SCEA VP Wants More Content On Disc, Not DLC

The Freeman

Fewer changes in the gaming industry over the past few years have caused more debate than the rise of downloadable content -- and even hardware executives are chiming in. Speaking to Gamasutra, Sony Computer Entertainment America vice president Rob Dyer explained why he wants to see more content going on discs and less sold later on the Internet.

"That way, 100 percent of the users are going to get it. 100 percent," Dyer said. "What are we, north of 70 percent [of PS3 owners] on the [PlayStation Network] now? 73, I think. Microsoft probably the same... [That's] still a significant number of people that aren't able to get [it], whether they don't have broadband, whether they just flat out can't get on the network. Whether or not you do it, they're not using it. I want it on the disc, that way when they buy it, they get it. So, if I can do that, that's great."

Still, Dyer also acknowledged why DLC does remain a component in today's videogame market. "Now, you can talk about why DLC is important to help limit the used game business and to keep people holding onto [the game]," he said. "I'm all about that, too. I love that. But I want it on the disc so that 100 percent out there that can play this thing."

Dyer also talked about another, less-discussed reason for why DLC is so prevalent: how it's used to boost pre-order sales, and in-turn a game's sales in total. "What has now happened is that you go to a publisher or developer and say, 'Look, guys. You got to start planning things in like pre-sale. What's your pre-sale DLC? What are you going to do for the Amazons, the GameStops, or whoever has that presale?'" Dyer said.

"So, you have to literally plan this in your [pre-production] in order to make sure you have the time, the assets, the resources because it's not just about used games; it's about, 'How do I get more pre-sale business, which absolutely determines my day-one initial orders. Am I going to get support from a first-party? How am I going to do that?'"

So in other words...for a variety of reasons, don't expect the focus on DLC to abate anytime soon, no matter how much an SCEA VP might want to see it happen.



more of it i say!


http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3179447&cmpid=0101

Grumpypants

DLC is their best weapon in fighting used games. Cod 5 for example a pretty rubbish game but i have held on to it as i have forked out 20 or 30 euro for Nazi Zombies.

This i have no problem with its an innovative solution that gives both parties what they want.

sarumite

Grumpypants wrote: »

DLC is their best weapon in fighting used games. Cod 5 for example a pretty rubbish game but i have held on to it as i have forked out 20 or 30 euro for Nazi Zombies.

This i have no problem with its an innovative solution that gives both parties what they want.

They can also make money out of used games sales through additional content. I bought Burnout Paradise second hand. I didn't think it was my kind of game but at €25 second hand I was willing to give it a go. I loved it and have spent another €25 in DLC for the game.

Notorious

Grumpypants wrote: »

DLC is their best weapon in fighting used games.

They've started using a better weapon more recently. THQ have put a code in the new UFC '10 game which allows you to play the game online. If anyone buys the game 2nd hand instore, the code with the game will most likely be invalid - you'll have to fork out to buy a new one. I think EA do something similar with FIFA too.

jmx009

Notorious wrote: »

They've started using a better weapon more recently. THQ have put a code in the new UFC '10 game which allows you to play the game online. If anyone buys the game 2nd hand instore, the code with the game will most likely be invalid - you'll have to fork out to buy a new one. I think EA do something similar with FIFA too.

Personally, i think its a great idea (as long as they arent charging too much) from the point of view of game developers. Game developers loose a lot of money from used game sales on the other hand Shops like gamestop gain tons of money from used game sales. Technically speaking , it should be the other way round. If the game developers dont see huge sales they will stop (or reduce) new releases and that will be bad for the industry.

So, as long as they are only charging 5 -10 euros for activating an online component in a used game, i am all cool.

Naturally retailers are going to be affected the most by this. As now, retailers will be forced to lower the price on used games and the general trend amongs consumers would be to buy new games.

sarumite

jmx009 wrote: »

Personally, i think its a great idea (as long as
they arent charging too much) from the point of view of game developers. Game developers loose a lot of money from used game sales on the other hand Shops like gamestop gain tons of money from used game sales. Technically speaking , it should be the other way round. If the game developers dont see huge sales they will stop (or reduce) new releases and that will be bad for the industry.

So, as long as they are only charging 5 -10 euros for activating an online component in a used game, i am all cool.

Naturally retailers are going to be affected the most by this. As now, retailers will be forced to lower the price on used games and the general trend amongs consumers would be to buy new games.

Bioware also added a code for DLC on Dragon age. The DLC was an extra story line though not integral to the main quest. You can download it for €5 on PSN if you want it and bought the game second hand. As long as it doesn't mess with the main game I have no major issue with it. Though I think gamers should be made aware specifically what they will lose if they buy the game second hand.

The Freeman

personally i agree with add-ons at a premium that do not integrate interfere with the actual completion of the game story.

what i do not agree with is the likes of alan wake(or assasins creed 2 where ya can not get 100% comepetion) where you have to buy and wait for the add on dlc before you can complete the full story.

just not a nice angle moving forward

Grumpypants

jmx009 wrote: »

Naturally retailers are going to be affected the most by this. As now, retailers will be forced to lower the price on used games and the general trend amongs consumers would be to buy new games.

Who will pass it on to customers. If they loose 5-10 euro on 2nd hand games they will need to make it back by adding 5-10 euro onto new games. So now new game sales will rise by 5-10 euro and used games will remain the same by the time the reduction and unlock code are accounted for.

Seems like a good idea increase the cost of new games not used games to boost new game sales

jmx009

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who will pass it on to customers. If they loose 5-10 euro on 2nd hand games they will need to make it back by adding 5-10 euro onto new games. So now new game sales will rise by 5-10 euro and used games will remain the same by the time the reduction and unlock code are accounted for.

Seems like a good idea increase the cost of new games not used games to boost new game sales

I dont think that retailers will increase the price on new games because if they do that, then more people will start to buy games online. Buying games online is already a lot cheaper. I am an avid buyer of games online and i always find it atleast 2-3 euros cheaper than retailers. Infact i can think of times when i was able to buy new games online for prices as low as 10 euros from the retail price. Nowadays, more and more online sites are guaranteeing release day delivery. So, not getting the game in time wont be a problem.

To summarize, i think it would be a dumb move from the part of the retailers to increase the price on new games to cover up their loss on used games.

Grumpypants

jmx009 wrote: »

I dont think that retailers will increase the price on new games because if they do that, then more people will start to buy games online. Buying games online is already a lot cheaper. I am an avid buyer of games online and i always find it atleast 2-3 euros cheaper than retailers. Infact i can think of times when i was able to buy new games online for prices as low as 10 euros from the retail price. Nowadays, more and more online sites are guaranteeing release day delivery. So, not getting the game in time wont be a problem.

To summarize, i think it would be a dumb move from the part of the retailers to increase the price on new games to cover up their loss on used games.

But you see the shops sell new games at cost price so they make no money out of them. They want you to trade in your old game as they will make there profit on that. Shops dotn really want to sell consoles and new games as they make such small % of profit off them. The used market is where they make there money.

Sites can sell at below costs because many come from outside the tax zone.

Notorious

jmx009 wrote: »

To summarize, i think it would be a dumb move from the part of the retailers to increase the price on new games to cover up their loss on used games.

You're right, it would be a foolish move but it isn't going to happen. People will continue to buy used games.

What annoys me about companies preventing used games being played online without an online code, is that the customer who buys the pre-owned game doesn't know what he's in for until he tries to play online. At the moment THQ charge $5.00 for a new online pass, where as EA are planning on introducing a pass that will cost $10. I can see those prices rising.