If you first answer is “the number two”, then you’re only half correct. The other thing these two sequels have in common is that they’re both playing host to EA’s new online initiative which asserts that all major forthcoming releases will have heavy back-end support and a lot of additional content available post-launch. Just as purchasers of brand new copies of Mass Effect 2 obtained a Cerberus Network Card which gave them access to free day one DLC, customers who buy unused copies of Bad Company 2 will receive a VIP code that will offer up a couple exclusive multiplayer maps. If you buy a used copy then you can still gain access to these promotions, you just have to pay around $15 dollars first.
By 2011, EA expects that all of its games will have an online component and this is a major step in the company’s efforts to combat both piracy and the used game market. By making the bonus content available to paying consumers, it keeps those of us with weaker scruples out of PC matchmaking (at least for a little while), and it also provides additional incentive to drop $60 on a title, a little extra enticement which is beneficial in these trying time.
I for one applaud this movement, but how do you guys feel? Now that DLC and online support is becoming more and more popular, should companies attempt to assert their monopoly? While publishers have a right to protect their games, do you feel that shunning the used game market is the right way to go about it? Let us know how you feel!
Source: The Escapist
I’m personally against DLC, I think that a game should be released with all the bells and whistles. But I do understand where the Publishers are coming from and since DLC seems like it’s here to stay I think they have a good way of ensuring profits. And hey, if it makes money it’s good, right?
Cerberus Network for ME2 is nice…y’know, when it feels like connecting to the EA server (Which happens about 5% of the time and won’t let you just play the damn game until it tells you “Sorry, can’t connect to the server”)
But otherwise cool.
seems to be a good way to combat both pirating, but I wish it did not hurt the used game market as much as it does. But I think it is a step in the right direction from harsh drm and stuff
If it works, then sweet. Should be better than DRM like Muaddib said. I like the general idea of DLC, aslong as it adds to the story, not just map packs and weapons, that should be released in patches for free.
I Love free DLC’s i om-nom them like theres no tommorow, but when they use DLC’s from one game to give you extras in another game (ala Dragon age: Origins Blood armor for ME2) It’s a damn good marketing angle.
I don’t mind DLC and this seems to be a great way to combat used game sales. I usually buy games new so this is an added incentive to purchase them new. I’m really glad I preordered this as I get free DLC, 6 unlocks and a beautiful M1 Garand all on day 1!
@SkubaPatr0l
Heck yeah, Battlefield Veterans 4 life. So looking forward to using that Garand.
Meh, exclusive DLC just irritates me because it feels like an “f-you” to gamers who are unsure. I’m not getting ME2 or BFBC2 because, 1. I’m not really interested, and 2. I don’t feel like having to pay all that extra stuff for the games. It’s too late for me to get ME2 and its DLC for a fair deal.
Used games = higher game costs.
I used to trade in games, but I try not to buy them used.
So, if I understand this correctly, you buy the game new and you get free DLC, but if you buy it used, you have to pay $15 to access DLC?
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially considering that everybody else is charging for DLC whether you bought the game new or used.
I don’t see how this affects the used market considering that a sizable percentage of gamers can’t even access the internet with their consoles in the first place.