I've mentioned this a few times. If DLC becomes prevalent and discs are still an option, the price of your DLC game is going to be lower than you think. If I can get say "Aliens vs Predator" for $55 and trade-in or sell it as a used game later to offset a game price by $15, your DLC game price has to match that final cash outlay and sell for $40, because there is no resale value to your DLC game. AND the more I can get for my used game the CHEAPER your DLC game has to be. Oh, now I can get a better price on eBay? Say $25 for my used game? Your DLC game better sell for $30 now. Game developers\publishers are being REWARDED already for allowing after market used game sales because the new game price is higher with residual re-sale value built in. Anyone who is claiming that GME is ripping off or stealing from the game developers\publishers is just flat-out misguided. Killing after market used game residual value, creates a downward price pressure for DLC games. Game developers need to keep focusing on DLC add-on content to existing games NOT DLC'd original games with no residual after-market value. Now with a $30 price you can't afford to hire the best software developing talent for your DLC games. Maybe you can hire that guy that got all D's at the New Delhi University.
I saw this old article from 2008 and the comment made by GameWiz1 is right on the mark on what this whole thread discussion is about. The author doesn't even mention the loss of trade-in value of disc versus DLC, but the gamer comment does. Smart guy. He stated:
"The only thing I'm interested in seeing is if they lower the (DLC) price enough to where it doesn't matter that I can't take the game to gamestop for a trade. If they don't have to go through all the steps of shipping, packaging, and all those little things that are required to sell a game, then I don't see why those games aren't currently selling for somewhere around twenty to thirty dollars tops."
Yup. More intelligent people will read it and see how dumb you are. And I'm your Lee Harvey Oswald because I'm... killing you in this debate? Hmm that's either a compliment or further proof that you never went to school because you can't even get your history OR your analogies right.
J: It's a good point thanks. You can't look at it quite as a cost adder and no benefits since GME promotes and creates a market for the games. I've said that probably the newest version of a AAA title will sell itself, so WalMArt and BestBuy can do that without providing any benefit whatsoever to the developers, but to get to be a AAA title, the promoters and retail channels were mostly responsible for that. There are alot of game companies besides EA (Madden), Irrational (Bioshock), Take Two (GTA) and that's the point. You'd still have to drive web traffic for DLC, and pay for that.
Ah, but if the publishers simply drop the price to $9.99 to download a brand new game then the used market will simply disappear. The only reason there is a used market at all is because the initial price is so high.
Remember when VHS tapes of major movies sold for $25-$75 each?
That's the whole point of the topic, thanks for getting the point. If game developers can sell their wares for $9.99 then that is the best option for users. I'm skeptical that it can be done, video games development requires highly skilled\paid personnel. There isn't much economy of scale with console video games either. There is with PC games however, I think, that's why DLC is a good fit there. With console games, developers sales are limited by the amount of consoles out there, right now. There are severe barriers to DLC right now that's mainly the point. Not enough consoles to drop your price so low on games to justify DLC.
Not sure but I agree new releases do increase demand for previous versions. That's why I went online to look for Bioshock 1 at GME only to find when I added it to my basket that they are sold out...Had to buy it on Ebay.