Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme

Reporting on Ubisoft's fiscal results conference call, Kotaku says the publisher is considering emulating EA's "project 10 dollar" DLC scheme in the future. EA's recently implemented plan involves free DLC in the game box that will have to be purchased separately by owners of used copies. "Most of the games we are releasing next year will have from the start downloadable content available, and we are looking very carefully at what is happening with EA regarding what we are calling the $10 solution, and will probably be following that line sometime in the future," said Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez. "We have been using keys starting last year on our products. Those keys were allowing some customers to have content if they were buying the product in specific stores, so we have the system in place to actually generate more revenue on the second-hand market," adds CEO Yves Guillemot. "We are building the content to make sure it can be beneficial for both groups to actually pay enough on one side and on the other side when you don't buy the game as a full game that you're interested to buy the new offering and are interested to pay to get that."
View : : :
57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
57.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 21, 2010, 03:59
57.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 21, 2010, 03:59
May 21, 2010, 03:59
 
There has been no valid argument to date that they should see any money from used sales.

I guess that depends on why you buy games. The only reason I buy games is to support the developers so that they, in turn, can continue making games that I enjoy. If I simply wanted to play a game, I could download it for free. Conversely, other people buy games because that's the only way they can play them without resorting to piracy.

I have no issues with publishers putting used copies at a disadvantage. Developers don't see any money from used sales, whereas they are much more likely to see money from new sales. If used sales outnumber new sales, that's not conducive to developers making money. Without money, they are less likely to make games I enjoy.
Avatar 20715
56.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 21, 2010, 02:59
56.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 21, 2010, 02:59
May 21, 2010, 02:59
 
Have they ever actually cited that as a reason?

Yes

From what I've read, their main gripe has been that they don't see a penny from used sales and that complaint is valid.

It's valid that they don't get any money (directly) from used sales. There has been no valid argument to date that they should see any money from used sales.

That still doesn't really make any sense from a business perspective.

And I said anything about a business perspective where? I'm not a business, I'm a consumer. Hence, that's the approach I address it from.
55.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 20, 2010, 16:26
55.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 20, 2010, 16:26
May 20, 2010, 16:26
 
So, you're saying the only options PC game buyers typically have is:
A. Purchase a new copy at full price
B. Pirate the game

While console buyers currently have the options:
A. Purchase a new copy at full price
B. Purchase a used copy at a reduced price
C. Rent the game
D. Pirate the game

I think this demonstrates another reason why piracy is so prevalent on the PC.
The more publishers try to force the the market to conform into what they think it should be. The more people will look for alternate means to acquire what they want.

PC users have goozex and ebay. Both of which avoid bending you over like GameStop.


But I'm of the belief that GameStop screws everyone over equally, both the user the underpay and overcharge and the dev/publisher they don't pay, period.
54.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 20, 2010, 12:40
54.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 20, 2010, 12:40
May 20, 2010, 12:40
 
One of the major reasons they use is that they end up spending money on people who bought the game used via things like DLC downloads, which is why they are going to charge people who bought the game used for those downloads.

Have they ever actually cited that as a reason? From what I've read, their main gripe has been that they don't see a penny from used sales and that complaint is valid.

My point is that from a "bandwidth consumed" point of view, there's no functional difference between the original owner re-downloading the content, and a second owner downloading the content. So if the original owner can re-download it for free, then the second owner should have access to it for free.

That still doesn't really make any sense from a business perspective. The original user can download the DLC for free because he bought the game new. The free DLC is a privilege he got with the new copy of the game. Used copies don't carry that privilege because consumers pay less for them and publishers don't see any money from those transactions.
Avatar 20715
53.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 20, 2010, 07:53
53.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 20, 2010, 07:53
May 20, 2010, 07:53
 
Yeah, but what percentage of PC gamers sell their games or buy used?
And what major corporation has this as their major source of income?


PC games have never really factored into used game sales and aren't a real concern to anyone.

So, you're saying the only options PC game buyers typically have is:
A. Purchase a new copy at full price
B. Pirate the game

While console buyers currently have the options:
A. Purchase a new copy at full price
B. Purchase a used copy at a reduced price
C. Rent the game
D. Pirate the game

I think this demonstrates another reason why piracy is so prevalent on the PC.
The more publishers try to force the the market to conform into what they think it should be. The more people will look for alternate means to acquire what they want.

This comment was edited on May 20, 2010, 10:15.
52.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 20, 2010, 02:16
52.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 20, 2010, 02:16
May 20, 2010, 02:16
 
That doesn't make much sense. If you buy a game, you can play it as many times as you want because you own a license to play the game. However, if somebody else wants to play the game, they need to buy it. If both people buy new copies, that's two sales that the publisher profits from. If you buy a new copy, then sell it, that's only one sale the publisher profits from.

It makes perfect sense, you're just arguing a completely unrelated point. My argument is against the typical excuses that companies come up with to try and justify why resales are so horrible. One of the major reasons they use is that they end up spending money on people who bought the game used via things like DLC downloads, which is why they are going to charge people who bought the game used for those downloads.

My point is that from a "bandwidth consumed" point of view, there's no functional difference between the original owner re-downloading the content, and a second owner downloading the content. So if the original owner can re-download it for free, then the second owner should have access to it for free. I made no argument about how much money the publisher actually gets.
51.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 22:33
51.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 22:33
May 19, 2010, 22:33
 
Beamer wrote on May 19, 2010, 22:06:
Yeah, but what percentage of PC gamers sell their games or buy used?
And what major corporation has this as their major source of income?

PC games have never really factored into used game sales and aren't a real concern to anyone.
I guess I wasn't being specific enough: We still feel the effects from these practices, centered on used console games, by having to deal with zero-day DLC in the first place.
Avatar 17249
50.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 22:06
50.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 22:06
May 19, 2010, 22:06
 
Just go back to the DA and ME2 threads and read how fun getting the free DLC to work was.

Yeah, but what percentage of PC gamers sell their games or buy used?
And what major corporation has this as their major source of income?


PC games have never really factored into used game sales and aren't a real concern to anyone.
49.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 20:02
49.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 20:02
May 19, 2010, 20:02
 
Well if you are a settlers fan or anno fan then you wouldn't be, both Settlers 7 and Anno 1404 are great games.
Avatar 54727
48.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 19:41
48.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 19:41
May 19, 2010, 19:41
 
Beamer wrote on May 19, 2010, 19:06:
Man, a lot of people that swear against console games getting irate against something almost definitely only going to be used on console games.

It's still a hoop to jump through on PC.

Just go back to the DA and ME2 threads and read how fun getting the free DLC to work was.
Avatar 17249
47.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 19:06
47.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 19:06
May 19, 2010, 19:06
 
Man, a lot of people that swear against console games getting irate against something almost definitely only going to be used on console games.


GameStop doesn't really do used PC games, so it won't affect you.
And all the digital delivery systems are, to the best of my knowledge, against resale, anyway.


46.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:57
46.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:57
May 19, 2010, 18:57
 
UttiniDaKilrJawa wrote on May 19, 2010, 13:50:
Wonder how far away we are from the endings being in new purchase only and 10 bucks extra for used.

CliffyB was talking about this concept like it's a genius idea after Hears 2 dropped, after he raged about twice the amount of people playing than the number who bought it.
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Avatar 51686
45.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:49
45.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:49
May 19, 2010, 18:49
 
Therefore, by introducing this scheme Ubi will be doing the same as EA and devaluing the second hand price of the game, which should devalue the original purchase price.

That's making the assumption that most people who buy a game, do so with the intent of selling it after they're done with it. I would argue that most people do not resell their games, or at the very least most people do not make the decision to purchase or not purchase a game based on the expected resell value.
44.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:41
44.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:41
May 19, 2010, 18:41
 
On a side note, I read on Massively that Ubisoft have five new MMO's in production. They are also requiring you to be connected to their servers while playing. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!1!
Avatar 19028
43.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:12
43.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:12
May 19, 2010, 18:12
 
While Ubisoft will not see a penny of my money because of their DRM insanity, I really can't blame them overmuch for doing the same as Bioware/EA did with Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age in terms of their DLC.

Used game sales don't profit a company. What should happen is that this lowers the price of of the game for the people selling it second hand and then the people who do buy it second hand get to use the money they saved to buy the DLC. So at the very least the game developer gets $10 back(potentially) from a used game sale.

No company is under a binding agreement to support second hand sales. There is no incentive to do so. So while I hate Ubi for their stupid DRM, I'm not overly mad at them for this. I buy on Steam anyway so it makes not one bit of difference to me.
42.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:09
42.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:09
May 19, 2010, 18:09
 
The only people who see profit from used games are the retailer.

Regardless, I've yet to see a major retailer that will sell used PC games. They're all console games.
Avatar 19028
41.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 18:05
Kxmode
 
41.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 18:05
May 19, 2010, 18:05
 Kxmode
 
ForgedReality wrote on May 19, 2010, 17:11:
Bet wrote on May 19, 2010, 17:09:
DRM and DLC go hand in hand perfectly.
Except, you can pirate DLC, you can't pirate DRM.

JOEY: Phreakphreakphreakphreakphreak, dudedudedudedudedudedude... I gotta...
PHREAK: (slaps Joey) Joey, Joey...
JOEY: What? whatwhatwhat?
PHREAK: One more "dude" out of you and I'm gonna slap the shit outa you, okay? Now I'm trying to save you from yourself but you gotta stop letting your mama dress you, man!
JOEY: I need a handle, man. I don't have an identity until I have a handle.
PHREAK: You know, you're right about that.
JOEY: Alright. How about the Master of Disaster, huh?
PHREAK: You're hopeless, man, utterly hopeless.
JOEY: Ultra Laser.
(desperate)
JOEY: Doctor Doom!

They just want to have fun!
"What does Ramen mean? It means Japanese spaghetti."
Avatar 18786
40.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 17:11
40.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 17:11
May 19, 2010, 17:11
 
Bet wrote on May 19, 2010, 17:09:
DRM and DLC go hand in hand perfectly.
Except, you can pirate DLC, you can't pirate DRM.
Avatar 55267
39.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 17:09
Bet
 
39.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 17:09
May 19, 2010, 17:09
 Bet
 
DRM and DLC go hand in hand perfectly.
Avatar 9253
38.
 
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme
May 19, 2010, 16:45
38.
Re: Ubisoft Considering EA-Style DLC Scheme May 19, 2010, 16:45
May 19, 2010, 16:45
 
Functionally speaking, there is no difference between me playing through a game once, uninstalling it, reinstalling it later and playing through it a second time, and me playing through it once, selling it to someone else, and having them play through it the second time.

That doesn't make much sense. If you buy a game, you can play it as many times as you want because you own a license to play the game. However, if somebody else wants to play the game, they need to buy it. If both people buy new copies, that's two sales that the publisher profits from. If you buy a new copy, then sell it, that's only one sale the publisher profits from.
Avatar 20715
57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older