“Project Ten Dollar”, as it is affectionately known, was a way of curtailing the second hand market that we keep being told severely detriments a number of game companies and market shares. Such triple-A releases such as The Sims 3 and Mass Effect 2 have already featured a one-off code within new boxed copies that grants the bearer magical gifts in the usual form of a future DLC package- effectively punishing frugal gamers whose only source of games is their local second-hand retailer! It marks a frustrating time in the gaming sphere, where companies are looking towards outlandish and over-thought, nonsense strategies to halt the second-hand market and the burden of piracy that is still strife all round. Ubisoft started the “always online” format of DRM management- their games on the PC now require the user to be signed onto their on-line service as its legitimacy is constantly checked, meaning the game is, in effect, useless off-line. I'm all for stopping piracy and the like, but come on! Surely upon purchasing a legit copy, gamer's can choose to play that game on-line or off, why limit the end user? Even off-line games such as Assassins Creed II require the use of the system which is just baffling to say the least.
“Project Ten Dollar” was met with similar scepticism although it can be understood- it's neither invasive nor absolutely required. DLC should be used as an extension to a complete game in which development was required outside of the full development cycle (there are exceptions, I'm looking at you; Resident Evil 5 and Bioshock 2, but don't get me started on those!) Thus, the way in which gamers are granted access to 'extra' content for buying the game full price makes certain sense, rewarding and not hindering, first-time buyers. And if you do pick it up on the used shelf at the local store, the DLC is still available for $10 if you so wish to play to purchase it, meaning the publisher still gets its fair slice of the money pie, as it were.
Activision's rise to its status as behemoth publisher (and consequently a growing of an abnormally large head from its leading figures) has seen EA shepherded into a more comfortable position. Activision's constant aggravation towards gamers have made EA's previous grievances seem tame in comparison. But alas, EA couldn't resist and have taken an extremely annoying step towards, supposedly, curtailing the second-hand market even further. The news from earlier in the week that EA were now to use “online passes” in their 'EA Sports' games is a punch to the stomach for gamer's such as myself. Yes, I enjoy a game of Fifa as much as the next person, but now I'll have to pay for my on-line service from Microsoft, and a new copy of the game (or $10) to enable networked features within the game. Really, when is it going to stop!? For one, the online integration is already there, available on the disc and ready to use. I can understand that the addition of extra DLC requires extra work on behalf of developers, thus costs need to be covered. But to need use of a one-time code to simply “allow access” is beyond a joke in my opinion. EA are proving once again, sheer greed is the aim of the game. This isn't a step towards rinsing the proliferation of the second hand market- the 'EA Sports' brand is one of the most successful brands in gaming, year on year delivering huge sales figures. The giant seems to be taking a bite of Activision's apple, delivering radical steps to the detriment of core gamers because they both know how successful these brands have become and people will pay for content, regardless of their thoughts towards it. The casual market is also going to take a massive hit- much more susceptible to buying second hand copies of games. It's going to be a shock when they get home, put the disc in, and are told another wad of cash is required for online play.
Ultimately, it's us as consumers that are getting the hard deal. Such games are now going to be worth much less value if you wish to trade or sell and the code has already been scratched off. I can't see the lower value being transferred over to the next person somehow, instead I expect further exploitation of the trade-in market that can only harm us in the end.
Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.
Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.
To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.
The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.
Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.
15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.
These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse
The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.
Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.
I personally find it hilarious. On any game site I've visited over the past few years everyone has been hating GameStop for their more than peculiar "used game" selling tactics. Quotes like "This is bullshit, just rips off the developers" have ben thrown around like red headed stepchildren. And now, a developer (publisher) makes a stride to curve exactly what gamers have been complaining about and they complain about it. Figure that one out.
It makes perfect sense actually, people are more and more buying games for the online experience rather than the campaign so to make their movement effective EA hit the biggest target. It's dollars and cents, that's all. That said I think the social reaction would be entirely different if it was a smaller company but since everyone already seems to hate EA it's simply fuel on the fire.
Don't Panic is right, people on this site are always complaining that Gamestop is the devil and used games are a detriment to developers, yet when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is, they will buy that used game from Gamestop to save the 5 or 10 dollars. If you are a customer of EA (ie. people that buy their games new) this does not affect you. If you are a customer of Gamestop or any other used game retailer, well its time to start paying the people who made the game you want to play, or deal with tactics such as this. Seems fair to me.
I don't disagree that it's time to do something about it but I'd like to see "Project Ten Dollar" rolled out instead. At least then, the DLC that you don't get for buying a used copy is only an extension to the package. In no way do I think that users should be punished (removal of online play, which has always been there!) for buying a used copy.
I bought Bad Company 2..I was pretty p1ssed when I heard I had to buy a 'vip' code to get maps that are on the freaking disc for my bro to play.I mean,they dont even make it locked to the console! But to the profile.so its purely for profiteering.now this crap.that means,it would also be locked to a profile and so for my bro to play,it would cost 10 bucks more?fuk you EA....