Project Ten Dollar about “improving consumer experience”, says EA

Thursday, 3rd June 2010 13:15 GMT By Johnny Cullen


EA’s UK GM Keith Ramsdale has said that the introduction of Project Ten Dollar from the company was all about “improving consumer experience”.

Speaking to MCV, he added it was not meant to be seen as a counter-measure to piracy.

“It’s all about the customer, about improving their experience,” said Ramsdale. “It’s not a defensive measure against pre-owned or piracy.”

It comes in a year where EA has introduced the program via several measures, beginning with the releases of Dragon Age: Origins last year and Mass Effect 2 in January on its DLC program, as well as Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

EA Sports recently announced it’d would be introducing the model to its games, meaning second-hand buyers of its games would have to pay $10 for access to most of its online features compared to someone buying it new and getting a code for those features with the game.

Ramsdale also said in the same interview that while Bad Company 2 won’t beat Modern Warfare 2 in terms of sales, it does have a plan to take more of its market share in the genre.



  1. El_MUERkO

    Keith Ramsdale: It’s all about the customer, about improving their experience.

    Mr. Joshua: Endo, meet Mr. Keith Ramsdale. Endo here has forgotten more about dispensing pain than you and I will ever know.

    Keith Ramsdale: It’s not a defensive measure against pre-owned or piracy.

    Mr. Joshua: We’ll see. Endo…

    #1 5 years ago
  2. Boris Fett

    As much as I support the scheme, what he’s saying is utter crap. It’s *all* about combating piracy and profit. It’s a great system that I am fully in support of, but don’t claim it to be something it’s not.

    #2 5 years ago
  3. SunKing

    I do not be understandin’ teh words commin’ outta yo mouth, brudda. Now pass the dutchie on the left-hand side.

    #3 5 years ago
  4. AHA-Lambda

    Keith…i can only say what i am about to see as plainly and as bluntly as I can so I apologise for the forwardness and lack of subtlety. Ahem….

    Fuck off

    #4 5 years ago
  5. OrphanageExplosion

    Coming up: Project Five Dorrah… for sucky-fucky. EA love you long-time!

    #5 5 years ago
  6. Freek

    If you buy the game new you have all the features you would normally have.
    If you buy the game second hand, certain features are turned off unless you pay to unlock them.
    How does this improve the consumer experience? At no point is value added nor are there extra features.

    It’s a nice way for EA to gain added revenue from second hand sales, sure, that’s fine. But don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.

    #6 5 years ago
  7. Raining_Upwards

    @5 LOL.

    #7 5 years ago
  8. pleasant_cabbage

    @6 Don’t try to muddy our thinking with your newfangled logic. EA said it is and that should be enough. ;)

    #8 5 years ago
  9. endgame

    u know, in a way, he’s right. ppl who buy used games don’t support the developers. by doing that, they leave the devs with much less cash which means that these won’t be able to create free DLC for us, which they do now, after this program has been started.

    #9 5 years ago
  10. Cavalier

    Could argue that the extra content that came with ME2 (and to a lesser extent Dragon Age) was “improving consumer experience”, but cutting online from their sports game definitely isn’t.

    #10 5 years ago
  11. pleasant_cabbage

    I doubt very much that any increase in profits (from the $10 brigade) will directly lead to free DLC. Wasn’t it EA (then ubisoft – with Tiger Woods and Splinter Cell respectively) that said their in-game advertisements and product placements would mean a lower price point for consumers? Soo…

    #11 5 years ago
  12. AHA-Lambda

    @9 – I guess that is true but is it really when it comes with the game for the same full price? That can be argued but more importantly this MAY be ok to some extent but online passes? NO FUCKING WAY!!

    Plus I am sick of publishers using second hand sales as some sort of mantra for “lost revenue” they put it on the same level as piracy. If it can be done legally to sell or rent games then they just have to fucking live with it. I dont need to pay ford a fee for buying a used mondeo now do I?!

    Also I love one of their latest reasonings was to maintain server costs. Thats when you know they’re talking out their arse. Used game sales dont increase the amount of total copies in production after all they just transfer ownership so how does it maintain server costs when you have the same amount of people playing online? Bloody ridiculous!

    #12 5 years ago
  13. OlderGamer

    I find it laughable at best that so many game execs see second hand sales and rentals, and even piracy as lost revenue.

    I rent because I can not afford to buy.

    I rent because 60usd is a high risk perchase, without playing it first(demos for every game would help).

    I buy second hand games because they are cheaper.

    I buy second hand games because they are older and finding a new copy is often impossible.

    But… I do support changes to the second hand sales laws.

    I feel that a certian % of each second hand game sale should be funneled back to the publisher. With rules and limitations of course.

    Gamers like to think they own games. We don’t. Look at and read the fine print. We purchase the liscense to use said game. I fully understand that. And as such it means that I do not actualy have the right to transfer that liscence to my ten friends, grandma, or even Gamestop. And if I do sell that game(and its liscence) then I feel the pubs are 100% entitled to a cut of that sales.

    That, I feel is at the heart of the legeal matter involving second hand sales.

    That being said don’t give me any BS about me paying 20usd at Gamefly for the purchase of a second hand/rental copy of White Knight Cronicles when the retail version of the same game is 60usd at Wal-Mart. Why? Because number one if I hadn’t rented the game, I wouldn’t have known if I liked it and wanted to buy it. Number two, I wouldn’t buy the game if it was priced at 60usd, thats too high. And number three Gamefly bought a copy of that game, new. In fact they bought several, maybe even hundreds.

    For the most part rental services buy new games and rent them to gamers that wouldn’t be able to play or buy the game otherwise.

    IMO, rental services are good for the industry.

    Second hands trade in do sometimes lead to new games being purchased. But honestly I believe they more often lead to more sales of second hand games.

    I see the problem. I really do. Force Game and Gamestop, and everyone else to pay a liscencing fee( a 20% cut) from the sale of said second hand game and everyone is happy. Except the retails stores that are currently abusing and ripping off the gamers and the industry.

    As for taking away features from second hand sales. It hurts. It hurts the gamers. It hurts the industry. But I can understand why they are doing it. If this doesn’t work, expect fully digital distribution of games sooner then later.

    #13 5 years ago
  14. manamana

    Greedy Bastards! Whats improvin’, is the size of your moneybag, while the gamers bleed. Ramsdale you’re a fat rat exessing fat!

    #14 5 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.