Gamestop much. They will probably do something like lower the trade in value by the price of the DLC to make up for it. For instance instead of getting $30 trade-in for Madden and having free use of online, Gamestop will give $20 trade-in for Madden and let customers know about the $10 fee. This way Gamestop doesn't lose money, the game developers make money, and the customer is screwed.

Show all comments (24)
The story is too old to be commented.