That's assuming that the folks who are not buying the game used are instead buying the game new and not just saying "fuck it, I'll buy a different used game instead."

I haven't bought a Ubisoft title on any platform since they introduced that stupid DRM system. Last one was "new POP".
...no, no. Lets make this absolutely clear. I haven't played a Ubisoft title either. And I'd probably have bought Assassins Creed 2 by now, otherwise. No intention of getting any of the new PoP titles either.

It's assuming that in an x ammount of copies they are somehow seeing an increase in the number of new copies vs used copies in regards to what happened in the past for an equal x, and for that ratio alone those who don't buy it at all are not a factor.
Naturally i have no idea how they gather their data or how good they are at math, so...
Basically, fromt hat bit Alias quoted i got the idea they were implying an increase in the new/used ratio.
As Alias pointed out, they seem to be downplaying the significance of the figures in regards to the # of dlc codes sold for used copies, so that's not the 'sucess' bit they mean surely, which in my mind only leaves an increase in the new/used ratio as the 'sucess' bit.

First it was EA announcing their pre-paid DLCs included in the release, then was Ubi with their online "treat the customer as a criminal" DRM model, then was the "project ten dollar", and now Ubi following it.
What I'm scared about? Is what comes next and which companies implement it while making it worse. (Activision? and Microsoft coming back to the PC market?).
Agreed on this.
What I'm getting tired of is having to do the facepalm movement daily, when reading that a high percentage of the gamers all around thinking "ah, but it is good for me, I'm having 1 DLC for free!!1!", on a $60 game...
Yep, the DLCs have the DRM too, then they can know which DLC is added to which copy of the game.
What most pisses me of about this whole DLC scheme is this:
having the feeling that most initial DLCs are all content which was cut from the main game, and then sold 1 month after release (or even worse, when they have the DLC's content in the fucking disc already...).
That image summarizes all the stupid gamers out there, which really will jump over the reasoning and go vote for the wrong party with their wallets.
I haven't purchased any of the recent Ubisoft DRMed titles, and it has been months since I purchased an EA game. I am voting, against all this.

I got it as, more than 70% bought it new and used their codes, the 'single digit' bunch bought it used and purchased dlc, (and probably) the remainder bought it used and didn't bought dlc.
But the figures are a bit vague and as such open for interpretation...as usuall ;)

GRRR did you not READ my post earlier on this page where I gave a very good exaplanation as to why this sort of conspiracy throrising is basically a load of crap? I assume you've never been involved in a software development project

The main point I was trying to get at was that the ratio you're talking about is a fairly meaningless metric for whether the tactic was successful without knowing what actually caused the ratio to shift. If the shift is almost entirely due to a decrease in the number of used copies being bought then the tactic is not acting as an incentive for people to buy new copies, but merely as a disincentive for people to buy used copies. This provides no benefit to the company, and in fact actually has the potential to be harmful. Thus why simply knowing the ratio of new to old copies sold isn't a particularly useful piece of data in itself.

GRRR I was busy and not putting all my efforts into this thread, sorry.
I knew of this before, and IIRC even Bioware posted something like this on their forums. Don't remember which game it was about and which DLC.
Yes they lock content when they still are in the project phase. They agree on something like "Well, this part here doesn't bode well the project's overall vision, out of the project then... Let's vote for it to go to the "may turn to DLC" list or to the trash, which one guys?". ;)
Ah, and after the DLC passes internal testing, it also goes for the console owners' testing, MS or Sony.

Well, regardless of why it shifted, an increase of the ratio it's definitely good for them, that's for sure, assuming the total number of copies sold (new and used) didn't dropped dramatically.
As for why it shifted, obviously they seem to believe it was due to the free dlc which led more people to go for new instead of used. I don't have the data to accept or reject the theory, i was merely triyng to reach a conclusion in regards to what they mean by the sucess bit.

I think you misunderstand his point, Namur. Let me try to exemplify, as I see his argument:
A company makes a game, we'll call it Game A, which sells 800,000 new copies and 200,000 used copies, so the ratio of new to used is 80%. The company then adopts a new DLC policy. Now they make Game B, which sells 450,000 new copies and 50,000 used copies, so the ratio of new to used is 90%.
The argument here is that any way you cut it, Game B sales were not an improvement over Game A sales from a company economy standpoint, regardless of the new to used ratio.
Or to put it another way, having less used copies sold is completely irrelevant to the company economy. Only the number of new copies sold matters in that regard.
[EDIT] Aha! You edited your post after I started writing mine.

eh, eh, yep. Always refresh before hitting the 'post your message' button ;)

Still, the point remains the same. The number of used copies sold is irrelevant. Only the number of new copies sold matters.

You're being a bit naive though if you think it's so clear cut. You assume that, while they're making the project outlines, it's impossible to set things aside to become DLC. Brainstorm sessions see tons of ideas flying around and it would be a piece of cake to say "well that would make a nice DLC".
Project outlines aren't anywhere near as clear cut as you make it sound, either. Many games deviate quite a lot from them for all kinds of reasons: better ideas being brought up during development, technical limitations (especially when consoles are involved), other games in parallel development offering "inspiration", input from the publisher, etc. You only need to read early previews and compare it to the final game to see how much changes, how many ideas get scrapped and how many get altered. So, project outlines are not set in stone.
Yes, these things aren't CUT from the game but it's not unreasonable to assume they will set aside content to specifically turn it into DLC when it might have made it into the game otherwise. In fact, it's more than just not unreasonable: it's damn likely.

Indeed.
I doubt Shale was ready to ship and then 2 weeks before disc production someone yanked him out. That seems unlikely.
However, pulling him out when he was PLANNED to be in the final game? Extremely likely.
And Bioware can say what they like, it doesn't make it a fact. They have to present themselves as customer-focused just like every other company ever, while also focusing on the bottom line and keeping their parent company happy.
I was happy to spend $60 on both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, the collector's editions no less, but I am unhappy parts of the game at launch had DRM attached that the main game does not. I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to be disappointed over. The fact you can just torrent a DRM-free version of each DLC makes it all the more pointless for them to do it, which is supposedly what they realized when they removed DRM from the main game in the first place.