#1 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -


#2 Edited by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

I know some of you came in here expecting me to talk about Online Passes. Put the pitchforks down and hand me your torch.... my cigar needs a light.

I was watching the Medal of Honor: Warfighters trailer and noticed the "Limited Edition" boxes at the end. I'm assuming EA is doing the same for this game that they did for Battlefield 3 and a few other high profile releases where the first DLC will be included for early adopters buying new. I think these 1st edition type prints are the perfect way to encourage consumers to buy new and buy at release. Perhaps it's preaching to the choir since I'm a new game buyer exclusively (I like to reward the people who actually make the products I want so they make more), but I think that this should really be the strategy publishers should take.

**Oops, title was originally gonna be EA is taking the right path to discourage used purchases.

#3 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -

adding additional value at essentially no extra cost while simultaneously providing incentive for new game purchases is a win-win

#4 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

Oh, and for the people who click no... I really would like to hear why you think it's a bad idea. HBKDX summed up my overall thoughts on it pretty well.

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (36034 posts) -

@Averhoeven said:

Oh, and for the people who click no... I really would like to hear why you think it's a bad idea.

It makes those stupid cardboard sleeves more common?

#6 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

@Averhoeven said:

Oh, and for the people who click no... I really would like to hear why you think it's a bad idea.

It makes those stupid cardboard sleeves more common?

There are some big movie dorks that collect those for their DVDs and Blus. I've sold a stack of the lenticulars from 3D blus for a few easy bucks before, but I agree... they usually end up in my recycle bin. Not inherent to the 1st edition concept though.

#7 Posted by Willin (1279 posts) -

If we're going by the Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 example then I disagree. I shouldn't have to buy the DLC that comes with first copies of the game because I bought it 6 months later. If you're going to put that stuff in put it in all copies.

#8 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6386 posts) -

@Willin said:

If we're going by the Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 example then I disagree. I shouldn't have to buy the DLC that comes with first copies of the game because I bought it 6 months later. If you're going to put that stuff in put it in all copies.

Solution: Don't buy it six months later. The free DLC is meant to provide incentive to buy copies at least relatively early, and if you don't want to do it to save money, then you don't get the free incentive. I don't see why you feel entitled to such content.

#9 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -

Just to expound on the idea of providing incentive for new game purchases, i think retailer specific pre-order bonuses are handled pretty poorly. They could be great and worthwhile if handled properly.
 
IMO i think retail specific pre-orders (related to gameplay) should only be in game unlockables that you just get access to early on depending on where you pick up the game. This way i don't feel I'm losing part of the experience being that i was obviously only going to get 1 copy from one retailer. 
 
The fact that they then sell you the entire suite of pre-order bonuses down the line as DLC is ridiculous and almost defeats the point of a pre-order bonus

#10 Posted by Zleunamme (651 posts) -

I would say on No on niche games like Atlus JRPGs. Those games are dedicated to a small audience and retailers are not going to allocate space for them. The main problem is that it becomes a reason for the price of the game to be jacked up. Rather than pay $60 its now $80 to $100. Especially for games that are hard to come by and you can only find them used. Another problem that needs to be considered is if bonus content-weapons, maps and costumes- breaks the game. If you are in a multiplayer match and you can't play against another because you do not have the necessary patchs. Or other players having an unfair advantage with a special item. It all depends on how much you like the game and how much you are willing to spend.

#11 Posted by Averhoeven (21 posts) -

@Willin said:

If we're going by the Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 example then I disagree. I shouldn't have to buy the DLC that comes with first copies of the game because I bought it 6 months later. If you're going to put that stuff in put it in all copies.

That's the entire point though,.... it's an incentive to get you to purchase at launch. It should make it even easier for you to justify buying at launch too. If your choices are $60 at launch or $40 +$15 6 months later, why not let your inner instant gratification demon have his desserts?!

#12 Posted by Willin (1279 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@Willin said:

If we're going by the Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 example then I disagree. I shouldn't have to buy the DLC that comes with first copies of the game because I bought it 6 months later. If you're going to put that stuff in put it in all copies.

Solution: Don't buy it six months later. The free DLC is meant to provide incentive to buy copies at least relatively early, and if you don't want to do it to save money, then you don't get the free incentive. I don't see why you feel entitled to such content.

Because when I'm buying games like Battlefield 3 for almost full price, not used 6 months after the release and not getting the same as people who bought it at launch at nearly same price I feel like being left out of content despite paying the same.

With regular Limited Editions at least it costs more with the extra content. Both 'editions' of Battlefield 3 costs exactly the same with the only difference is that content is left out.

#13 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

I'd rather not see day one DLC at all. Yes, perhaps the developers created it after their work on the main game had finished, etc, etc, but it's impossible to differentiate between that and content that was just stripped from the game to provide some incentive to pre-order. EA is very guilty of this and I'm just plain sick of supporting their games.

Collectors Editions that come with a few cosmetic bonuses or whatever are fine, but if something comes with day one DLC, I'm not going to buy the game until it's massively reduced along with its DLC, or there's a GoTY version.

Darksiders 2 has already been relegated to this fate, and I was really looking forward to that.

#14 Posted by supamon (1333 posts) -

No, you're just tacking on carrots that entice people to get it for their money. Not everyone has the ability to buy a bunch of games at full price. We have lives to lead and other games/stuff/work going on that would mean I couldn't play this game immediately at release. Hypothetically speaking, what if I had to go overseas for six months on a work related project? I'd come home after the project, buy the game new then as I would have if I didn't go overseas and see people with awesome shit that I can't get or have to pay extra for.

Companies like EA have brought what is suppose to be a nice little thank you to a different level where it's plain obvious they just want you to pay more. If or when this practice spreads to other companies and core essential parts of the game are locked we'll all be fucked then, thanks to people mindlessly buying games without any consideration.

#15 Posted by gamefreak9 (2344 posts) -

Cosmetic stuff is fine, I don't really care, but if i'm actually getting LESS content when I bought their game full price 6 months later... then that's BS, if you pay a price you should get the same out of it. If anything, I would expect more out of my money since there may be better games out by then which I had to neglect. As long as limited edition sticks to having some art comics, developer's vids and that wow map, i'm fine with it... if your putting it in more story or quests in it... then its starting to get on my nerves.

#16 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6386 posts) -

@Willin: My problem with that is your hypothetical situation where you are buying a game at nearly full price but without the bonus content everyone else got isn't generally the case. For example, I could easily go out today and buy the Limited Edition of Medal of Honor for twenty dollars without having to look far at all.

#17 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2224 posts) -

Having a 'limited edition' version of a game when it first comes out and is the same price at the regular edition is cool, but only when it works.

For instance, I have yet to see a regular edition of Bulletstorm or Rage.

However its a better thing to do in my eye instead of pre order bonuses, especially retailer specific ones that they sell as DLC later.

#18 Posted by ckeats (489 posts) -

Depends really. If it's just DLC or something for the multiplayer, then Meh, I rarely touch multiplaer anyways.

If it's something physical and cool like the Skyrim dragon statue/Art book(which I sadly couldn't afford at the time) or even just a soundtrack or poster then I'll always buy it. My Raidou Jack Frost plush is one of my favourite things ever, and even though it was a preorder bonous, my Junpei hat is pretty awesome too.

#19 Edited by Tumbler (161 posts) -

In principal it sounds good but in reality you get games like BF3 shipping without Wake Island and Karkland and then calling that extra content. You might as well ship CoD without the MP mode and call that extra content.

I'm all for adding value but I can't think of any game that does this, it's always about locking content away from some users rather than giving more to the early adopters.

In the end the early adopters still pay the highest price. If they don't like the game and want to sell it they're stuck with less money. If they like the SP side but not the MP they're still stuck with a used code. The people buying the game used are given the option to buy into the MP side after the harsh light of reality has been shined on the game. And if some folks wait a month they'll likely find the new game discounted and available for less. In the case of BF3 I think the missing maps from people buying the game a month or so later cause a bigger problem with keeping the community alive. If everyone who comes into the game (today) instantly needs to buy more maps in order to use many servers I think that works against them. I think the recent patch has done more good for the game than that map pack did.

Developers should work on adding more content rather than taking it away if they want to reward people for buying new. DLC is perfectly suited to be this reward, buy the game new, DLC = free. Buy the game used, the DLC costs money/points. Choose the better value.