When a new game is released, the publisher/developers of the title recieve a portion of the purchase as does the console company (in terms of exclusive titles).

However, my question relates to used games and retailers like Glyde.com, GameStop, and eBay.

Do royalties stop after the first new purchase, or do these other retailers of used goods send a piece of the purchase to publishers and developers as well?

Truth.

Also, this is why I think you'll see more publishers and developers doing what EA is doing with their games...including codes for "free content" that can only be used once, thus forcing someone buying a used copy of the game to pay for said content.

With that being said, however, there is a small part of me that feels disgusted at how new games and DLC are going hand-in-hand.

Take MW2 for example. New game at release was $60. Map pack 1 was something like $20, and the same for Map pack 2. Another small purchase to make my avatar look like Ghost was an additional $5 or so.

Grand total for the "purchase" of MW2? Roughly $120, including taxes.

Granted, I didn't 'have' to purchase any of the DLC, but in order for me to play the game to the fullest extent with all the features... well, you get the point.

(and no, I didn't have to buy the avatar item)

15 bucks for each DLC, not 20...

Those maps don't make themselves...Activision has to charge big bucks for those maps so they can pay their employees...wait, nevermind...

To be fair, the "fluff" DLC (like avatar outfits, wallpapers, themes) isn't even the issue. Those things are completely unneccesary and complete waste of money (myself included). However, I just have a slight issue with needing to drop $30 extra on content that should have been included in the original title.

For example, I just purchased Mass Effect 2 via eBay, never opened. Inside you get the DLC card to "upgrade" the original title for no extra charge. Yes, there are a few additional downloads that require MS points, but I can live with that.

I understand this is done to limit the used game-buyers from getting freebee's (since the "free" DLC is also available for purchase online), but why can't all titles take this route?

Call me old-fashioned, but if I am going to shell out $60 for a video game (especially one with an incredibly short single-player campaign), then I want to entire amount of content available.

Delay the release date, then. Granted, I know that developers have deadlines and whatnot, but I'm still going to complain about it.

Sorry for derailing your thread ugie, but what do you guys think about this?

http://virgingaming.com/about.html

My older brother was telling me about this, and he kind of explained to me that it would be something similar to gambling on video games, but it doesn't really look like that from the website. Perhaps it could evolve into that. But I'm thinking about signing up...

It's mostly for sports games and halo, but it would be cool to see something like MW get into this...

_________________
team Mully & Hanley
team Meatpants

I think you are underestimating the shelf-life of a quality game. BF:BC2 is also fun as hell to play online, however I have since stopped playing the game despite the recent Onslaught DLC release. Simply put: not enough people on my friend's list play the game, and MW2 is just easier to pop in and start shooting people. I think the game itself has more pull than the replayability of multiplayer (in terms of engine, gameplay options, instant gratification).

I agree with you there, however this is why Activition comes out with a new CoD title, for example, almost every year.

I would propose that DLC is most beneficial to RPG's, especially considering the new missions or characters that can be added that actually provide something to the storyline. In those cases, I am perfectly fine paying a couple bucks to make the game longer. However, I really don't feel that enhancing gameplay is something that I should have to pay for. That type of thing should be reserved for patches and automatic updates.

Yes, Oblivion is bad and so is Treyarch.

A quality game is a quality game, period. You and I agree on that. And yes, it would be hard for me to not sound like a hypocrite and complain about buying DLC for popular games since I have done it repeatedly.

I guess the significance of the DLC is completely contingent upon how many people actually purchase it. Personally, I would prefer if GameInformer (for example) had the ability to review the DLC before release as I honestly base my game purchases on the opinions of "experts". Games just cost too much NOT to base your purchases around reviews, IMO.

This thread is dead to me