EA: PS3 and 360 games could get cheaper this year

[Jigsaw]

For example when we would play Fifa 11 , the first half would be in the disk and second half will be a DLC

 

Way to go EEE AAA!

 

 

I'd love that

 

[93bullets]

Way to go EA best way to ruin yourself possible

 

couldnt have thought of that ever if it wasnt for the geniuses EA people

 

 

main to demo bhi download nahi karta ab mera kya hoga?

[Aftrunner]

Wow the level of idiocy in this thread is amazing.

 

If anything EA are the only ones who are doing this DLC thing right. So they throw in a free DLC with the launch of every game to stave off second hand sales, whats wrong with that? If companies like Capcom (RE5 DLC already on the disc sold separately later) and Ubisoft (cutting out AC2 to sell it as DLC later) do it they keep the same high price, charge for the DLC and no one cares.

 

But if EA actually look to lower the price of the game and sell DLC throughout its lifespan suddenly everyone is a cynic? You all sound braindead.

[Keyofx]

IS THIS A JOKE? :|

[junior]

if mrp of new games below 2k ... then to hell wid buying used games

[jDaMn]

Wow the level of idiocy in this thread is amazing.

 

If anything EA are the only ones who are doing this DLC thing right. So they throw in a free DLC with the launch of every game to stave off second hand sales, whats wrong with that? If companies like Capcom (RE5 DLC already on the disc sold separately later) and Ubisoft (cutting out AC2 to sell it as DLC later) do it they keep the same high price, charge for the DLC and no one cares.

 

But if EA actually look to lower the price of the game and sell DLC throughout its lifespan suddenly everyone is a cynic? You all sound braindead.

It's surprising to see as one sided a stand as this^. Saboteur type attempts to reduce second hand sales are a valid tactic. As for DLC, others do it too - EA is just the first (?) to say they will work part of cost recovery into the DLC right from the start (also the article quotes 'prices of video games may drop in 2010 with more publishers relying on DLC'). The point you're making is fine, except that people would think that to reliably recover the original development costs, companies might cut down on the main game/make the DLCs as integral to the game as possible to maximize sales. This is not the case with the above examples.

 

The only sensible post on this thread. And i don't see what's wrong with DLC if done right. i mean, most of the DLC on DAO was worth spending for, more DLC just means greater support from the publisher's side which means the game stays current longer which further means you'd be playing it more and buying less full priced games.

And this^. No one disputes DLC 'done right' is good. Greater support NOT=better support NOT=stays current longer NOT=people will play longer AND it does not necessarily follow that people would buy less full priced games.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has said DLC=not good. What is freaking some people out is the possibility that important parts of the game will be put out on PAID DLC. This is a valid concern, and the above posts do not address this.

 

1. Do I buy this game now? Reviews will capture smaller portions of the value of the game, making comparisons more difficult. If you're buying what is essentially a work in progress, you either wait or commit with less information. Either way, you're losing out (time cost vs. risk cost).

2. How much does this game cost? If information on future DLC pricing is not available at purchase, the customer does not know what the total cost would be over the life cycle of the game. Obviously this differs from person to person, but (for example), some people may not have bought Halo 3 if they'd known their MP was going to get curtailed with the launch of map packs. The choice remains, accept a cut down game experience, or put down more cash. I'm not saying it is wrong/right, just pointing this out. We welcome new maps, but forget the incremental development cost is negligible compared to what we end up paying for it.

3. How do I get rid of this game? The second hand market - the company gets some say in this (when to discount DLC) as compared to a simpler market where great 'deals' can be had with a few people selling at very low prices (the DLC pricing will probably be available to all, and probably will not discount as quickly-assumption). And why is the customer not free to resell the DLC? T&C aside, this is nothing but shafting the customer.

4. Where do I buy DLC? You can probably only get it online.. bye bye retailer discounts.

 

And lastly (this is all I'm worried about) - 13GB-7GB game install = so little space

[jDaMn]

Dammit another loooooong boring post - the short version is: good luck to companies trying to get more money out of consumers, and to consumers trying to get a better deal.

[Aftrunner]

I don't think anyone in this thread has said DLC=not good. What is freaking some people out is the possibility that important parts of the game will be put out on PAID DLC. This is a valid concern, and the above posts do not address this.

 

But thats what I am trying to say. Its already happening. With almost every big game. AC2 did it, Splinter cell conviction has a DLC out on Day zero that will only be available to CE owners, Capcom have been downright shameful with the RE DLC and the SF costume packs.

 

So you have to differentiate between DLC that was made to add value to the game and DLC that was cut out of the game and sold later. And even then compared to the handiwork of some other noted publishers EA so far have been very positive with the DLC they have put out. Dragon age had Shale which added a sizable quest to the game. And it was free. Saboteur had that stupid nudity thing but it was free. Mirrors Edge got map packs but they werent cut out from the main game. And should I even mention Burnout paradise? If after doing that on Day zero they can support the game at a later period by adding stuff I wont complain. My ire was directed at the usual ZOMG EA ARE PURE EVIL !!!11 retards that spout like weed in every gaming forum.

 

In an ideal situation none of this would happen. Which is why the old PC gaming days were a far better option for a consumer. Instead of DLCs that add 40 minutes to the game we used to have expansion packs. A sizable chunk of the game which was made AFTER the game was released. But once MS put us on this slippery slope where selling horse armor and costume packs for money was considered acceptable its become open season for all publishers.

 

To sum it up if they are already ripping us off by holding back content then at least I would like the games to be cheaper.

[DevilsOwn]

Dammit another loooooong boring post - the short version is: good luck to companies trying to get more money out of consumers, and to consumers trying to get a better deal.

 

you and most others on the post are taking EA's word completely out of context. They are simply stating that with the option of spreading development costs over not 1 but 3/4 sales points, the cost of the 1st sales unit can go down.

 

They are NOT saying that the main game (ie the 1st sales unit) will be compromised, just that it shall be developed to support other units (DLCs) too..

 

EA have done it well with the DA:O DLCs, heck even the ME DLC was pretty good an idea. Adding to the game, whilst not taking anything away from the core game.

 

So, in the future, the main game can be made at a cheaper cost, because the development cost is being shared over 3/4 releases.

 

Meaing, more revenues (in total) for EA, and at teh same time the consumers spend less fixed (1st game), but have the option of spending more on stuff they want.

 

ITs a very good consumer centric business move.

[WhiteWolf]

What abt Redington India increasing the price of 360 games here? ..It was their internal decision?.I don't think, they will increase the prices now...

[devil_angel]

I wonder why this has come out jus before Mass Effect 2 release.....it's a double edged sword I'd say!

[L33TWiZaRd]

As long as the taxes levied on imports of games are high, prices will increase no matter what....(Unless Games started selling for 30$)

 

Buying a game for 50$ish and then spending another 10-20$ for all the DLC in it's life span sounds reasonable.

e.g: Fallout 3

 

This also might increase the gap between successive release of the same IP

[Buzz]

DLC's done right are great. But the problem is long downloads and HDD sizes. For current gen consoles it will be a great pain in the arse to download big dlc's.

[DevilsOwn]

DLC's done right are great. But the problem is long downloads and HDD sizes. For current gen consoles it will be a great pain in the arse to download big dlc's.

 

india is not the TG so d/l size is not a major issue. and most of consoles are getting bigger HDD.

 

DLCs are here to stay. and its a good thing to have them

[Puneet.Chandila]

DLC are good when kept at sensible price. Making a DLC almost to 1/2 of the cost of the actual game, does not justify.

[jDaMn]

you and most others on the post are taking EA's word completely out of context. They are simply stating that with the option of spreading development costs over not 1 but 3/4 sales points, the cost of the 1st sales unit can go down.

 

They are NOT saying that the main game (ie the 1st sales unit) will be compromised, just that it shall be developed to support other units (DLCs) too..

 

EA have done it well with the DA:O DLCs, heck even the ME DLC was pretty good an idea. Adding to the game, whilst not taking anything away from the core game.

 

So, in the future, the main game can be made at a cheaper cost, because the development cost is being shared over 3/4 releases.

 

Meaing, more revenues (in total) for EA, and at teh same time the consumers spend less fixed (1st game), but have the option of spending more on stuff they want.

 

ITs a very good consumer centric business move.

Hmm to keep this going or let it drop? Maybe just one more...

 

Perhaps you didn't read through my post? With so little information at this point, I've only pointed out that the game content 'might' be cut down. On the other hand, assuming that content will definitely not be cut is surely taking a 100% position with very little info to back it up. It'd also be helpful if you pointed out where the reasoning goes off rather than stating only that it is a very good, consumer centric move. As I see it, the earlier points still stand.

 

1. Let's assume the main game is not being made cheaper (if we do, your pov will probably not stand, assuming the original game can only be made cheaper by cutting out content/quality). Why is this new statement any different from what is happening right now, with multiple DLC released for many titles? By cutting price on the main game, how do you maintain profitability? Increase sales of DLC or increase the price of DLC? Increasing sales - that's what many people are assuming will be done by integrating the DLC into the main game to a greater extent than it is right now. Prices could also be reduced/more achievements added etc. to increase sales, take your pick. Without these, prices may be increased. If they increase, the people paying for DLC pick up a disproportionate share of the cost (how much will price decrease by? 10$? Would 3-4 DLC be </> 10$)?

 

2. I still don't get how this is a great move for consumers. For a game bought at launch:

a. For the full game experience, the customer ends up paying more, while

b. Having to hold on to the game longer (assuming 4 DLC not released simultaneously), and having

c. Resale value drop (because of time) and not being able to resell the DLC (unless you sell your gamertag?)

 

It's a little difficult for me to continue this as I like the idea of DLC (and greater choice) as well. But then I like buying games brand new and holding on to them as well. I am also ok with people self-selecting (is that correct?) and paying disproportionately more for DLC (they get more out of it hence fair). But then not everyone agrees/does the same, and saying this is a purely a good/bad move ignores how other people game/spend.

 

The main problem is that DLC takes info away from the customer at initial purchase, and that is never good, except for the seller.

 

I got into the discussion only because of the either here or there going on, so am closing it from my side. Makes no sense to go on, especially on the basis of just one statement by one person!

 

Anyways, good to see people having opinions, though I don't get how everyone else manages to get their point across in such short posts

[Hahaman]

i just hope by dlc's they wont be as small as warden's keep n instead like gta's

[amitsh2812]

new here - stupid question - whats DLC full form?

[_Batman_]

new here - stupid question - whats DLC full form?

 

afaik it is downloadable content...