Gamestop CEO Dismisses EA's Free DLC Plan

[samsonguy920]

Now here is a gentleman who thinks he has the squeeze on all used game sales and therefore thinks his opinion matters. I fart in his general direction.

...So, he's saying that publishers can profit off of used game sales thanks to DLC. Which... is exactly what Project Ten Dollar is, minus the whole "bundling it free with the new copy of the game."

I'm really not seeing the difference here. Maybe I'm just missing something?

You aren't John. Let me basically illustrate what this wag just said:

What sucks for his customers is he is going to use this plan as an excuse to pay less for used games sold to his stores, and then charge more for selling them. Makes me rather happy to not be dealing in consoles right now.

 

[bobisimo]

As a gamer who dabbles near exclusively in the used market, I'll reiterate what the others have said.

Would I rather buy the latest-greatest for $60 and get $10 of free content tacked on? Or would I rather buy that game used in 3-6-12 months for $20 or $30 dollars? If I like it so much that I have to have the DLC, and it's $10, then I'll pay the $10 and still have saved money. But most likely, the DLC is something I'll pass on in favor of another used game I've been dying to play.

In other words, I agree: as a value-oriented consumer, no, your free $10 content will not entice me to buy your game new.

 

[Booze Zombie]

"We can market and execute DLC sales right in-store," explained DeMatteo. "There's a tremendous opportunity for us to encourage software developers and publishers to create DLC because we'll be able to market it. It's very difficult to discover, find... add-on content with the tools available [currently]."

Maybe I've been playing too much of the Splintercell demo, but I just imagined an EA exec reading that as "marking and executing".
Yeah, I've been playing it too much.

If buying the second-hand game and DLC is cheaper than buying the game new, people will do it.
At least the DLC will still rake in money for the devs, though.

That said, I still prefer having a copy of the game that doesn't smell like cigarettes and is free of some other person's fingerprints.

 

[Cabisco]

This man is clearly an idiot.

He deserves this:

Ok first off, I loved that movie and now onto what I originally wanted to say.


Project ten dollar makes a fuckton of sense, especially in the opening weeks of sales. At that point you will see preowned copies of the game with a few quid down in price, saving you a small amount of money. EA get none of that money, so they came up with this idea of free stuff for new copies.

It makes perfect sense to everyone, but people who say are CEOs at gamestop will realise they no longer get that $36, which for them is a new tidy profit.

 

[ramox]

As a gamer who dabbles near exclusively in the used market, I'll reiterate what the others have said.

Would I rather buy the latest-greatest for $60 and get $10 of free content tacked on? Or would I rather buy that game used in 3-6-12 months for $20 or $30 dollars? If I like it so much that I have to have the DLC, and it's $10, then I'll pay the $10 and still have saved money. But most likely, the DLC is something I'll pass on in favor of another used game I've been dying to play.

In other words, I agree: as a value-oriented consumer, no, your free $10 content will not entice me to buy your game new.

Just...that you are far off the point of this...
This is not about people bying games months later from the sales bin. The talk is about the (in)famous reselling measures of almost new copies for 5 or 10 dollars less than brand new.

 

[bobisimo]

This is not about people bying games months later from the sales bin. The talk is about the (in)famous reselling measures of almost new copies for 5 or 10 dollars less than brand new.

I hear ya. And to be honest, I went back and re-read his comment a couple times before typing up my post.

But that led me to believe he's referring to the used market in its entirety -- not specifically one aspect, such as GameStop knocking $5 off a 2-week old game. If he was talking specifically about that, I'd be right there with everyone else saying I'd rather have the value of the free DLC. But he's implying "the used market, of which we at GameStop are one part of" and "through our years in the used business, this is what we've seen of the spending habits of value-minded consumers".

That's why I made the comment that I agree with his point; free DLC is not enough to entice me to buy new. I blow through games and discard them. I play a lot of stuff. So I try to be at least a little reasonable with my spending. If I can buy three games for $60 or one game for $60, I need more than free DLC to convince me to go with the solitary title.

 

[Therumancer]

Goddammit now I want a sub...
OT: As much as I like preowned games, I admit they do screw over the developers a little. The whole status of ideas and copyrighting them is still being debated to a degree.

It's a dangerous issue as well on a lot of levels. It goes beyond things like games, into things like medicine and entire areas of technology. A good part of the problems with China in paticular revolve around patent violations and knock offs.

-

That said, in regards to this issue I think that the game industry is cumulatively being a group of greedy twits. To them the used game industry isn't just an issue because of the belief that they are somehow losing money (ie if the used games weren't availible people would buy from them for more money), but because it helps keep brick and mortar stores going. While once allies, right now you see game companies wanting to fight physical game retailers on some levels, because they want to go totally digital. They envision a situation where all games whether they are PC games or console games will be downloaded from the creators directly, giving them both close control over their work, and also removing the entire issue of distribution, packaging, and other things, those savings which can be turned into pure profit if they keep game prices the way they are now.

As I understand what is being said, Gamestop seems to be implying that the "$10 of free content" is no more an issue than it is with any other game that comes with a code based promotion OR has DLC in the system already. Especially seeing as so far the extra content has mostly been gravy as opposed to anything integral to the games.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Let me explain.

The difference is, Gamestop sells it and makes money.

 

[ramox]

This is not about people bying games months later from the sales bin. The talk is about the (in)famous reselling measures of almost new copies for 5 or 10 dollars less than brand new.

I hear ya. And to be honest, I went back and re-read his comment a couple times before typing up my post.

But that led me to believe he's referring to the used market in its entirety -- not specifically one aspect, such as GameStop knocking $5 off a 2-week old game. If he was talking specifically about that, I'd be right there with everyone else saying I'd rather have the value of the free DLC. But he's implying "the used market, of which we at GameStop are one part of" and "through our years in the used business, this is what we've seen of the spending habits of value-minded consumers".

That's why I made the comment that I agree with his point; free DLC is not enough to entice me to buy new. I blow through games and discard them. I play a lot of stuff. So I try to be at least a little reasonable with my spending. If I can buy three games for $60 or one game for $60, I need more than free DLC to convince me to go with the solitary title.

While i agree with you about the used-game market thing in general i still think this whole issue is about said "almost new games" thing first and foremost.
Let's be honest, i'm pretty sure publishers couldn't care less about what happens to their games months past release. Once the prices are down to half the original prices (new and used) there is no profit anymore anyway.
So where i'm getting to is, all this is about is the "get it while it's hot window". This is the time both publishers and retailers like Gamestop make most of their profits (hence all the preorder bullshit we get lately).
So, while i agree that it wont impact the used game sector in general i am pretty sure it will hurt Mr. COE a lot when it comes to freshly released stuff, and that's where he makes a huge part of his profit...till now at least.

 

[Generator]

If I'm not mistaken, his main point is, "Please buy from us!!!" Who needs to be coherent when you can make cash?

Honestly, though, I buy new games specifically for the purpose of helping the developers (and for OCD-related issues), so this won't really change my purchasing much. It's a nice offer, but I doubt that many people will be swayed one way or another by it.

 

[Antari]

"GameStop CEO Dan DeMatteo doesn't think that it will matter much to the people who buy used games - and in fact sees DLC as a way that publishers and used-games retailers can work together to benefit all parties involved."

Thats nice .... they can work together all they want. I'll be somewhere else, buying someone elses games.

 

[Mortons4ck]

Project Ten Dollar is the result of EA realizing that there is nothing they can do to stop used games sales, and trying to make the best of their situation.

 

[(LK)]

I think the point he was trying to gently make without offending customers is people buying used games are looking for cheaper games and don't mind losing a small sliver of content that a publisher overestimates at $10 of worth, which it is worth only by the logic of $10 theater popcorn. They're being cheap, they're willing to give up the optional DLC to do so, they're on a budget.

Publishers aren't removing 1/6 of the $60 game for that supposed $10 value. They're removing something they would make customers PAY $10 for, which compared to the game's overall content as a ratio is probably worth $1-2 at most.

There's a difference there in value of the content.. One is the value to the customer (negligible) and the other is the value to the publisher (excessive).

Condensed: customers are not going to give a crap about what a publisher feels they can get away with removing and charging $10 for when they're just looking to save money buying games and little else.

 

[Snotnarok]

Sorry for the anger but that guy is a fucking idiot. He said nothing "It's bad because mumble mumble mumble!"

I've got 2 games that feature the "project 10 dollar" and it's been awesome. Hey new Mass Effect 2 DLC! Really? I get it for FREE" New Bad Company 2 content? FREE. I've been happily buying these games new (I know I got 'em on PC but shut up I'm trying to make a point here) because I know I'd want the content and not want to really pay for it. Now if I didn't care about it I could go and buy it used and just skip it. It's offering gamers an incentive support the company (opposed to buying it used where they get none) which is fine by me.

Yup, you got it for FREE. When you should have gotten it for FREE, when the game shipped. Seriously, most of you people think that these DLCs are so good, the developers do it just to get additional revenues from players. Ingenious huh. These DLCs are content the developers cut from the main game and then resell it to players to get additional revenue. Ingenious huh.

Besides other game developers GIVE these DLCs for free! Look at Stardock's Galactic Civilizations - they do not copy protect their games, but they offer a huge amount of DLCs on their site for players who REGISTER their copies. This way, they earn player support and they also give huge amounts of DLC for FREE...not to sell it again just to skin players...

Yes but some DLC is actually made after the game, not ALL DLC is just greedy bullshit. Look at the making of God of War, they took out a lot of things that had they had time they could have put into the game. So some things get cut because the publisher wants the game out. WHile I agree that some DLC is bullshit on toast (RE5 vs mode DLC, Katamari DLC) where it has the bloody DLC on the disc, there are DLC packs out there where they do put work into it.

 

[Jared]

well gamestop is doing all its can to stop "project ten dollar" before it takes off.

True. Because if it does it dosnt want to lose its second hand market or else, financially...its going to go down the toilet.

It wants people to still but them second hand stuff as it is where profits are turned for them

 

[Pinguin]

I think his point is that buyers of used games are looking for cheap 'good enough' gaming, and won't necessarily care enough about the DLC to want to pay for it anyway.

 

[pneuma08]

So when a game retailer says "I have a used copy for $5 less" the buyer isn't calculating the "59.99-$5=54.99+10$ for DLC=64.99 - hey! that's not a deal!" they're just seeing it as an immediate cost savings. And project $10 DLC really doesn't matter, by and large for used sales - and such a program is patently bad for consumers.

Well, this is where I think that Project 10 Dollar starts to fall apart too. We're assuming that the DLC is actually worth $10, and that the customer isn't aware of/calculating the value.

For instance, if you don't game connected to the internet, this DLC isn't worth $10, it's worthless to you. If you intend to buy the game, beat is as quickly as you can, and sell it back (who are the people who are going to benefit from the higher used game prices in the first place), well then the DLC has very little value.

Not to mention that the content may not be worth $10 in the eyes of the consumer in the first place. Is Zaeed and the extra heavy weapons worth the $15 asking price? How about Shale for $10? Do they substantially enhance the game? It depends on who you ask. This can be confusing for potential buyers as well, which means less people actually shell out the cash for the DLC - and if the only people who use it are the ones who get it for free, how much is that piece of content really worth?

But back to the original topic, I think what the guy is actually saying is that prices won't be coming down anytime soon, probably because Project 10 Dollar hasn't put a big enough dent (if a dent at all) in used game sales.

We'll see if that holds.

And/or he could just be primarily speaking to stockholders. PR but not for the general public.

 

[brunothepig]

You're not the only one confused, Funk. My interpretation of this plan is, if you buy a game secondhand for less than $10 less than the retail price. Then you can still buy the DLC and save money.

 

[wadark]

I'm late to the comment party here. What the man was saying, it seems, was that a gamer looking to buy used games is concerned about value and getting the most for every dollar they spend.

Think of it this way:
You walk into GameStop and see the newly released Modern Warfare 5 (or whatever) on the shelf.
New: $59.99 (with a free code for DLC)
Used: $54.99 (no code)
At the end of the day, the new copy still costs more money. So, essentially, you're paying $5 for an additional in-game thing like a piece of armor or something.

What DeMatteo is saying, I think, is that the consumers who most frequently purchase used games are the ones who are on a tight budget. And as such, those consumers will have to determine whether that "free" DLC is worth paying an extra $5 for the game (regardless of its "value" according to the publisher.

Every gamer is going to value the DLC differently, as pneuma08 said. The publisher can talk about it being $10 all they want, but if the player values only the story, for instance, having a piece of armor that makes the game slightly "easier" isn't really a huge draw (not for me anyway), so why would I spend $5 extra to get an item that isn't really important to me at all.

The problem here is the bad doors it opens. We're already seeing the problems arising with online play. Fortunately for me, this isn't a big issue because online multiplayer isn't my thing, but for some people it is. And what happens when they start closing off portions of the single-player as well.

This is going to hurt publishers in the long-run, no question.