sounds like a good idea... only Pirates will get it for free anyway. Yarrrr!
Still I'm gonna buy it even more now to test the Cerberus out of the network :)

I love the idea of cross platform DLC. The idea that if I buy DLC for the 360 and it makes it available for my PC version is a pretty sweet deal.

Not sure how many people would own more than one version of the game, but it is not out of the realm of possibilities.

As someone who plays browser based games that link into Facebook, Myspace and other social networks, I would appreciate the same level of service. This is something that I am planning on integrating into my games.

I'll agree that this will most likely be more effective than other means of preventing piracy. At the very least I would hope that it persuades some of the casual pirates to go out and purchase the game.

@Knight, I didn't get the impression that buying it for the 360 means it's available at no cost on the PC.

The Cerberus Network is for free content, while the paid stuff is outside of that. So the Cerberus Network won't be able to know what you buy since it only deals with the free content.

That is my impression.

Hopefully, this would mean GameStop would stop getting unique DLC. I mean I want the Inferno Armor (Not GameStop), Terminus Armor (GameStop), and Collectors Armor (Collector's Edition PC at GameStop, Xbox 360 version NOT at GameStop)

But it seems I will have to truly choose one, or preorder one from Amazon, one from GameStop, and then buy the Collector's Edition. Then return my copies to GameStop & Amazon minus DLC code.

That's just too much.

@Carver,
Most likely this has little to do with piracy specifically and is just a scheme to assure they get a slice of the pie no matter where or how the consumer gets their game.

"As games become increasingly reliant on downloads and server authentication, questions are raised as to the future full playability of players' game collections."

This is the biggest worry I have about DLC. I still bought the CE edition, but hope all this stuff eventually makes it to a hard copy platinum edition that I can pick up cheap so I can keep my game when the servers turn off.

Also another related question, mainly aimed at how to NOT market this idea, who gets the Cerberus Network with their purchase? Everyone right?

Take a look at their website. The CE edition clearly has a bullet item:
"Limited Edition Cerberus Network card granting access to bonus content"

Yet one the main home page:

"Included with each copy of Mass Effect 2 is a Cerberus Network Card. Activate yours and gain access to additional bonus content. Recruit Zaeed, the most dangerous bounty hunter in the Terminus Systems, visit new uncharted worlds, and more!"

What is the difference? Are they the same thing? Are they really trying to say the standard edition gets the code on a leaflet and the CE edition gets the code on a cheap fake credit card? If you are going to make this new DLC platform a selling point for new copies, at least make it clear what is added in the CE edition of the game...

The irony that is the name 'Cerberus Network' is so thick you could cut it with a knife. A DLC network primarily designed to enforce the developer's prefered vision of copy-right law named after an in universe organization that advances the causes of humanity by any means necessary without being hamstrung by the actual law or public opinion? How did this name pass muster at the internal PR meetings?

@ John,

The way I read this statement seems to indicate that as a possibility:

"Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 content is tied to users' BioWare accounts, and data from any version of the games -- PC, Xbox 360, or PlayStation 3 -- is fed into the same cross-platform user database."

If the data from the DLC transaction is being stored in Bioware's servers rather than the platforms, it isn't that far fetched of an idea that the 360 version tied to my account and the PC version tied to my account will only need to have bought the DLC once to have access on both platforms.

If they are still going to require a separate purchase for both platforms, then it really would be pointless to even track it under the same account. They might as well just have Microsoft manage the 360 DLC and their own servers manage the PC DLC.

Adam,

Yes, it definitely comes with every copy. I have a standard edition for PC, and the Cerberus card was inside the shrink-wrapped box.

Good for BioWare. Companies like Gamestop and Ebgames selling used games for only $5 less than retail hurts the console industry far worse than piracy, not to mention the smaller stores. About time more game companies start controlling how they generate revenue (as long as it's used for good...whatever you want to call it).

MS did the same thing with Forza 2, offering extra tracks and cars for new buyers.

And in a way, Stardock has been doing this for years, only offering patches to their games for the original users of the serial (though of course, those are PC games).

Still, it seems that model of having serial keys is probably going to hit consoles, in spirit at least, if not the exact details (via dlc codes instead of just activation).

I do think the people that get hurt by it are those that don't have consoles connected to the internet. They are missing content

Andre,

I don't agree that interpersonal trading is identical to institutionalized used game sales. It's not nearly as high-volume, it's not heavily marketed, it's conducted among individual parties rather than a multinational corporation. I don't think any amount of interpersonal game trading and sales could ever match the impact GameStop has with its aggressive pitching of used games at only marginally lower prices.

Andre,

I don't agree that simply because two things share "making a profit as the ultimate goal," those two things are automatically "no different." That seems a dangerously black and white way to judge things.

As far as games like Panzer Dragoon Saga or Radiant Silvergun, they sell for so much because they are scarce and admired. Those are factors that increase desirability (and thus demand) on those products. BioWare is attempting to create its own factors that increase the desirability of new copies of its games. Are you implying this is not peaceful?

Ok Chris, you have a very good point. Interpersonal trading is not the same thing as institutionalized used game sales in scope, purpose, or effect.

Used book sales, on the other hand, mirror used game sales almost identically. What's odd is that if a book publisher attempted to eviscerate the value of a used book relative to a new book via a mechanism similar to this it would be illegal under the doctrine of first sale. What gives Bioware or any other developer the right to steal rights from their consumers? That we as gamers have come to accept these practices as normal is nothing short of depressing. Now one could argue a number of things that technically makes used games different from used books, the EULA for one, the fact that DLC is a legally separable product, but those mechanisms are merely tools to countermand the original intent of the doctrine. It's obvious to any casual observer and should be obvious to any reasonable judge that developers and publishers are drawing legal distinctions here that are without difference.

I don't get it,

How is this any different than a company bundling something (say a hairdryer with a washing machine) in order to get people to go buy a new washing machine from their store rather than from another person off of Craigslist or Ebay?

Is it because they are now acting as both the producer and store rather than separating the two out?

I think it's better than nasty DRM personally... or would you rather have the rootkits back?

My only concern is inevitably in the longevity of the product seeing as the Cerberus network ceases to exist if the studio goes under or something.

Neil, I think your argument regarding first sale doctrine is flawed. Bioware is not stealing rights from consumers. Once DLC is claimed for free or purchased, it is linked with that person's account. The original copy now contains new, unique content. It is impossible for one person to be playing a particular copy of a game on two or more platforms simultaneously without breaking the first sale doctrine, since two unique copies would exist. First sale doctrine requires the transferred copy to be the same copy.

If one consumer buys a game with DLC and does not use the code, then that consumer can resell the game with the code and the next consumer has the opportunity to use the code. This does adhere to the first sale doctrine.

But once a consumer claims the code and links it to his or her account, it changes the actual content of the game, which means there's a new unique copy that the consumer possesses. This is quite different from a used book sale. If a used book sale was almost identical to a used software sale, then a 1st-edition that contains a bunch of errors would be exchangeable for the most up-to-date edition with bonus chapters, and the seller could magically retain a copy of the book as well.

I'm aware that it doesn't technically violate the doctrine but if it doesn't violate it in spirit then why are we all sitting here talking about how this is a strategy to damage the value of a used product? It's clear that's the intent of this setup, it certainly doesn't add anything for the consumer to have it set up in such a way. It's all just a shell game to boost new game sales at the expense of the used value of the retail product which is exactly what the first sale doctrine was meant to curtail.

"Paid DLC, not part of The Cerberus Network, will also be offered separately at some point following the game's release."

So it is more, that they cut out a piece of the retail product and made it DLC. I don't see, that the regular buyer gets something more, he still has to pay for future DLC. And the buyer of a used copy has to pay to Bioware to get a full game. Sounds like a clever strategy to me.

@Neill: the problem is that used sales hurt the games industry far more than other industries, like books.

Over here I think games are the only thing besides cars that are sold used in normal stores

Actually, College textbooks work under a used model like this (Gamestop et.al. and their used market)... and have for a long time, I'm surprised nobody here remembers it. Bookstores buy up your used textbooks, then sell them back to new students for a nice pick-up of cash Publisher/Author are cut out on the used sale... They pay less or nothing fro books that people won't want (Editions going out in favor of a new one, a book for a class that isn't running next semester etc.) and an ok amount for books in high demand.

(Gamestop actually emailed me trying to buy my copies of MW2 and Dragon Age before they even shipped them to me... so the whole things is a bit more high-spee than textbooks)

Of course... NOBODY wants to keep a textbook. ha ha and the sell back rate is probably like 90%+ (compared to what % in the games industry).

Textbook makers /writers have been struggling with this for 20+ years.

Some anti-used book items they have included i nthe past years.

-Bundled CD of whatever...which may actualyl be required by the prof, or have actual useful stuff on it... sourcecode etc. (Some places also have this content for free on the Web. The industry is split on how to do this fairly to students)

-Web content that uses a serial number in an insert to access online (password site with extra content... PowerPoint Slides, videos etc. Online quizzes and tests for teachers to use (locked to student's account to keep a student from handing acct. to friend next semester).

(Seems familiar to this discussion eh).

having come from the Academic world, where school bookstores are considered to be greedy scumbags, I have never been in favor of the Gamestop etc. used market. it drives prices up i nthe long run in a nasty spiral. Think to your college days . A hardcover 2 semester Chemistry book is like $150 new now. Get it used for $110. Every time the publisher raises prices to compensate for lost of sales to used market.. the used market keeps pace.. and makes even more money.

A friend of mine who used to work for a textbook publisher claimed that they only make money on the first run of a book (before there are ANY used versions around). This is also why we get new editions of textbooks every other year (or even sometimes less!) The used market sucks up all the money on things that have been out for 1 full semester or more.

Consider it a possible end-point for the game market. Where only the biggest publishers can afford to blitz massive numbers of copies to grab up the new market in the first week (before people have finished and can sell used) before the used market eats up all the money... where companies must struggle to make a new copy have added value to keep it relevant past the first marketing blitz...

oh wait... that seems familiar too...

How do we get out of the same hole as the textbook market while still being fair to the actual customers? How do you get the customers to understand which company is participating in the most banditry?

If/when you were in school... Who was the bad guy? The bookstore for having cheaper used books, or the publisher, for making you buy a new edition for $20-$40 more? Why didn't you keep your books, but keep that Atari 2600 ET cart? (Not going to compare a good game to a textbook... Even I can't reach that far for most texts.)

I agree with Thomas.

I'm actually not surprised that there's First Day DLC, given that game code must be shippable a few months in advance.

In this case it seems like Bioware just kept their level designers on a little longer and started working on additional content that couldn't be shipped on the disc.

If it's otherwise than I'm a little annoyed at EA for engaging in cheap tactics to make more monies. Until I work in Bioware I wouldn't know (BTW, I'm a student looking for a summer internship... :P )

I agree that this is a rather clever technique to get people to buy launch copies. I think what we should be concerned about is the pricing of DLC and the actual game. In that the price for the full game in a few months is going to be what? $70? $100? with all of the DLC.

I am really dismayed at some of the practices that we consider as 'de facto' in the games industry. There is a reason its called a 'Used' game. A used game may have lost enough of its replay or sentimental value that the original buyer decided to sell it. Instead of focusing on the effects (game being sold to gamestop et. al.) why not focus on the cause (loss of interest for the player)?

I don't believe that Bioware created Cerberus to reduce used-game sales. The $15 cost is probably for the infrastructure's maintenance, and to fund further free DLC. Nor was Cerberus created for combating piracy, for the same reasons as above. People are going to pirate ME2, or give it to their best friend after they're done with it. Bioware will still make money off these new users if they decide to pay for DLC, which Bioware is betting that they would. I agree with Alex K that this is something Bioware set up so they can get their cashflow no matter which side of the fence the user is on.

@ Used games: we all know the real solution is to make games compelling enough so that MOST buyers won't part with them. For example, I have ME1, and it would take someone to offer more than 3x its original sale price for me to even think of parting with it. This goes for MOST of the games I have as well. There isn't going to be much of a business in used game sales if 90-95% of buyers aren't reselling their games.

Peace!

A major difference between books/textbooks and games is wear and tear.
There is a definite preference for a new book, if I can afford it, over a used one. And that difference is the guarantee of no missing pages, no scribbles on the borders or graffiti on the pages, no folded pages or rips. The only difference between a used game and a new game is the box. With detailed manuals becoming a thing of the past, the actual content and play of used and new games are identical.

This causes issues, because now a used game that costs 90% of the new game can actually completely block out that new game, because the manual and box art damage is not worth 10% of the game unless you are buying it specifically for collecting. This means that used game retaillers can make a much higher mark up and get better relative sales, than a similar situation dealing in books.

Essentially the downside of a used game is not the same downside as a used textbook, and so something needs to replace that difference in value. A couple free DLC options seems like not a bad tradeoff for around 5 - 10$ off (depending on how much DLC it turns out to be).

@Paopao Trying to create deep sentimental value or infinite replayability for a game is always ideal, but trying to make it required is difficult. And not selling ME1 for more than the current price of a brand new copy is not really something that makes much sense(providing you do not have extra unaccounted for DLC). When I can play a game, enjoy it and complete it, and then get 50% of my money back, it's kinda hard to compete against, especially for story driven, single player games.

I can really see where you're coming from Thomas but I feel your argument that games are in the same hole as textbooks is not faithful to reality. Is there competition from used game sales after the initial blitz of a game, of course. However it's not even remotely to the same level as textbooks. Retail games compete with used game sales by reducing prices after the initial blitz. The disc and packaging itself does not amount for much of the cost of the game so this isn't a loosing deal for the publisher or the developer. DVDs are cheap and so is the limited amount of paper packaging, after all. In contrast to book publishing where a larger portion of the sticker price is wrapped up in the materials themselves, large amounts of bound paper being more expensive to print than simply stamping a CD/DVD and shoving it in a box. There's also a built in market for textbooks that doesn't exist for games. Students are paying money to attend college, typically thousands of dollars, if they baulk at a textbook price what options are open to them? None, they must by the book or be out tons of money or be at an extreme disadvantage when participating in the course. Gamers, on the other hand, could easily switch to other pastimes. Some would not be willing to give up their chosen hobby easily but at the end of the day it would still be a hobby. Students must buy books to have a future, gamers don't need games quite that badly.

Not sure I understand where the people who think this is some sort of nefarious scheme to rip off consumers are coming from. Bioware et al are having a hard time competing their new games against used versions to some consumer who walks in wanting to get Mass Effect 2. Using the power of capitalism (i.e., competition), Bioware tries to incentivize the consumer into buying their new copy as opposed to the store's used copy. It's basic capitalism, basic competition, and as anyone who knows basic economic principles could tell you, this can only help the consumer in the long term as both parties strive to make their respective goods more appealing to consumers.

@Alex K

Can't argue with that.

@Robert Allen

I don't think it's content cut from the core game. Rather, I believe it is indeed additional content factored into the development pipeline for a simultaneous release. However, I'll agree that the line between charging people extra for core content and parallel development of extra DLC can be a thin one and should be treaded carefully. It does not take much to have perception shift one way or the other.

How is this any different from other drm? why don't they just go the hole way and do this for the ENTIRE GAME!? I don't see how this is any different from those stupid Activation based DRMs

@Mr. Smith.

I think he general model holds true. the small details never do in any comparison.

True, games do reduce prices over time. Textbooks do not, mostly due to the issues of content. Textbooks churn a new version of about 80%+ the same materiel quickly for a new edition, while games re-use engines for a quick sequel (for more nominally new content), but really how different is a sequel from the first game (gameplay-wise), especially one in the same engine generation? Are CoD MW1 and MW2 really different? What about Rainbow 6 Vegas 1 and 2? I think they even shipped with the same number of multiplayer maps as their first game. Even a "New" game can be very similar... How many games used Renderware for sandbox games since GTA3 (or earlier...not sure when it actually started as middleware)? How many of those games did the pedestrians leap INTO the street instead of out of it when you drove by?

True a larger portion of the sticker price is in materials for books, but games have a lot larger labor cost. If we lump it into "production costs" it is pretty similar without counting heads in departments and tallying sheets of paper.

You do have an important point about forced markets in textbooks. But there are ways around it (used books being one of them). Students often share books ( I once shared a really expensive one with 3 other people one semester).

However, much like joining Facebook, there is a lot of social pressure involved in games (especially multiplayer games). While not the same as forced book sales,

I know any number of people that own WoW or CoD MW2 because their friends do, rather than any real interest of their own.


----Back to general discussion ---

In any case, my point wasn't a 1 for 1 matching of the industries, rather the idea that the model is basically the same (both the problems and the solutions people have tried). I was also trying to point out that historically everyone looks bad because of the prices that result in this model, but the creators often come off looking greedy no matter what they do.

The publishing industry has about a 10 year lead on the game industry with these problems, but due to the almost anachronistic nature of the people involved in paper books, have reached about the same place as games with respect to digital distribution as a model to remove resellers. Textbook makers (and other book publishers) are having the same fights over DRM right now.

The music industry has lost almost all of its resellers (record stores) because they lost all DRM in the 80s with cassette tapes. It is probably the first industry where the physical media will go away completely outside of collectors.

The genie was let out of the bottle and they have been trying to stuff it back in for a long time now. Peopel copy music all over the place, but somehow Itunes and Zune store etc. still make money.

Maybe the solution IS to make better / longer (not the same thing, I know) games... you know ones people aren't done with in a week. My favorites have always been games that take forever to play, or arcade games I can play really fast...over and over.

MMOs have a long life. buckets of new content over a long time for reasonable regular outlays of cash (not going to get into the m icropayment discussion here).

Average console game... 9 hours +however long you can stand playing team death match and CTF with the slightly different weapons in "game X."

No matter the official intent of Cerberus, long term release of DLC does keep games in people's hands longer (and out of resellers). Dropping supoort of games kills communities and hurts company reputations.

Yes the DLC will make them money. Recently a interesting chunk of DLC has been made by smaller companies contracting to the creators and /or publishers (this is good and bad in my opinion, but a whole different discussion / kettle of fish)... thus employing more developers and creating (at least short term) jobs. So the money gets spread around too.

Maybe games are too expensive. I'm sure I could get more of them if they were cheaper, as I am currently very poor. I'm pretty nervous about buying a game that I don't think is worth the $60 that I had to bust my butt doing scutt-work to earn.

The price point is irrelevant to places like Gamestop though. They can always undercut a new game as long as the physical media doesn't self destruct "Mr. Phelps style" after they use it once.

Just like books though (text or otherwise) people insist they want the physical media. (even though gamers apparently never read the manual and use their games like drink coasters).

There are solutions in that direction too.

Many textbooks now are designed to be reference books rather that "how to" books. So it becomes the teacher's duty to do al lthe How to" stuff and the book becomes a repository of useful things that the user will keep so they can look things up in the future (this is unfortunately hard to do universally. It is relatively easy to make a good Reference text fro tech Writing that people will want to keep, but really hard to generate an American Literature II book people want to have around to look at again.

The game version of this is the infamous Collector's Edition (This is not the same as The Collector's Edition of Infamous.. har har har). Art books, maps and collectors items (vault-tech lunchbox?!!?!) that the end user will keep (usually with the disc). These cut into the used market as well, but the significant mark up makes them hard to justify for a lot of gamers, when the base game is already pretty expensive.

How do you keep people like me from trading in games to buy a different used game? (I don't do this, but I am not normal in this respect).

How do you make a game valuable, not just expensive?





.

./ scroll ./scroll ... eugh - go make some games and stop the shit throwing contest...

+1 Douglas

+2 Douglas

+3 Douglas. Level Up.

+4 Douglas. Ok going back to making games now...

@ Tom, yes not everyone is in the habit of actually collecting and keeping games that they buy. Even the good ones.

As I said before this won't stop piracy or used-games sales, but will enable Bioware to cash in (or recoup, depending on one's opinion) users who take that route.