Want Revenue From Used Games? Just Have GameStop Buy DLC Codes For The Customer
from the that's-one-way dept
We all know that many game companies are really upset about being locked out of the used games revenue stream. Warner happens to be one of those companies. With the release of Batman: Arkham City, Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game. If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman. That is if you buy it used anywhere other than GameStop.According to a memo sent to Kotaku, Warner and GameStop have partnered up to give free codes to buyers of used copies of Batman. Granted, GameStop is most likely paying for these codes for the customer and is most likely getting them at a discounted rate. This happens to be a great deal for both companies and even some customers. Warner gets the satisfaction of capturing used game revenue with a reduced risk of customers deciding not to buy the redemption code. GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal. Finally, customers of GameStop don't have to shell out the extra cash to play as Catwoman.
This is an interesting move on Warner's part. GameStop is the poster child for the evils of used games, according to many games industry veterans. However, even the toughest critic of GameStop's policies recognizes the power this one brand has over the game consumer, thus the deal. If GameStop is willing to make such a deal with Warner, would they be willing to do the same with other companies such as EA or Ubisoft?
Of course, there are additional ramifications to consider. How will this affect the relationship with other game stores, both in and outside the US, which don't have the same leveraging power? Will those smaller stores be coerced into deals that are not as sweet for them and their customers? Regardless of the ramifications, it is nice to see a company actually be proactive about capturing used games revenue rather than just complain and punish players. Why can't more companies act this way?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: batman, catwoman, used games
Companies: ea, gamestop, ubisoft, warner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It increases the value of their future games, the presence of a secondary market helps the primary market flourish, etc. etc.
I'm more pissed off than anything at the stunt. This isn't something *extra*, this is something they took out of the game. From what I've read, It is impossible to 100% the game without playing as catwoman. Don't have an internet connection? You're SOL, even if you bought first-hand or at gamestop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, they may do that regardless anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, looks to the wiki's sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its 4 short missions (on of which is literally just a fight with 4 goons). The game is certainly complete without it, although it is cool to have it in. The big advantage of the DLC is the new playable charater, which isnt just batman with a catwoman skin. Catwoman has a different fighting style, gadgets and movement style. So its certainly a decent piece of work, and a lot of fun, but if it never existed it wouldn't be detrimental to the game.
So now the question that I don't think gets discussed enough in these DLC arguments. Would this have been made if they didn't plan to use it as DLC? Now I hate the rapid growth in day 1 DLC as much as the next gamer, and find myself waiting till GOTY editions more and more often. Certainly if I feel like something was ripped from the game only to be resold, thats bullshit. Or if a game feels incomplete and then continues on in DLC, thats bullshit. But gamers assume all DLC is something that was made, finished and THEN they decided they could put a price tag on it. I would imagine a lot of this stuff is made only because of an increased budget specifically allocated to make DLC. So the question is was catwoman ripped from the game or was she made specifically for DLC and because the MAN gave extra resources to the dev team to make cool DLC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DLC is supposed to be for new, additional, non-core content, like expansions, new non-core characters, etc.
No one is complaining that Robin or Nightwing are DLC, for example. They aren't core characters in the game; You do not require them to 100%.
To switch to a different series, I don't think anyone complained that Undead Nightmare was DLC/expansion.
Catwoman isn't just an add-on to the game for 1st hand buyers, she is PART OF the game.
Now, if catwoman wasn't part of the game, and just a bonus given to 1st hand buyers, I wouldn't mind so much. A lot of gamers would still be pissed because playing as catwoman was advertised as being a big part of the game. If it hadn't been advertised like that, I doubt many people would have a gripe at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
according to this you do not need her to get 100%. There are a couple other topics on the same board saying no she is not needed for 100%, although if you have it it increases the 100% requirements to reflect her.
So its not really core. Like I said the game would be fine without her. You get a couple extra missions and she a couple extra characters in her plotline, but as far as the main plot is concerned she is unnecessary. Though she is incorporated into the main plot if you have her, I would be curious to know how a few things play out without her. Though this does raise an interesting question, did they add her to the game or did they take her out and then do more work to cover up the holes created by not having her.
I agree having so much info on her in the lead up to release and then suddenly saying she is online pass only is bullshit. I am not really arguing for or against this being a good/moral/decent move. Its just I don't ever see the discussion of if those millions of extra dollars (from retailer to developer) for pre-order exclusives and the millions of extra in funding knowing you will have day 1 DLC make it worth it. People argue they ripped stuff out of my game, but maybe it was only made because they had more money, or only made specifically to be DLC and if that money wasn't in the budget this would have been cut and not be made. Most games now days are planned with DLC in mind, that gives them a greater budget to do extra stuff stuff the producer would have cut in the pre-dlc days.
Personally I think the only thing we can do is trust the developer. Hope that they arnt crippling their own game to make an extra dollar or trying to sell horse armor. Really I am conflicted about this specific case. The game is certain complete without it and it adds value to the game, but I am not a fan of first sale dlc and without Rocksteady saying otherwise, I agree it looks more like they ripped this out then added it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and in the same respect when this game was still just on the drawing board did someone say, "Hey can we get some playable catwomen?"
"Well WB wants us to have a 1st purchase DLC so I guess we could devote the time to making a new playable character and developing her storyline if its for that.
or was it
"woot game is done!"
"Hey WB wants a 1st sale DLC, can you rip that catwomen chunk out?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't change that if you don't have the DLC, although I imagine it might make a little less sense if you don't also play through her chapters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is precisely why my game console buying ended with the
PS2. Between these stunts and the price of the new console systems I'm just not interested anymore. I'd rather break out my original Nintendo. I just don't have the time to justify the costs or the headaches anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though I only remember babbages having a small selection of used games, the need to sell them increases exponentially with the stock you buy because every game you buy back is money lost until you turn it around. So the more Gamestop specializes in used games the more important it is for them to sell them, otherwise they end up with a warehouse full of un-sellable games in a few years. I'm sure somewhere in the US is a hanger just full of PS1 and sega cd games they wish they never bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or better for everyone cut the cost of new games by about 20 bucks. People are more likely to buy new and you eliminate the profit margins for resellers. Gamestop can afford to buy a game for 20$ and sell it for 50$ but if they had to sell it for 30$ the risk wouldn't be worth it. Sure they could offer less $ on the buyback but unless a game is shit most people will just hold onto it if they arnt getting over 10$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me too, which is why I don't buy games produced by any of the major game houses but I do purchase games produced by independent developers and sold directly, or close to directly by them. Just like I do with music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is this, a paid advertisement?
"Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game."
It's not free, it's included in the price of the original. Anytime someone says, "I'll sell you this, and if you act now, I'll throw something else in for free" that's called a paid advertisement. It's not free, it's included in the original price.
"If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman."
IOW, if you buy the game used, the game is crippled. That's not adding benefit, it's adding unnecessary restrictions and taking away benefit from those who buy it used elsewhere, despite the fact that you made money (the full price) from the new purchase of a seller.
"GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal."
This is anti-competitive. So you punish the competition to benefit yourself, right? You punish other buyers and sellers of used games by locking the game down for them, despite the fact that those sellers ultimately purchased the game from the original manufacturer (who profited from the original purchase)? Sounds almost like double dipping to me. Or a twisted version of selling shareware and selling the full version for an additional fee. Or selling different tiers of a game and selling upgrades.
Far be it for the DOJ to get involved though, of course, they're too busy going after Google for non-anti competitive behavior (though a more recent Techdirt post may offer them a somewhat more valid opportunity to go after Google).
It's not really capturing the used game market. Capturing such a market may imply offering originals and lowering their prices. Or buying used games from customers and selling them at a slight profit. But here, the company isn't offering anything additional beyond simply enabling a code (that can likely be hacked, but if it is hacked, lawsuits will probably occur).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it's not only hacking; players would have to also distribute the hacked files. Not that that adds much additional trouble to the hacker, but I imagine that pisses off the 1st hand buyer we just bought the game and has to wait another 10 minutes for his game to finish downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A part of the base game was taken out of the game to be made into DLC.
This did not need to be separate from the disc, this did not need a redemption code, this was not made after the rest of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its just as bad when they leave features in the game, but fake the DLC to pretend you download extras. Or when they make you pay for DLC that fix the game since it was released too early.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kind of how, if you buy Windows 7 basic, you can upgrade with more content like Home, Pro, or Ultimate for extra payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But this is to complete a section of the game that's already part of the game, and if you're a completionist, it's almost like taking away important parts of the story.
I was thinking that Zach had it right that, that perhaps the companies were doing something pretty good to differentiate the game and give different stores incentives. But now that I'm reading it, it's the same story as the DRM of Ubisoft. It's an artificial barrier to the game, and from all looks the game is pretty sweet with content. It's still a money grab, but damn does it suck for the gamers who rent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and gamers who live together and share a console. You know like brothers or roomates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I DL the DLC for catwoman, my roommates & GF can also use that DLC when they play on the same console, can't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's very true and another reason to hate DLC in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should note also, that in all the promotional material, playing as catwoman was touted as being in the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not the original intention of the Downloadable content, or how its supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Capcom may be bad with a few games, but when I look at the SF4 series, most of it is just DLC for costumes which aren't important. Activision is more of a money whore with Call of Duty to the point that they made it an artform.
Since premium subscribers will be getting the maps and other content before the rest of the community is able to buy it, nonsubscribers are going to be walking into content that the hardcore players have been practicing and mastering for days, if not weeks. It's going to be a bloodbath. There will be no moments of learning the new maps and modes along with the rest of the community; you're going to be going up against pros who know all the good hiding spots and tactical positions from your very first session until your last. Unless, of course, you're willing to pay to get the content early.
Clan support will also be beefed up, with premium clan features that allow your clan to level up as well as your character, and to unlock items and features specific to your clan. Your clan could earn its own double-XP weekend, and of course you'll be able to compete against other clans and test your mettle. Both players and clans can take part in competitive matches for real-world prizes, and Activision promises these matches will be refereed by actual people, and open to players of all skill levels.
Basically, it's all hardcore or don't bother showing up. That game is ridiculous when you factor in the prizes that they're giving away for playing nonstop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But was it made on a budget specifically for DLC. In other words would they not have had the resources to make this if they didn't know it was being used to create an extra revenue stream?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then there's the fact that Catwoman was used heavily in the marketing for this game almost from the beginning. There was no mention of the fact that not everybody would have access to her until a week before the game released! It's a total bait and switch, and not at all consumer friendly. It's just a scheme to extort money out of Gamestop, but gamers are the ones who get hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you know it wasn't was my point.
"It's a part of the full game, only if you buy the game used or don't have an internet connection, your copy of the game is gimped."
Its an extension of the main game, a side chapter. Though I agree people who buy new and don't have internet are twice as fucked.
"Then there's the fact that Catwoman was used heavily in the marketing for this game almost from the beginning. There was no mention of the fact that not everybody would have access to her until a week before the game released! It's a total bait and switch, and not at all consumer friendly."
Agreed, even the first in game footage was of the first catwomen map.
"It's just a scheme to extort money out of Gamestop, but gamers are the ones who get hurt."
Meh, this practice has been going on for awhile before gamestop tried this. I think the idea is if they pay 5$ a piece for a code and then can sell the game for 10$ more they are better off. I swear this is the second game that gamestop had this deal for, but can't for the life of me remember what the other one was. Certainly online pass bullshit is detrimental to gamers.
But that leads back to my original point. Why do we assume all devs/publisher did this maliciously and ripped out code originally planned to be part of the main game in order to make an extra dollar. Why is it never assumed that this was designed this way from the start and the only reason they let the devs make this was because it was planned to be DLC.
How much extra content can we expect from a game(not everyone is valve)? at what point is it extra? Does it have to come out after release to be extra? Can dlc be created at the same time as the main game or should anything made prior to release be on the disc? Are extra people dedicating extra resources to a part of the game that would not exist in pre-dlc days?
I remember when DLC first came around and it was so full of promise. Then of course so devs saw it as a money pot, while I think others saw it as a way to add life to their game and increase their budget for a game to create awesome, extra stuff. Problem is now both the good guys and the bad guys get the same reaction, YOU CRIPPLED MY GAME YOU MONEY GRUBBING WHORE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Total straw man. We're not assuming all devs/publishers took out what was supposed to be in the main game, we're assuming this particular dev/publisher did it. And the reason we're assuming it was meant to be in the main game is because they told us from the beginning that it was going to be in the main game. We've been over this before. It wasn't until a week before release that they changed it up and let people know that playable Catwoman was "DLC."
Now sure, it might very well be that they had planned this all along and were counting on it being just an extra. But if that's the case then it was definitely intentionally misleading advertising, and that might be even worse. I see no reason to let them off the hook if that's the case anyway.
It's not like game devs haven't talked about their post-release DLC plans before the games launch before. Just about everybody does these days. And that's fine. If we know that such and such map pack for CoD or so and so extra mission for Borderlands is going to be extra and not included in the main game, that's fine. We can make our decision on whether or not we want to buy that content. The way Arkham City is doing it just makes it seem like they're trying to pull one over on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well its free DLC (for first purchase, which everyone is on release day). But I do get your point and as I have said elsewhere in here, showing catwoman as your first playable footage and then at the last minute saying its only for new games is a pretty dick move. But it isnt the same as saying it day 1 DLC and everyone has to pay for it, which seems to be how you are looking at it.
Im am not arguing to support the catwoman separation. Just working through a train of thought revolving around gamers being far too critical of any day 1 DLC and most really most DLC.
While I personally hate online passes and find a lot of DLC to be a deplorable money grab I feel its become the norm to hate on any DLC despite the tremendous extra value this can provide to gamers if it is done right and with respect. Thank you for allowing me to start vocalizing that train of thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that is a separate discussion and you may very well have a point there. I've already articulated why I don't think the anger over this game is an overreaction, but there are certainly games that do DLC right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 cents worth...
when i buy a game,i should have everything needed to finish that game in the box.... no internet, no add on, no dlc...
expansion pac's should be just that an addition to the game,not something you must have to have to finish the game.
patches for game errors should not cost anything and should be downloadable at will.
if they want to call my ownership a license fine...as long as i can sell or give away or swap at my pleasure without any problems to me or the buyer.
if i want to multiplay on a server at an additional fee,again no problem as an add on not just to play the game.
these are the rules i play by and spend my money for....
you play by them or i buy elsewhere....
it my money...and when you,as a game developer want it,you meet my rules or keep it... i can spend my money elsewhere
my $59.95 worth,.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 cents worth...
To be fair, catwoman is not required to finish the story. She IS required to 100% the base game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steam FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steam FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steam FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steam FTW
Not new games, and you still have to invest in hardware upgrades to make the most of those games... Meanwhile, I can usually get games for less than �15 if I wait 6 months on consoles, and I know I can play a single player game if I'm not connected to the internet.
Each to their own, and each platform has advantages and disadvantages. Just don't pretend your chosen platform is inherently superior, especially if you're using the price of DRMed files as your metric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steam FTW
Though the games do have steams DRM involved, (must be logged in to play, since a recent patch broke offline mode) the ability to download games, and ACCESS THEM ANYWHERE makes it a strong and well thought out manner of game distribution.
I'm not a strictly PC Gamer, I've owned several consoles, Xblock 360 being the last.
Over the course of the last 2 years, I've realized that consoles are simply a waste of my money, though YMMV.
There is currently a strong move in the industry that breaks backwards compatibility on consoles, companies (not to say any names) are removing features that were originally intended to be on their consoles, and then suing people who put that feature back in. *cough* OtherOS *cough*
Consoles do bring many would-be non-gamers (my mother for one) into the gaming world, and I can appreciate that, so I think the biggest problem isn't the consoles themselves...just the people making them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No! Don't encourage them! If you don't want people to sell your stuff used, don't sell a physical product. That's all there is to it. If you sell an object that can be passed around, once you sell it, it's not yours anymore and you don't get any say in what happens to it.
It's certainly possible to create enough value in a non-physical product that people will give up the ability to resell what they buy. Just look at Steam. I can't sell any of the games I buy there, and can't buy any used games, either, but the ability to have access to my games on any computer I want, coupled with the great community features and awesome sales means that I now buy almost all my games through Steam. Taking value away from your products to try to extract rents may be a business strategy, but it's not one that will endear you to your customers. However, adding value will get you the best of both worlds.
On the other hand, I can kind of understand why the game industry is the most vehement in opposition to the used market, because I don't know any other industry where the used reseller is as powerful or heavy-handed as Gamestop. Buying used games for $20-30 and then turning around and selling them for $50+ certainly seems like a rip-off to me. Add to that their constant upselling and badgering you to preorder crap makes it a hassle to even be a Gamestop customer (that's why I'm not anymore). But at the end of the day, it's the consumer they're ripping off, not the publisher. And it's the consumer who has the power to change things. If gamers want to keep getting ripped off by Gamestop, then that's their business. They must be getting some value out of the place, even if I don't see it. That's the free market, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> selling them for $50+ certainly seems like a rip-off to me.
Use Kijiji and you can sell for $40.
Publishers having all this DLC will hurt GameStop because they have to lower their used game prices. Right now, their used games are $5 less than new games. But if the new game has DLC worth $10, they HAVE to price their used games at $15 less, and therefore pay $10 less for used games for the same margins. When they start offering people $10-20 for used games, everyone will flock to Kijiji (or Craigslist).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks, guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]