Separator

Day-One DLC: The Problem with Perishable Content

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
Friday, February 19, 2010

Editor's note: Michael explores the recent trend toward day-one DLC as a way to encourage new game sales. It's great for publishers, but maybe not so great for the rest of us.... -Demian


When you buy a physical copy of a game, the general consensus is that you own that game. You aren’t leasing it or buying temporary rights to it, as is the case with some greasier interpretation of Digital Rights Management. The company that made the game can’t very well come into your home and take back your discs in five years, claiming that some implicit contract has expired. The game is your permanent property. If you take care of it, it could conceivably last forever, and should you decide to sell the game to somebody else, you’re well within your rights to do so in North America.

However, to combat the perceived threat of used game sales, some publishers have taken steps to make buying used less desirable. Big publishers still offer exclusive pre-order bonuses as incentives for new launch day purchases, but for games whose sales don’t typically nosedive after the first two weeks of shelf life, there’s a new solution: one-time access to premium content that, in essence, makes a chunk of your purchased game a perishable commodity.

Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins. Warning: Portions of these products may be perishable and contain nuts.

Mass Effect 2, developed by Bioware and published by EA, recently launched with something called the Cerberus Network, an in-game pipeline for downloadable content (DLC). Massive technical hiccups and poor customer support notwithstanding, the Network offered two pieces of DLC during launch week, as well as a means to redeem pre-order bonus codes. The catch lies in the fact that to access the Cerberus Network, players need to enter a single-use code included with new copies of the game. Players purchasing pre-owned copies of the game without unused codes included need to pay a $15 fee to access current and future DLC -- though paid DLC will be available outside of the Cerberus Network.

This isn’t an entirely new concept. Dragon Age: Origins, also from Bioware, launched in late October with a code to download The Stone Prisoner, a DLC pack that offered an additional character and quest free with new copies of the game. Owners of used copies had to pay $15 for access to the same content. Epic Games employed the same principle back in late 2008, when they included a code to download the Flashback Map Pack, a set of five classic multiplayer maps, for free with new copies of Gears of War 2. Months later, the pack was available to everyone on Xbox Live for $5.

Shale, the Stone Prisoner, begging you to buy new.

Obviously, publishers put these measures in place to discourage used game sales. When you buy a new copy of a game, about 13% of what you paid goes to the store you bought it from, assuming you purchased it at a big box retailer like Best Buy or a specialty store like Gamestop. A portion of the remainder is profit for the publisher. But when you buy a used game, none of the money you paid goes to the publisher. Stores like Gamestop love used game sales because of the 50% average markup they add to the trade-in value for what’s arguably a “good as new” copy. Publishers generally feel that the sale of that pre-owned copy is one less new copy sold, and is tantamount to taking money out of their pockets.

So, why should we care? Publishers have found a way to encourage people to buy new, and we get a little extra game for our buck, right? Unfortunately, nothing is free, especially when it comes to video games. While we can argue whether or not perishable content downloads contain material expressly cut from games to be later used as a bargaining chip, the fact remains that you’re essentially “using up” a portion of the material that came with your game.

You can’t transfer access to the Cerberus Network to another account, and if you sell your Xbox 360 and keep the game, you’ll have to pay again for access to the Network later on down the line. That’s assuming, of course, that Xbox Live is still up and active years down the road when you decide to revisit Mass Effect 2. And while Microsoft claims that you have unlimited access to your purchased DLC, the hair-pulling ordeal I went through last summer to recover my content after my 360 died really emphasized the temporary nature of DLC in general.

GameStop. Not pictured: Satan.

Additionally, the idea of perishable DLC for new users is meant to punish used owners, but in essence, it often results in just one more headache for early adopters. Many gamers had problems working through the draconian ritual required to access the Cerberus Network’s content, a process that requires linking multiple accounts together, entering long code strings, and drawing perfectly proportioned pentagrams. I managed to get through the process with relatively little effort, since I can draw a mean pentagram, but a lot of people were unable to receive their “gift with purchase” in a timely manner.

New owners who don’t have access to Xbox Live are similarly boned, as there’s no way for them to actually access their free content. No amount of hoop jumping will magically divine that content onto their hard drives without an Ethernet connection, as no other method for getting the content exists.

Can you play these games without the premium content? Absolutely. Though publishers attach a hefty price tag to offset the profit lost from used game sales, the content itself is arguably worth a lot less. The Normandy Crash DLC offered through the Cerberus Network is a shallow 10-minute solo adventure with no combat whatsoever. Likewise, the Zaeed pack contains the titular mercenary for your party, a new quest, and access to a new heavy weapon, but the hollow, underdeveloped content barely takes 20 minutes to fully explore. Neither of these pieces of content is necessary to enjoy the game; for players with pre-owned copies, the Cerberus Network is more of an opt-in used game tax than a mandatory tariff. You can live without playing either adventure.

It's OK, Zaeed. Nobody likes you anyway.

However, there’s something unsettling about the fact that segments of my purchase have eroded before my eyes. Even more unsettling is the idea that more and more publishers may follow EA’s path down the slippery slope, eventually cordoning off substantial portions of their games for new users only.

With everybody doing what they can to survive in this poor economic climate, I’m not looking forward to whatever methods publishers may use to protect their profits should perishable content become de rigueur. I doubt we’ll ever reach a point where we’ll have to pay to see the ending to a game. But 10 years ago, I also doubted that I would ever be able to purchase a game without visiting my local brick-and-mortar retailer.

Steam says hello.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (28)
Default_picture
January 30, 2010
I like the article
Default_picture
January 30, 2010
Same here. I like Zaeed too! Listening to him anyway. Reminds me of a slightly less irritable Jolee Bindo. Overall I agree with you on all counts. I'm not entirely sure what "draconian ritual" we're referring to though. Go to a website. Login. Enter a code. Pray your 360 never craps out. Though as you well know, that last one goes without saying. You have my belated sympathies.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
January 30, 2010
@Toby: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. @Robert: In the past, all you had to do was put a special edition disc in your drive, and there you go. Then we had download codes on XBL. Fair enough. Now we can't just put them in through XBL. We have to create EA accounts, link those accounts to gamertags and email addresses, put in codes on the site (hoping that EA's service is responding, which it wasn't), get on XBL, log into Cerberus Network in-game (again, wasn't working for a lot of people), and THEN download the content. It's a little much.
Image2496
January 30, 2010
There are people who can't draw pentagrams? Dear lord.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
January 30, 2010
It's an acquired skill.
Lance_darnell
January 30, 2010
This was a good read. It seems that what the companies really want are preorders. There must be some reason for this, perhaps they can declare preorders as profit? This is definitely the way things are going!
Purple_night_lightning_storm
January 31, 2010
And this just goes to prove that EA are the same evil architects they've always been. A person has to create an EA account for everything. Any game on the PC, accessing pre-order bonuses, and playing Big-Surf Island expansion pack in Burnout Paradise(all versions) What baffles me is the forum posters and members of the enthusiast press who defend this practice. The mantra is always "You don't have to buy it." This is not something game publishers should want to inspire. Eventually enough people will say "You know what, you're right", and just walk away. Then the publishers will see what a drop in profits really mean.
Default_picture
February 19, 2010
I may be the only one who thinks this, but I actually thought this whole thing was a great idea. I mean, game sales is a big thing for a publisher. If a game doesn't do as well as they'd hoped, even if it's good, they're not going to make another one, or they're going to hassle the crap out of the development team with budgets and deadlines. I'd rather deal with a few extra minutes of bull to download the extra bits of content than not receive a sequel. But hey, I only ever buy used games if they're so old I can't find them in stores anywhere else anyway. And I downloaded the content for ME2 and DA:O on PC, so it only took like two minutes.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 19, 2010
You're not the only one, K.M. One of my best friends thinks that BioWare's free DLC is a great idea, and since he buys a lot of his games new, it's like a free gift for being a loyal fan. I'm more concerned with how greasy the whole thing is, what it means for the industry, and how much of a pain it can be to get that free content.
Default_picture
February 19, 2010
I enjoyed the article, and share the concern about the 'slippery slope' aspect of this strategy. However, there's a bit more context required IMO. The context I refer to is the execrable attempt by game publishers like EA, Ubisoft, 2K, and others, to declare outright war on secondhand sales under the guise of combatting piracy. Yes, I refer to the SecuROM/DRM fiasco that first began heating up with one of the Sims games, then Bioshock, Mass Effect1, and which finally erupted in all its pustulence with the infamous SPORE customer review revolt on Amazon. Make no bones about it, the anti-piracy justification for the ridiculous phenonmenon of anti-customer DRM on PC gaming is nothing but an attack on secondhand sales. Gamers know DRM does not stop piracy. Pirates just enjoy the challenge of being first to provide a crack. Developers and publishers also know it, but they can't very well be honest and upfront about wanting to violate the US copyright act which guarantees the right to resell the products you've purchased. And they keep insisting on using DRM long past the time when DRM-free cracks are available, making a mockery of their stated rationale. Only a lot of angry customer complaints, and a hearing by the FTC, forced EA to reconsider their strategy. Apparently, that's a lesson that Ubisoft has yet to learn as evidenced by their all-DRM-all-the-time approach to releasing AC2 on PC. Now, as a huge fan of Bioware games, I was furious with EA until they allowed Bioware to set their own course with regard to DRM. Now, all we have to be concerned about is a simple disk check. No more semi-rootkit-SecuROM with limited activations and mandatory internet connections. And if I want to exercise my legal right to resell the games I buy, I can. (Though I never would) Now, set against that recent history, I actually think EA are doing the best they can to try to legitimately get some cash from the secondhand market. I'm fine with that. Far better that they acknowledge the real target of their schemes than try to hide behind a blatantly absurd smokescreen. All that said, I think EA and other publishers are totally wrong to think secondhand sales harm them in the long run. New pricing is just too high for many gamers that are in high school or even college. What would EA prefer? A> They don't play games at all and discover things like, I dunno, that girls/boys exist and can be even more fun to interact with than games? (Or just save their money for tuition etc). B>They start pirating the games? C>They buy secondhand copies legally. If EA prefers option A then they risk young would-be gamers never forming the habit of gaming. So when they do get jobs, they don't really CARE about EA's latest and greatest anymore. If EA prefers B, then they're just plonkers. Drive young folks to commit a crime, and get into the habit of not paying while playing. That's a winning strategy for the bottom line right there. NOT. Or C: hook 'em while they're young knowing that when they grow up and get a job, they will likely be too excited to wait for a secondhand copy anymore and do wild, crazy things like pre-ordering or buying on the day of release. There's a lot of ways to view secondhand sales, but I firmly believe publisers are being short-sighted with their delusional ambitions of killing secondhand sales. Even so, I don't have a problem with publishers using secondhand sales to generate additional revenue by providing additional content for a price. That's kinda like car makers that support manufacturer waranties even after secondhand sales are made. They know that doing so provides them a way to make money off those customers in the future. That's not wrong, that's just good business. And compared with the alternative, it's a lot better for honest gamers who buy the product new. Frankly, those are the people that game publishers should be concerned about making happy. Historically, if you bought secondhand you contributed NOTHING to the future of that gaming company, and thus nothing to the chances of sequels etc being made. With this strategy, secondhand copies still have some chance of providing some income to the folks who make the games. But, like the article author, I do worry that in time the optional-extra aspect of the DLC will increasingly become more closely tied into the core of the game experience. In that situation, they're essentially shipping an incomplete game. That would be bad for everyone. I just hope it doesn't come to that.
Eyargh
February 19, 2010
I really don't like this whole idea at all. When I buy a game I want to own all of that game. I hate the feeling that I'm missing out on something and as these days I'm either late to the party or strapped for cash I tend to buy games used. I don't like the idea of having to pay money for something that was available at launch for everyone else. Even worse is the price. $15 bucks?! I could [i]maybe[/i] forgive 5 bucks, but 15? give me a break. I wonder what this is going to do to used pricing. I imagine they'll have to fall faster now, as someone who wants to buy a used game but have all of the content won't be willing to pay anything for a used game higher than $45. Another problem: I don't have a 360, and if I ever get one I don't plan on getting Xbox Live. I'm not sure if a gold account is required to obtain DLC, but if it is than fuck that. Even if I did want to sign up, I'm on a pretty flimsy wireless connection and it would take forever to download anything on it.
Default_picture
February 19, 2010
@Craig - The problem with second-hand sales is not so much that it harms publishers (and developers) in the long run. It's that those sales harm them right now. Your points about games being too expensive and the alternative being that players just don't play or pirate their games are good ones, but the bottom line is that games just cost a lot of money to make nowadays. Even the budget stuff ain't cheap to produce. Building goodwill over time is great, but it doesn't pay today's bills. Talented people are losing their jobs in this industry every day -- Activision's massive layoffs are the most recent example -- so taking a loss now for a potential (not even close to guaranteed) gain a few years down the road does nothing for all of those people out of work, or all of those small coding houses that had to close down in the interim.
Bitmob_lost_woods
February 19, 2010
I can understand that EA gave millions of dollars to Bioware to make Mass Effect 2 and wants a guarantee on their investment. So other than the profits from new sales, they also want to see milk they cash cow for as much as they can, with stuff like DLC, deluxe packages, etc. Personally, I feel these money making tactics were inspired from MMOs. From thousands to millions of gamers happily linking their bank accounts to pay $10 - $20 a month to play the same game for years. For companies to compete with MMOs, they try to make the best use of their franchises. Namely, they try to make a franchise out of EVERYTHING! Mass Effect is a planned trilogy. Their are dozens of games with the word "Battlefield" in the title. Command & Conquer has blah, blah, blah. You know what I mean. What really needs to happen is for game developers to make DLC that's worth while, exciting, and holds our attention to the point that they have their own game reviews, rather than these side-quests, extra race tracks, magic rings, and other junk. DLC that's so massive that they have their own complete story-lines. In fact, we should get rid of DLC all together, and demand that developers and publisher only make expansion packs for our games. Now let's imagine that we're playing Diablo II. Your Barbarian cleaves through some nameless zombie, and you hear something squishy land. You pick it up, and examine it closely once all the critters on the screen are dead. Realizing that the squishy thing is a rune that can enhance you weapons, you do the happy dance until you realize you have to fork over some cash from the real world to get this rune thingy to even work. Sucks, huh?
Default_picture
February 19, 2010
@Michael P Quote" When I buy a game I want to own all of that game. I hate the feeling that I'm missing out on something and as these days I'm either late to the party or strapped for cash I tend to buy games used." So, what you're saying here is that you expect game publishers to cater to your desires, but you admit you are usually not actually one of their paying customers? ;) Perhaps you ought to rethink your habitual practice of buying your games from someone else? Otherwise why should they give a rip about your opinion? They never see a dime from you either way. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely would go to the mat for you to have the option to buy secondhand. But unless you buy the game new, the developers/publishers never got a dime. Which is one reason I am not opposed to this DLC model: perhaps now they'll see a little bit more cash from folks like you. But you're not without power here: you can use this 100% optional secondhand DLC fee as a negotiation point when deciding what price point to pay for a secondhand copy. @Greg S I take your point, but regardless of how much it costs to make a game, gamers who cannot afford to buy new copies still won't have the cash to do so. That's why I think EA are on the right track with this strategy. They will liklely see more cash from folks that bought secondhand copies than they would get from infliciting draconian DRM on their paying customers (who bought new).
Eyargh
February 19, 2010
Maybe I should clarify, that I often do buy games that brand new if I'm anticipating them enough. But even if the this is the case, I still don't have an internet connection fast enough to download any kind of DLC, so I'm shit out of luck. I'm just glad I'm not dependent on a PC for my gaming, as I'd never be able to play a game like Assassin's Creed 2. Having to be online constantly to play a single player game boggles my fucking mind. If I bought every game I wanted to, I wouldn't be eating food. Shit, I'm almost already not eating food. To me, not every game is worth a buy or maybe I'm on the fence with a game. I don't want to rent a game and not get as full an experience as someone else. Yes, I'm often "not one of their paying customers" but they need to work this out with resellers and renters, not take it out on the consumer. Also, I did say I'm not entirely opposed to this idea. I would respect the game company's needs to recoup something from those used sales if it were five or so dollars, but fifteen is just too much. I just don't want people like myself turned into some kind of second class gamer. I don't want to have different conversations about a game with my friends because "You bought it used. I bought it new, so I got the full experience."
100media_imag0065
February 19, 2010
I think this is an awful thing. All it does is punish people who do not have 7 figure incomes like the bigwigs who think up these plans. Some people NEED to buy used in order to enjoy gaming. I did research on this before for one of my college papers. A Gamer who buys 2 games a month used, as opposed to new, can save upwards of $500 a year. That is a huge chunk of change. Now, these new "Bonuses" are only geared towards gamers who buy new, and completely alienates the others. Sony is taking it a step further and requiring you to pay a $20 fee to unlock the multiplayer in Fire Team Bravo 3 if you buy used. This is a disgusting tactic that harms honest, paying customers. In showing my support for the people Sony was hurting, I used the money I WAS going to buy Fire Team Bravo 3 with and pre-ordered Alan Wake instead. I understand Used game sales are not the greatest thing for the industry, but nether is charging $65 for a new game. That is WAY to expensive for an industry like this.
Default_picture
February 20, 2010
While the focus of this article is definitely some sketchy business practice that needs an overhaul, I am much more concerned with the "disc check" that EA seems to be employing with Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2. The other morning, I had about 40 mins free before I had to go to work and went to play Dragon Age. As usual, it began the "Checking DLC" thing, but came back with a message that EA's servers were down. It then cut to the Menu screen with no options what-so-ever. I could not play my SINGLE PLAYER OFFLINE game because the servers were down? What the fuck! To be fair, I COULD get to the game logged into a non-live account, but could not load my save. This is a bigger problem I think.
Default_picture
February 20, 2010
I agree that getting access to the content is obnoxious now (is anyone but EA doing this?), but I think there's a factual error in the article. I am pretty certain that you do not need the Cerberus Network to be able to [b]purchase[/b] DLC. I may be mistaken, but I thought this was clarified when ME2 first came out that the Cerberus Network is only necessary to access the free DLC. I've been involved in this conversation several times, and I'm still on the side of the fence that says this is much better than the "Downloadable Future" where the used game market is eliminated. Incentivize new purchases, but just make it less of a hassle and keep it optional.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 20, 2010
BioWare has said that there would be paid content on Cerberus, as well as paid content available without Cerberus. What I said is that some Cerberus DLC will be paid, forcing some people to pay extra for DLC they're already paying for. I chose the wording carefully.
February 21, 2010
I'll admit, I haven't read all the comments since I'm short on time right now, so sorry if this has been covered. Would most of you feel the same about the whole DLC code with a new game if the code the game came with was for a map pack or something that came out 2-6 months after the game's release? I mean, I didn't see any uproar over the codes with Darksiders and that was for a complete game!
Default_picture
February 21, 2010
Many people are saying that used game sales hurt the industry because no money goes to the publisher or developer. Here's the thing, if a game is good, people are less likely to sell it back in the first place. And if a game is good, used game sales are not going to hurt the developer or publisher as much as they help GameStop. GameStop basically survives on used game sales. As pointed out in the article, they only make about 13% on every new game they sell. So yes, buying used doesn't give any money to the publisher or developer, but unless you want to see GameStop go away (I know many would say they wouldn't care) someone has to buy used games. The last time I purchased something from GameStop was about a year ago when I decided that my girlfriend should play Golden Sun. So I don't go there all that much, but they had it used for 6 bucks. That sure beats finding it online, waiting a few days, and paying half the price I bought it for in shipping. It's like an ecosystem. Animals screw other animals over all the time, but that's whats keeping everything balanced.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 21, 2010
From my time at EBGames, I can tell you that the more popular a game is, and the better a game is, the [i]more[/i] likely it is to show up used. People finish games and get rid of them. Within one week of Halo 2, I had a row of used copies. More people will buy a good game, making the proportion of that audience that will trade in games the same percentage wise, but much bigger in terms of numbers. You see more copies used as a result, and with such a quick turnaround on those new games, people will go ahead and buy the used one for $5 cheaper because it's still in good condition.
Default_picture
February 21, 2010
Could you link me to that quote about some of the paid DLC only being available on the Cerberus Network? It was my understanding (and it just makes sense) that you can purchase the paid DLC via the Cerberus Network in the game, but ALL paid DLC would be available from the regular Xbox Live Marketplace.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 22, 2010

If you read it on Joystiq, it must be true. Nothing against Joystiq, but I think their interpretation of that quote is suspect. It could mean that there will be paid DLC in packs, and some (paid) via Cerberus as well. I don't have the original source handy at this point, but I think all of the DLC talk stems from the one murky video interview. I'll see if I can find the original source that I used for this piece when my paid work is finished. If it really bothers you that much, I can take part of that paragraph down, as that single "error" seems to have destroyed the other 1500 words of the argument.

Default_picture
February 22, 2010
Yeah, having a major factual error in the cornerstone of one of your arguments does kind of destroy the rest of the article. Where's your credibility when you can't be bothered to research your diatribes and you cop a NeoGAF attitude when someone calls you on it? You're just willfully interpreting the quote to suit your argument. It wouldn't make any sense for there to be paid DLC content behind the Cerberus Network. That would be completely counterproductive to what EA and Bioware are trying to do with DLC, and they would be leaving money on the table by not allowing paid DLC to be purchased by anyone. Respond or not, but I'm not going to continue checking out this article, because you can't find your own posts from the profile menu, and I don't care for your crappy attitude. If I wanted to read rude responses, I'd still use my account on the 1up boards.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 22, 2010
I wouldn't call it a major factual error. The part about having to pay for that DLC twice -- it it isn't true, that is -- is just one point in the argument, and I never mention it again after that one paragraph. You're right to think it's counterproductive. That's kind of why it stood out to me the way it did. I can also tell you that I'm not alone in my interpretation of that quote. Not to cite mob rule or anything, but that quote was murky to begin with. To make up for it, I'll be editing that section. I'm sorry you're upset over this.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
February 22, 2010
There. One edited line, and the piece is back in order. Thanks for the input.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.